Commons Sitting of 24 April 1899

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [H.L.] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—
  Cambridge University and Town Gas Bill [H.L]
  Dumbarton Burgh Bill [H.L.]
  Great Yarmouth Corporation Bill [H.L.]
  West Highland Railway Bill [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS [H.L.] NO STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO APPLICABLE.
  Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders not previously inquired into are applicable, viz.:—
  Arbroath Corporation Gas Bill [H.L.]
  Glastonbury Water Bill [H.L.]
  Inverness Harbour Bill [H.L.]
  Surrey Commercial Docks Bill [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  CHARING CROSS, EUSTON, AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY BILL.
  Queen's consent signified.
  Read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]

  GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
  To be read the third time to-morrow.
  COALVILLE URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL [H.L.]
  Read a second time, and committed.
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SWANSEA) BILL [H.L.]
  Real the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  LOUGHBOROUGH AND SHEEPSHED RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  EDINBURGH CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Brentford, Bromley (Kent), Chelmsford, Heston and Isleworth, Ongar (Rural), Reigate (Rural), Twickenham, and Watford (Rural)," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 163.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Durham (Rural), Eastbourne, Honiton (Rural), Grimsby, Ilfracombe, Lichfield (Rural), Ludlow, and Rotherham (Rural)," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 164.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order, under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, reducing the number of
  364
  magistrates and councillors in the royal burgh of St. Andrews." [St. Andrews Burgh Provisional Order Bill [H.L.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for empowering the provost, magistrates, and town council of the royal burgh of Kirkcaldy to construct tramways and street improvements, and for making certain other provisions in relation to the said burgh; and for other purposes." [Kirkcaldy Corporation and Tramways Bill [H.L.]

  ST. ANDREWS BURGH PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL [H.L.]
  Read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 165.]
  KIRKCALDY CORPORATION AND TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PETITIONS.
  BOROUGH FUNDS ACT, 1872.
  Petition from Fleetwood, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION OF CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from Halifax, against; to lie upon the Table.
  GROCERS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND) ABOLITION BILL.
  Petition of the Scottish Temperance League, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  GROUND RENTS (TAXATION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Petitions in favour,—From Crewe;—St. Pancras;—and, Bradford; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO BILL.
  Petition from Middlesbrough, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Fraserburgh; — Paisley; — Abbeymount;—Bridge of Allan;—Crail;—Oban;—Port Ellen;—Perth;— Kirkcolm; — Lerwick; — Westray; — Sandwich; — Gourdon; — Dalbeattie;— Montrose (three);— Galashiels; — Dundee; — Burray; — Govan; — Tillicoultry;—Glasgow (two);—Bervil;—Brechin;— and, Carluke; to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.
  Petitions for alteration;—From St. Mary, Newington;—St. James's, Westminster;—and, St. John, Hackney; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Wheldale;—Old Silkstone; —Marlpool;—Rostell; — Swanwick; — Walkmill;—Featherstone Main;— Low Stubbin; —Harrington;—Acton Hall;—Topcliffe;—Birley;—Wharncliffe;—Robin Hood;— Morton;—and, B. Winning; to lie upon the Table.
  NAICKER, C. SOOBAROGO.
  Petition of C. Soobarogo Naicker, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  Petition from Cuckfield, for extension to women; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Crewe, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  REGULATION OF RAILWAYS BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Nine Elms;—Battersea;—and, Cardiff; to lie upon the Table.
  RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION BILL.
  Petition of the Sanitary Institute, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Southend on Sea; — Shefford; — Middlesbrough (two); — Bardwell; — Sharnbrook; — Brighouse; — Portsmouth; — and, Hanley; to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION (CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS) BILL.
  Petition of the Sanitary Institute, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  WATER SUPPLY BILL.
  Petition of the Sanitary Institute, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
REPORTS, RETURNS, ETC.
  AGRARIAN OUTRAGES (IRELAND).
  Copy presented—of Return for the quarter ended 31st March 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (TRAINING COLLEGES).
  Copy presented—of Reports and Papers relating to the Training Colleges of Scotland for the year 1898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented—of Seventeenth Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, being for the year 1898, Part I. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented—of Treasury Minute, dated 15th April 1899, declaring that William Reynolds, Second Mate, Revenue Cruiser "Vigilant," in the service of the Commissioners of Customs, was appointed without a Civil Service Certificate through inadvertence on the part of the Head of his Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Copy presented—of Treasury Minute, dated 18th April 1899, granting to Andrew Lea Elvins, Lithographer in the Statistical Office (London) of the Commissioners of Customs, a retired allowance under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PAPERS LAID ON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS (LONDON).
  Further Return relative thereto [ordered 2nd August 1894; Mr. Francis Stevenson]; to be printed. [No. 161.]
  INQUIRY INTO CHARITIES (COUNTY OF CARMARTHEN).
  Further Return relative thereto [ordered 10th February 1898; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to be printed. [No. 162].
  INQUIRY INTO CHARITIES (COUNTY OF ANGLESEY, PARISH OF PENRHOS LLIGWY).
  Return relative thereto [ordered 17th April; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to be printed. [No. 163.]
  EAST INDIA (SUGAR IMPORTATION AND CULTIVATION.)
  Address for "Return showing for each Of the years 1882–3 to 1898–9, inclusive: (1) the quantity and the value of imports of Sugar into India from Germany, Austria, and Mauritius; (2) the acreage of Sugar Cane Cultivation in the several Provinces of India; (3) the quantity of refined Indian Sugar exported from Bengal and the North West Provinces to other Provinces in India and to the Native States; and (4) the quantity of Indian Sugar, refined and unrefined, exported to Ceylon, to the United Kingdom, and to other countries."—(Sir William Wedderburn.)
  NEW WRIT
  For the County of Merioneth—in the room of Thomas Edward Ellis, esquire, deceased.—(Mr. Herbert Gladstone.)
QUESTIONS.

  RE-ARRESTS OF PRISONERS.
  MR. FLOWER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it would be possible, in the case of a prisoner against whom several warrants of commitment have been issued, to have sentences under such warrants carried out consecutively, thus obviating the necessity of a re-arrest, or successive re-arrests, at the prison gate?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY, Lancs.,): Yes, a warrant of commitment runs from the date on which it is received in the prison where the prisoner is confined, unless the court has made an express order otherwise. If it is lodged there while the prisoner is undergoing a previous sentence, there is no occasion for his rearrest at the prison gate.

  IRISH PRISON ADMINISTRATION.
  MR. FLOWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is intended to introduce a Bill this Session to reform the administration of Irish prisons on the lines of the Prisons Act, 1898.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I have directed a Bill to be drafted of the nature indicated in the Question, but I cannot say whether it will be possible to introduce it this Session.

  RED SEA LIGHTS.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state the cause of the prolonged delay in arranging for the provision of lights in the southern part of the Red Sea, now dangerous to navigation?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. ST. JOHN BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): Her Majesty's Government have submitted proposals to the other Maritime Powers that lightships or lighthouses should be established by the Egyptian Government. The Governments so addressed have accepted these proposals, with the exception of France and Russia. The French Government stated in February 1898 that they could not support the scheme, as they had already approached the Porte with a view to the construction of lighthouses. No result has been
  370
  obtained hitherto from the French negotiations at Constantinople, which have now lasted for more than 12 months, but we have not yet succeeded in obtaining the consent of the French Government to our proposal that the lighthouses should be constructed by the Egyptian Government, with the consent of the Sultan.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Will Her Majesty's Government press this matter forward?
  [No reply.]
  SIR. J. FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the reason of the delay in erecting one or more lighthouses for the safety of navigation at the eastern end of the Gulf of Aden, in view of the terrible wreck of the "Aden" steamship in 1897, and of other casualties detailed in a Return made to this House in 1898?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE, Croydon): As I stated in my reply to the right honourable Baronet last year, Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that it would not be advisable to approach other Governments on the subjects of lights in the Gulf of Aden until some settlement has been arrived at with respect to the Red Sea lights. I understand that negotiations as regards the Red Sea lights are still proceeding, though, so far, without any satisfactory result. It is hoped, however, that some progress may shortly be made.

  BOARD SCHOOL SWIMMING BATHS.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the fact that the School Board for London and other school boards in the country are providing swimming baths at the cost of the ratepayers; whether such expenditure is legal, and, if legal, is it encouraged by his Department; whether such swimming baths are intended for the exclusive use of the children attend-

  371
  ing the Board schools, or whether children attending Voluntary schools within the School Board areas, the supporters of which contribute to the School Board rates, are to be allowed to participate in the use of the swimming baths; and whether, in case the School Boards are unable or unwilling to allow children educated in Voluntary schools to share in the privilege of using the swimming baths, he will endeavour, by legislation or by alteration of the Code, to provide for their admission equally with the School Board children?
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST, Cambridge University): The answers to paragraphs 1 and 2 are in the affirmative. Swimming is recognised as a subject of instruction under the Code. The School Board will decide in each case whether Voluntary school children are to be admitted to the baths. If any extra expense were caused thereby, the auditor would determine its legality. No alteration of the Code would provide for the compulsory admission of Voluntary school children to such swimming baths. The Government could not undertake at present to legislate on the subject.

  ILLITERATE VOTERS IN IRELAND.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can inform the House what is the total number of votes recorded at the recent local government elections in Ireland, and how many of them were by illiterate voters; and whether he will assent to a Return, if moved for, showing the following details, viz., the number of voters and particulars of votes recorded in each constituency?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no official information as to the number of persons who voted at the recent local government elections in Ireland, or as to the proportion of electors who voted as illiterates. In 1896 a Return was presented to Parliament showing the number of persons who voted as illiterates at the General Election of 1895 in the United Kingdom of Great Britain
  372
  and Ireland. I hardly think any useful purpose would be served by the preparation, so soon after the Return of 1896, of the further Return suggested by my honourable Friend, and which, I am informed, would occupy a very considerable time in compiling. Moreover, I am not aware that a Return of literate and illiterate voters has ever been laid on the Table in respect of local government elections in Great Britain, and to lay such a Return on the Table in respect of Ireland alone would appear to me to be open to an invidious interpretation.

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOL SUBSCRIPTIONS.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether there has been any falling off in the subscriptions of the supporters of Voluntary schools in England since the Voluntary Schools. Act, 1897, was passed; and, if so, whether he can state the total amount of the diminution?
  SIR J. GORST: Yes. The amount of the diminution in the year ended August 31st, 1898, as compared with the previous year was £46,961 in Church of England schools, £21,174 in Roman Catholic schools, £2,607 in Wesleyan other undenominational schools—total, schools, and £7,185 in British and £77,927.
  MR. McKENNA: Can the right honourable Gentleman say whether he attributes the decline to the effect of the Voluntary Schools Act, 1897?
  [No Reply.]

  SCOTCH SETTLERS IN MANITOBA.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether all, and how many, settlers at Killarney, Manitoba, are now leaseholders under the Colonisation Board; and will he state for what term leases have been arranged, the acreage, rental, and the entire amount collected in respect of rent for the year 1897–8?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): Practically all the Killarney crofters are now leaseholders under the Colonisation Board. The leases cover eight annual payments, at the conclusion of which the leaseholders become proprietors of their lands. Each holding is 160 acres. The annual payments fixed in the leases vary in amount according to the existing liabilities of the lessee at the time of making the lease. The Colonisation Board has not yet received the Report of the last year, and it is not, therefore, known how much of the rental of 1897–8 has yet been paid, but the latest advices are not very satisfactory.

  MINOR LIGHTS IN THE SCOTTISH CONGESTED AREAS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, having regard to the statement contained on page 15 of the Report of the Congested Districts Board for Scotland relative to the need of minor lights in the congested area, will he state at what points the Board consider such lights should be fixed?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Congested Districts Board have not arrived yet at any final conclusion on the subject.

  METROPOLITAN CAB REGULATIONS.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that on Friday, the 14th April, a cab driver who had been engaged to call at Romano's, in the Strand, at 3.30 in the afternoon to take up a fare, was prevented by the police from driving along the Strand, and told that he must either go down on to the Embankment or up into Covent Garden; and whether he will modify the new cab regulations in such a way as to prevent such action on the part of the police?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: Drivers of empty cabs are not prevented from passing along the Strand for the purpose
  374
  of keeping engagements there. In the particular case referred to the cabman did not inform the policeman who stopped him that he had an appointment at Romano's, but left his cab in the Strand and went to Bow Street to complain of the action of the police. When it was found at the station that he was engaged, an officer was sent with him to facilitate his reaching his destination.

  "JEANNETTE"-"FALKENBERG" COLLISION.
  LORD C. BERESFORD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the case of the "Jeannette"-"Falkenberg" collision is settled; if so, whether there is any appeal, and to whom should the appeal be made; and whether Her Majesty's Government will make further inquiries from the German Government on this case?
  MR. BRODRICK: The case was tried before the Marine Court at Bremerhaven, and judgment was given on the 3rd May 1898, in favour of the "Falkenberg." The master, who was also the registered owner of the "Jeannette," declined to appeal from this decision on the ground of expense, and Her Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin, who was consulted, stated that in these circumstances it would be useless to make any representations to the German Government on the subject, as he was confident that the reply would be that the master might have appealed, but that, having failed to do so, the German Government could not interfere administratively in a matter which had formed the subject of a judicial decision.

  BROOK STREET BOARD SCHOOL, CARLISLE.
  MR. ALLISON: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the action of the Carlisle School Board in closing the Brook Street Board School and refusing to admit to the same the son of Mr. John T. Hill and

  375
  the sons of several other ratepayers residing in the vicinity, to their great inconvenience; whether such action is sanctioned by the Education Department; and whether he can take any steps to amend the grievance?
  SIR J. GORST: The Brook Street Board School has not been closed; but the number of children for whom accommodation can be provided has had to be reduced, because an unsatisfactory classroom is to be closed in October next. It is on that account that applications for admission have been refused. The Education Department is informed that accommodation can readily be obtained elsewhere.

  TREATMENT OF FEEBLE-MINDED CHILDREN.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether Her Majesty's Government intend to bring in a Bill to deal with the recommendations respecting feeble-minded and defective children contained in the Report of the Departmental Committee who reported in January of last year; and, if so, when the Bill will be introduced, and in which House?
  SIR J. GORST: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative; the particulars asked for in the latter part are still under consideration.

  CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT, 1876.
  MR. J. ELLIS (Notts., Rushcliffe): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Annual Report and Returns respecting the administration of the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, for the year 1898 will be laid upon the Table and distributed?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The Report and Returns referred to are now in the hands of the printer; and when they are completed, I will lose no time in laying them upon the Table.

  THE "TOURMALINE" AFFAIR.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a statement sworn to by Major Spilsbury in the course of his trial at Gibraltar, to the effect that the same Foreign Office warning that was conveyed to him with respect to the expedition of the "Tourmaline" was also conveyed to the directors of the Globe Venture Syndicate; and whether there is any foundation for this statement; and, if so, whether the Government propose to proceed criminally against the directors of the syndicate named?
  MR. BRODRICK: The directors of the Globe Venture Syndicate were warned against the "Tourmaline" expedition, but it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take criminal proceedings against them.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: Is it not the case that the men who have been prosecuted by the Government were merely servants carrying out the orders of the directors of the company?
  [No reply.]
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the recent acquittal of Major Spilsbury, after a full trial by jury before the Chief Justice of Gibraltar, the Government will reconsider their decision to abstain from demanding, compensation from the Moorish Government on behalf of Mr. Henry Grey and his fellow prisoners for the cruelties to which they were subjected in captivity?
  MR. BRODRICK: As at present advised, Her Majesty's Government see no grounds for reconsidering their decision in the matter.

  VACCINATION EXEMPTION CERTIFICATES.
  CAPTAIN CHALONER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the cost of obtaining exemption under the Vac-

  377
  cination Act of 1898, both by fees charged and by the demand for the production of birth certificates, which is so high that it makes it almost impassible for a working man to obtain an exemption; and whether he will take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that conscientious objectors shall not be prevented from obtaining the exemptions to which they are entitled under the Act, and free of charge?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The honourable Member for the Loughborough Division of Leicestershire asked me an almost identical question on the 9th February last, and I would refer my honourable and gallant Friend to my answer—a copy of which I have sent him—only adding that I have no power to require these certificates of exemption to be given free of charge.

  HARBOURS IN THE ISLE OF LEWIS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if the Secretary for Scotland will consider the advisability of instructing the consulting engineer for the Congested Districts Board to report as to the best site for a harbour in Broad Bay, Isle of Lewis, and the cost of construction?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Western Highlands and Islands Commission of 1890, one of the members of which was Sir J. Wolfe Barry, a distinguished engineer, reported that the most suitable site for a harbour in Broad Bay was at Portnaguiran, and that the cost of such a harbour would be about £30,000, a sum greatly in excess of anything the Congested Districts Board can ever give. The Secretary for Scotland therefore cannot undertake to make such a demand on the time of a fully-employed officer as to call on Colonel Gore-Booth to prepare plans and estimates for so extensive a work, in view of the unlikelihood of its being carried out. Within the last few years a pier has been built we the other side of Broad Bay, just about six miles from Portnaguiran, at a cost of £1,900, of which Government gave £1,625.

  SCOTTISH FISHERY BOARD.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he can state when the Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Fishery Board that Part I. containing their General Annual Report for the year 1898, will be presented to Parliament to-day.

  THE MUSCAT INCIDENT.
  SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the discussion of the Muscat incident has now closed, and when the Papers will be laid before Parliament?
  MR. BRODRICK: Some local details are not yet definitely settled, and I fear no date can at present be fixed for presentation of Papers.

  THE PLASTERERS' STRIKE.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the British Consuls at Florence and Milan did, in conjunction with the mayors of those places, sign or countersign the contracts of the foreign plasterers imported into England during the present dispute in the plastering trade, and, if so, whether they were acting within their right as representatives of the British Government?
  MR. BRODRICK: No information on this subject has reached this Department, but Her Majesty's Consuls have been requested to report what took place.

  THE MARGARINE TRADE IN DUBLIN.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, is any daily or weekly account kept of the quantity of margarine delivered in

  379
  Dublin; are the names of the consignees recorded; and whether it is entered in the Dublin Custom House list as margarine, or under some other name?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I will answer this Question. No daily or weekly account is kept of the quantity of margarine delivered in Dublin, nor are the names of consignees of this article recorded. Margarine imported into Dublin from abroad is entered as such in the daily bill of entry list, but, when received coastwise, is entered in that list under the general term of "merchandise." The only coastwise goods which are entered under their separate denominations are dutiable goods and those as to which any particular person or firm may have applied to have their consignments so treated.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is any record kept of the countries from which the margarine comes?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I understand it is usual, but I will inquire.

  ROSS-SHIRE CROFTERS' GRIEVANCES.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that since Colonel Sitwell purchased the estate of Strathkyle, Culrain, Ross-shire, in July 1894, the tenants on the estate have been constantly subjected to ejectment proceedings, four only out of 15 crofters on the estate being left undisturbed. Is he aware that William Macleod, one of these tenants, who received notice to quit in 1896, appealed to the Crofters' Commission, who heard the case at Ardgay on the 4th May 1897, sustained the competency of the application, and fixed a rent for the holding; that, notwithstanding this decision, Colonel Sitwell appealed to the Court of Session, and that Lord Kincairney, in giving judgment on the case on the 14th July 1898, quoted the finality clause, of the Crofters' Act, 1886, and held that there was no escape from the conclusion that the decision of the Crofters' Commission was final, and dismissed the action with
  380
  costs; and that Colonel Sitwell has now appealed to the second Court of Session; and, in view of the fact that repeated actions of this character seriously cripple crofters in the exercise of their calling and cause great expense to them, will the Secretary for Scotland consider the expediency of taking such steps as will admit of appeals from decisions of the Crofters' Commission being defended by the Government?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Secretary for Scotland has no information which enables him to make any statement in regard to the matters referred to in the first and second paragraphs of the honourable Member's Question, and in reply to the third paragraph he does not intend to take any action of the kind suggested.

  BRITISH SUGAR TRADE AND THE NEW INDIAN DUTIES.
  MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can explain why in the Trade Returns it is the practice to classify confectionery and jams under the head of pickles; and whether he will change a practice which misleads all persons except experts as to the real extent and value of the sweetmeat trade?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: It is true that confectionery and preserved fruits are enumerated along with pickles and condiments in a joint heading in the trade accounts, but it is not possible to show separately the exports of every article without an amount of labour and cost which could not be justified. It is, therefore, the practice to group together articles of secondary importance as regards aggregate value, the composite headings relating so far as possible to the articles dealt in by a single trade. This practice has been followed in the present case, but in view of the interest taken in the exports of articles containing sugar, the question of the classification of these exports will be referred to the Committee for the Revision of the Trade Accounts which meets in the autumn.
  SIR H. FOWLER: Cannot the House, for the purpose of the forthcoming discussion, have a Return of the amount of confectionery and refined sugar exported from this country to India during last year?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I should think it possible we might be able to get that out; it would be of great interest.
  SIR H. FOWLER: Certainly.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I will endeavour to see if it can be done.

  AUTUMN MILITARY MANŒUVRES.
  MR. HOZIER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether there are to be any Line regiments on Salisbury Plain during the month of July this year; and, if not, what is the object in the country being put to the expense of moving a Militia brigade from the North Eastern District to Salisbury Plain for training by itself during the month of July?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. J. POWELL WILLIAMS Birmingham, S.): During July, as at present arranged, there will be on Salisbury Plain eight battalions of Regular troops, including a battalion of Royal Marine Light Infantry, and eight battalions of Militia. The Regulars and Militia will be formed into two divisions with Artillery and Cavalry.

  SHEEP SCAB REGULATIONS.
  SIR J. RANKIN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, having regard to the unsatisfactory results of the present method of dealing with the disease of sheep scab, he will consider the advisability of adopting a system of obligatory dipping of sheep at certain seasons of the year?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. H. LONG, Liverpool, West Derby): Local authorities are already empowered to require sheep affected with or suspected of sheep scab to be treated with some suitable dressing or dipping, or other remedy for the disease, and I do not think it would be practicable to go beyond this and to make it compulsory upon every owner of sheep, whether the sheep be affected with or suspected of disease or not, to apply such a dressing or dipping at certain stated intervals throughout the year, however useful or desirable such treatment may be, and in any case legislation would be necessary for the purpose.

  PACIFIC CABLE
  MR. LOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the categorical declaration concerning the Pacific Cable made by the Canadian Government, and the equally favourable declarations made by the Australasian Colonies, he can now state the intentions of the Imperial Government with regard to this project?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): I am not yet in a position to make a statement upon the matter.

  GIBRALTAR.
  MR. F. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the attention of the Colonial Office has been directed to the urgent necessity for remedying the condition of affairs which has arisen in the Fortress of Gibraltar through overcrowding, the insufficiency of the police force, and the insanitary state of the Government buildings; whether he can hold out any hope of being able to remove the evils of which complaint is made; and whether he will communicate to the House the Report of the Government Committee which col-

  383
  lected evidence in Gibraltar last year with reference to the health and comfort of the inhabitants?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: The questions referred to are engaging my attention and that of the Secretary of State for War, and I hope that it may be found possible to take some action in regard to them. The Report of the Committee to which the honourable Member refers is a Confidential Report to the Secretary of State for War, and it is not intended to publish it.

  MR. RHODES' RAILWAYS.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion): I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to a fully reported speech delivered by Mr. Cecil Rhodes in South Africa, on the 17th of August last, in which he said that he wished to earn dividends on the Mafe-king-Bulawayo line, so as to get a guarantee from Her Majesty to go on to Tanganyika, and whether this line forms any part of the security which Mr. Rhodes proposes for the Imperial guarantee which he is trying to persuade Her Majesty's Government to grant; whether the Government, before pledging the Imperial credit, will have an independent investigation made to ascertain whether the dividend has been actually earned and is likely to be maintained; and whether, in view of the facts that assertions have been freely made that the line was badly built, and that part of it was actually washed away shortly after its construction, the Government will also have a careful survey of the railway made by competent engineers, totally unconnected with Mr. Cecil Rhodes and the British South Africa Company, before coming to any final decision?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): The earnings of the Mafeking-Bulawayo line form part of the security proposed. The Government, before pledging Imperial credit, would, of course, satisfy themselves on the points mentioned in the second and third para
  384
  graphs, and as the line is worked by the Cape Government, they could provide evidence of receipts and expenses. Portions of the line were very rapidly built to meet the exigencies of the Matabele rebellion; but the defects had to be made good before the Government engineer would grant his certificate for the line as far as Palapye, to which the contract of 1894 applied. The line from Palapye to Bulawayo would require independent inspection.

  KILMALCOLM PARISH ASSESSMENTS.
  SIR C. CAMERON (Glasgow, Bridgton): I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the fact that in consequence of the action of the Parish Council of Kilmalcolm Parish in assessing the orphan homes of Scotland for poor and school rates, Mr. Quarrin has called upon the school board of the district to take over the education of the 1,000 children of school age hitherto gratuitously educated by him; whether the school board has refused to take over the education of the children in question; and whether the Scottish Education Department purpose taking any steps to compel them to do so?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: Mr. Quarrin has forwarded to the Scotch Education Department a copy of the correspondence between himself and the school board, in which the board decline to hold themselves responsible for providing education for the children in question. The Department cannot enter upon the question unless it is proved that there is a deficiency in the school provision of the district, based upon information that children for whom the school board is bound to make provision have been refused admission to the public school.

  TUNG-CHANG-FU RAILWAY COMMUNICATION.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Lieutenant Watts-Jones has discovered a good railway route to Tung-Chang-Fu viâ Mongkyeng to

  385
  Tinchau, which can be reached by Kunlon Ferry without difficulty; and whether this discovery will enable the railway to be made from Burmah to Yun-nan?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Reports of the officers engaged on the Survey are addressed to the Yun-nan Company, in whose services they are at present, and Her Majesty's Government, have no particulars. It is, however, understood that what is considered a practicable route into Yun-nan has been found.

  IRISH TITHE RENT-CHARGE BILL.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state when he will introduce the Irish Tithe Rent-Charge Bill?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am unable to assign a date for the introduction of this Bill, but I should hope it might be introduced before Whitsuntide.
  MR. DILLON: Will the right, honourable Gentleman undertake to give us reasonable notice?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: If the Bill be introduced before Whitsuntide it will have to be under the Ten Minutes Rule.

  IRISH GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL'S SPEECHES.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the language used by Mr. Bagwell at the annual dinner of the land agents of Ireland on Thursday last, when he is reported to have said "he had been called in to administer an Act of Parliament which of all Acts of Parliament ever drawn was the worst; the Land Act of 1896 was pretty bad, but the Act of 1898 would puzzle anybody, etc.; so long as the people who asked for impossibilities got half impossibilities they would never be satisfied"; and whether, if such language was used by Mr. Bagwell, he will be continued in his
  386
  office as a member of the Local Government Board?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed by Mr. Bagwell that the report of his speech, which was obviously much condensed, gives a totally wrong impression of what he said, and that his observations in reference to the Local Government Act applied only to the manner in which it was drafted, and not to the policy of it, which he has always strongly supported. The subsequent remarks were mere generalities, and had no reference to the Local Government Act or to its administration by the Local Government Board. Under the circumstances, I do not consider that anything has occurred which would justify the strong step suggested in the second paragraph.

  PUBLIC HOLIDAYS IN IRELAND.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department will he explain why, in Ireland, the factory inspectors refuse to recognise the Roman Catholic holidays, and, by so doing, compel some mills managed by Roman Catholics to give a number of holidays far in excess of statutory requirements?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The Factory Acts require holidays to be given on Christmas Day and St. Patrick's Day, and either on Good Friday or Easter Monday. The choice of the other holidays required to make up the prescribed total for the year lies entirely with the factory owners. The Roman Catholic holidays may be, and usually are, chosen by them, and are recognised by the inspectors. The holidays fixed by statute must be given; but I feel certain that no inspector insists on holidays "far in excess of the statutory requirements."

  THE OFFICIAL DEBATES.
  MR. T. B. CURRAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is in a position to make some re-arrangement of the filling up of the Pink Paper; whether any agreement has been made with the contractor of the "Parliamentary Debates"

  387
  for a continuous supply of the daily parts to honourable Members who sign one Pink Paper for the whole of the Session; and if he will make such arrangements with the contractor as shall secure to honourable Members the delivery of back numbers and indexes?
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg at the same time to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has seen his way to do something to relieve Members from the necessity of signing the Pink Paper every day in order to obtain a complete record of the proceedings of Parliament by means of the "Parliamentary Debates"?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. A. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's) (for Mr. HANBURY): In accordance with the understanding, arrived at when the matter was discussed on the Vote on Account, it has been arranged that the number of volumes in an ordinary Session will not exceed eight, as was the rule until last Session; and all future numbers of the "Debates" will be issued to Members on giving a general order instead of signing the Pink Paper daily.

  ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has yet made inquiry why men of Bernera, Island of Lewis, have for some years past been refused admission to the Royal Naval Reserve at Stornoway; and will he give instructions for any restrictions against men from this district to be withdrawn?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: It is necessary to limit the number of Reserve men entered at Stornoway, so as not to be disproportionate to the total number raised in the United Kingdom; and as the number allotted to this district can be recruited from those living within an easy distance of the port, it is not considered desirable to pass over such candidates in order to enter men living in the remote parts of the islands, whence it would be difficult to draw them quickly in the event of mobolisation.

  MARRIAGE ACT, 1898.
  MR. LEWIS: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in some cases the authorised person before whom the declarations prescribed by section 6 of the Marriage Act, 1898, are to be made has been appointed by the members of churches at church meetings or by the deacons of churches; whether such appointment is a sufficient compliance with the provisions of the Act; whether, in addition to such appointment, it is necessary that the trustees or governing body of the registered building in which the marriage is to take place, or of some registered building in the same registration district, should authorise the person in whose presence the marriage is to be solemnised and certify him as having been duly authorised for the purpose; and whether a marriage solemnised in the presence of a person who has not been so authorised and certified would be valid?
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER, Isle of Wight): The person must be certified as being duly authorised by the trustees or other governing body of the building. The Act does not require any particular mode of previous selection. A marriage solemnised in the presence of a person not authorised and certified would not, in my opinion, be valid; but no general answer can be given to such a Question, as the circumstances of each particular case would have to be considered.

  EDUCATION ESTIMATES.
  MR. McKENNA: What Estimates will be taken on Friday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I propose to take the Education Estimates on Friday, subject to any change which may occur in the next two days.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL AND FINANCE BILL)
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That after this day, the several stages of the London Government Bill and the Finance Bill have precedence of all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions on every day for which the Bills or either of them are appointed"—(The First Lord of the Treasury.)
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): In making this Motion for a large portion of the time of the House, I think I may appeal to the judgment of every man acquainted with Parliamentary procedure to support the Government in the course which we propose. Everyone who has any Parliamentary experience knows that the principal Bill of the Session and the Budget are both Bills which ought to be proceeded with energetically if the House is to return a good account of its labours at the end of the Session. It is now the 24th of April, and not many weeks divide the House from the Whitsuntide holidays, and I think it is not unreasonable to ask the House to allow us to devote the greater part of the time that is left to the discussion of the two Bills which I have mentioned. Of course, in previous years when the Budget has been an uncontroversial Measure, such a course as I now propose has not been necessary; but honourable Gentlemen have taken care to convince the Government that such is not the case this year; and, that being so, they will be the last persons to object to the Government finding the necessary time to discuss a matter which, if left to us, we could pass with great rapidity and without trespassing on the time of private Members. With regard to the London Government Bill, I am told that there are already 40 pages of Amendments down; and I am far from supposing that the ingenuity of honourable Members has been exhausted, and that other Amendments will not be put down in the course of the discussion. Therefore, I ask the House to set to work on these two Bills and make progress with them before the Whitsuntide holidays are reached. With regard to the question put
390
to me just now with regard to Wednesdays, I do not propose to take the next three Wednesdays, and I hope it may be possible to avoid taking the fourth and remaining Wednesday before the Whitsuntide holidays; but I make no pledge on that subject, although I hope to except that also, unless I am disappointed with the progress made with the Budget Bill and the London Government Bill. The Machinery Bill, which the honourable Gentleman has so much at heart, has already been the subject of a discussion in this House, and no new arguments can be deduced on that subject, and as everybody knows that no further discussion can take place, I trust this Motion, therefore, will be carried without a long Debate.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The demands made by the right honourable Gentleman on the time of private Members are only in keeping with previous demands this Session. I have not provided myself, as has been sometimes the practice in previous Sessions, with information in order to discover whether the 24th April contains any magic virtue in itself, and I think it is generally better to deal with the business of each year on its merits. In this case there are two Bills before us in regard to which the Government propose to go beyond their own time. The first is the London Government Bill, of the Amendments to which the right honourable Gentleman takes a view which, I think, they hardly deserve. I do not think the number of Amendments put down on the Paper is in any degree excessive.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not say that they are necessarily excessive.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Everyone knows the Bill entirely turns on details. We discussed it, and discussed the details on the Second Reading, and from that the House can judge that many of them are of the greatest importance. I can assure the right honourable Gentleman that I have not observed amongst the most ardent critics of the Measure any desire to prolong unduly discussion on its details. The right honourable Gentleman also grouped with this Bill another Bill, namely, the Budget Bill.

391
I do not exactly see in the same clear light the necessity for extreme urgency of that Bill. Its importance, of course, could not be denied, but I am not able to see why it should be pushed forward by this unusual method. That is a thing I cannot now appreciate. The right honourable Gentleman, however, has considerably relieved the situation by his undertaking with regard to Wednesdays. The Motion and certain comments in the public Press led us to fear that the right honourable Gentleman intended to deal harshly with Wednesdays. It is always an unfair proceeding, and the one thing I especially dislike is that the Government should be led to picking and choosing in this matter. And when I saw there was an Amendment by one of my honourable Friends with regard to a particular Wednesday the very fact made me realise more clearly the danger involved if we did not obtain an explicit understanding on that matter. The right honourable Gentleman now says he is certainly not going to take the three Wednesdays that come first, and that after that he will not take Wednesdays at all unless he was compelled.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Up to Whitsuntide. After Whitsuntide there are always two Wednesdays left for the discussion of Bills. I was not dealing with the period after Whitsuntide.
SIR H CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: With that explicit, understanding I do not think the House can have much to fear as to any partiality in the application of this Motion if it is carried. In these circumstances I do not see that we can offer any resistance to the Motion.
MR. J. LOWTHERsaid the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition held that no good object could be served by inquiring whether the 24th of April was a date which had any particular magic in it, but the right honourable Gentleman was apt to forget that the 24th of April is apt to become on occasions of this sort the 24th of March. He (Mr. Lowther) thought the House had a right to complain that the order of business was not settled fairly on definite lines, and that arrangements when come to by the House were not adhered to. It
392
might or it might not be right for the Government to take the whole time of the House after the introduction of the Budget, but it ought to be settled and ought to be put in its proper place in the Standing Order of the House, and not taken by such a means as the Motion which had been moved. One of the first effects of this Motion would be to remove from the consideration of the House some questions of very great importance which were set down for tomorrow, the importance of one of which his right honourable Friend had himself admitted, namely, the question of Notices of Motion placed on the Order Book to prevent the discussion of matters of urgency under Standing Order 17. That was, of course, the sacred Order of all the orders of the House. His right honourable Friend asked the private Members to part with their privileges for the main part of the Session, and he had told them that no injury would be done, because where matters were of sufficient urgency and importance as to merit the immediate and special attention of the House, they could always be raised under Standing Order 17. He pointed out that that Order was the means whereby matters of real urgency could be discussed by the House of Commons, but he appeared to have forgotten that an honourable Member had only to put down a Motion—he had done it himself—to practically remove a Standing Order altogether. He always intended to put down a Motion when matters of urgency came forward, and his right honourable Friend could take it that no questions of urgency could be raised until this unsatisfactory position had been dealt with. Standing Order 17 being a mere mockery, honourable Members were placed in a position that they were asked now to give up every opportunity for the rest of the Session of raising any question, however urgent and important it might be from a national point of view. He thought it desirable that the House should enter a protest against this alteration of the proceedings. A proper Order ought to be carefully prepared and rigorously adhered to. He, for one, strongly objected to the proposal that had been made.
MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)desired to say a few words with regard to the proposal before the House from the point of view

393
of the Irish representatives. He could not, for his part, see anything in the London Government Bill which should have necessitated the sacrifice of the time of the private Members. He desired, however, to protest strongly against the manner in which the Government dealt with Irish business. He thought the old practice of the House should be strictly adhered to, and that the practice of restricting Members to what might be termed the Ten Minutes Rule in important Measures should be abandoned. There was a Bill which the Secretary for Ireland proposed to bring in under that Ten Minutes Rule—the Irish Tithe Rent Charges Bill. That was a very important Measure, and he thought it was an abuse of the practice of the House to bring it in in such a way. If the Government required to take the time of the private Members, they ought, first of all, to use their own time in a proper manner.
Amendment proposed—
"At the end of the Question, to add the words 'except on Wednesday the 17th May."—(Mr. Strachey.)
MR. STRACHEYcould see no reason why the Government should pick and choose which Wednesday it might be necessary for them to take. The House had been told by the right honourable Gentleman that it would be only the Wednesday before Whitsuntide that was in jeopardy. That was the day upon which the Rating of Machinery Bill would come up for discussion. It was a Measure which many Members on both sides of the House regarded as of very vital importance, and certainly of equal or greater importance than the Ecclesiastical Assessments (Scotland Bill) and the Scotland Liquor Traffic Bill, and he thought it very hard that they would not be able to discuss it. He therefore begged to move his Amendment.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I hope the honourable Member will not press his Amendment. I have already explained to the House the reason why we cannot give any pledge with regard to any of those Bills which come on on a Wednesday. The Machinery Rating Bill has been unfortunate enough to be put down on the last Wednesday before Whitsuntide, and consequently is in danger. The last thing that I wish to do is to minimise the importance of the Bill. But in any case all we can do is to have a discussion on it, because everybody knows that, however important it may be, it cannot be passed this Session.
Question proposed—
"That those words be there added."
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"To leave out the words 'Wednesday the 17th May,' and add the word 'Wednesdays.'"— (Mr. Bryn Roberts.)
*MR. BRYN ROBERTSwas of opinion that it was monstrous that Wednesday should be taken by the Government at this early period of the Session. The Motion, if granted, would deprive private Members of all Wednesdays after Whitsuntide, and a Wednesday was the only day upon which private Members could make any progress whatever. He thought the action of the Government was strong when they took Tuesday so early in the Session, but to take Wednesdays was absolutely monstrous.
MR. D. A. THOMASseconded the Amendment.
Question put—
"That the words 'Wednesday the 17th May' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
The House divided: —Ayes 60; Noes 273.—(Division List No. 91.)

Hobhouse, Henry

Marks, Harry H.

Stevenson, Francis S.

Holland, Wm. H. (York, W. R.)

Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir Herbt. E.

Stirling-Maxwel1, Sir John M.

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Monk, Charles James

Tennant, Harold John

Hezier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C.E.(Kent)

Kitson, Sir James

Northcote, Hn. Sir H. Stafford

Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

Knowles, Lees

Pease, Sir Joseph W.(Durham)

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

Pierpoint, Robert

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Logan, John William

Power, Patrick Joseph

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

Lough, Thomas

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

TELLEES FOR THE AYES—

Lowther, Rt. Hn. James(Kent)

Russell, Gen. F.S. (Cheltenham)

Mr. Strachey and Mr.

Macaleese, Daniel

Scoble, Sir Richard Andrew

Cawley.

McCalmont, Col. J.(Antrim, E.)

Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

M'Ghee, Richard

Smith, Hn. W.F.D. (Strand)

AYES.

Baldwin, Alfred

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Donelan, Captain A.

Banbury, Frederick George

Bowles, Capt.H.F.(Middlesex)

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Barlow, John Emmott

Burns, John

Folkestone, Viscount

Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Beckett, Ernest William

Colston, Chas. Edw.H.Athole

Galloway, William Johnson.

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Billson, Alfred

Davitt, Michael

Gunter, Colonel

Bond, Edward

Dillon, John

Hardy, Laurence

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton)

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Chelsea, Viscount

Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Allen, W.(Newc.-under-Lyme)

Clark, Dr. G. B.(Caithness-sh.)

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Allison, Robert Andrew

Coddington, Sir William

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Allsopp, Hon. George

Coghill Douglas Harry

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Anstruther, H. T.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Harwood, George

Ascroft, Robert

Colville, John

Heath, James

Asher, Alexander

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Heaton, John Henniker

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.

Hoare, Edw. Brodie(Hampst'd.)

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert H.

Cox, Irwin Edwd. B.(Harrow)

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cranbourne, Viscount

Holland, Hn. Lionel R.(Bow)

Austin, Sir John (Yorksire)

Crombie, John William

Horniman, Frederick John

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Cruddas, William Donaldson

Howard, Joseph

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Curzon, Viscount

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Baird, John George Alexander

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hutton, John (Yorks, N R.)

Baker, Sir John

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Jacoby, James Alfred

Balcarres, Lord

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J.(Manch'r.)

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw.

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G.W.(Leeds)

Doughty George

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Balfour, Rt. Hn. J. B. (Clackm.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Drage, Geoffrey

Jones, David Brynmor(Swan.)

Barry, Rt. Hn A H Smith-(Hunts)

Duckworth, James

Jones, William(Carnarvonsh.)

Barry, Sir Fran. T.(Windsor)

Dunn, Sir William

Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn Sir U.

Bartley, George C. T.

Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas

Kearley, Hudson E.

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H.(Brist.)

Ellis, John Edward

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Fardell, Sir T. George

Kimber, Henry

Beresford, Lord Charles

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Bethell, Commander

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth

Biddulph, Michael

Fenwick, Charles

Labouchere, Henry

Bill, Charles

Ferguson, R. C. Munro(Leith)

Lafone, Alfred

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Fergusson, Rt. HnSir J (Manc'r.)

Lambert, George

Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

Finch, George H.

Langley, Batty

Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Lea, Sir Thomas(Londonderry)

Brown, Alexander H.

Fisher, William Hayes

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Ed. H.

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Fison, Frederick William

Leese, Sir Joseph F (Accrington)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Burt, Thomas

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Leighton, Stanley

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Leng, Sir John

Caldwell, James

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Leuty, Thomas Richmond

Cameron, Sir Charles(Glasgow)

Fry, Lewis

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H

Garfit, William

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Liverp'l)

Carlile, William Walter

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Lowe, Francis William

Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

Gilliat, John Saunders

Lowles, John

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbysh.)

Gold, Charles

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Lyell, Sir Leonard

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Cecil, Lord Hugh(Greenwich)

Goschen, Rt. Hn GJ(St George's)

McArthur, William(Cornwall)

Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

McIver, Sir Lewis (Edin, W.)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

McKenna, Reginald

Chamberlain, J. Austen(Wor.)

Gourley, Sir Edwd. Temperley

McLeod, John

Channing, Francis Allston

Graham, Henry Robert

Maddison, Fred

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Maden, John Henry

Charrington, Spencer

Gull, Sir Cameron

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Rentoul, James Alexander

Thorburn, Walter

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Richardson, J. (Durham)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Rickett, J. Compton

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Monckton, Edward Philip

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Valentia, Viscount

Morgan, Hn. F.(Monm'thsh.)

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Wallace, Robt. (Edinburgh)

Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarth'n.)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C.Thompson

Wallace, Robert (Perth)

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptfd.)

Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

Morton, Edw. J.C.(Devonport)

Round, James

Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

Moulton, John Fletcher

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Murray, Rt HnA Graham(Bute)

Rutherford, John

Warner, ThomasCourtenay T.

Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Mivers, William Henry

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos Myles

Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

Newdigate, Francis Alexander.

Savory, Sir Joseph

Webster, Sir R.E.(I of Wight)

Nicholson, William Graham

Seeley, Charles Hilton

Wedderburn, Sir William

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Weir, James Galloway

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Williams, Jos. Powell (Birm.)

O'Conner, James(Wicklow, W)

Sinclair, Capt. John(Ferfarsh.)

Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.)

Oldroyd, Marl

Smith Abel H.(Christchurch)

Wills, Sir William Henry

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

Wilson, Henry J.(York, W.R.)

Palmer, George W. (Reading)

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Wilson, John (Govan)

Paulton, James Mellor

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh, N.)

Pease, Joseph A.(Northumb.)

Spencer, Ernest

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks.)

Pender, Sir James

Spicer, Albert

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Perey, Earl

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Woods, Samuel

Philipps, John Wynford

Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C.B. Stuart-

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arey

Pilkington, Richard

Steadman, William Charles

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Pirie, Duncan V.

Stewart, Sir MarkJ. M'Taggart

Young, Commander(Berks, E.)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Stock, James Henry

Younger, William

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Bryn Roberts and Mr. Hedderwick.

Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Purvis, Robert

Talbot, Rt HnJG(Oxf'd Univ.)

Rankin, Sir, James

Thomas, Alf.(Glamorgan, E.)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

question put—
"That the words 'except On Wednesdays' be added to the Resolution."
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The position that the House is now in is that it has decided nothing, and that we should add these words to the Resolution so as to prevent the Government from taking Wednesday. In moving the Resolution, the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury distinctly said that the Government did not intend to take Wednesdays until after Whitsuntide.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I said that it was possible, but not probable that we might have to take Wednesday the 17th of May.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right honourable Gentleman said he hoped he would not require to take any Wednesday, but it was quite pos-
398
sible that under the exigencies of public business the Government might requite or might be compelled to take one. Would the right honourable Gentleman say whether there is any prospect of taking that one, because if he says that they would not take any Wednesday till after Whitsuntide, the whole question in dispute would fall to the ground.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: We have a considerable amount of business before us on the two Bills—the London Government Bill and the Finance Bill—and I think we ought to make substantial progress before Whitsuntide without taking any Wednesday. But it is possible, and if there is any unforeseen delay—if the wheels of the machine move with unexpected slowness—that the Government may be driven to take the last Wednesday before Whitsuntide. I promised that the first three Wednesdays should be spared under any circumstances. I hope to spare them all, but it is just possible that we may have to take the last one.

399
Question—
"That the words 'except on Wednesdays' be added to the Question."
The House Divided: —Ayes 128; Noes 218. —(Division List No. 92.)

AYES.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Horniman, Frederick John

Philipps John Wyndford

Allison, Robert Andrew

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Asher, Alexander

Jacoby, James Alfred

Pirie, Duncan V.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Jones, David Brynmor(Swns'a)

Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Jones, William(Carnarvonsh.)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Baker, Sir John

Kay-Shuttleworth, RtHnSirU.

Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

Balfour, Rt. Hn. J.B.(Clackm.)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Richardson, J. (Durham)

Barlow, John Emmott

Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth

Rickett, J. Compton

Billson, Alfred

Kitson, Sir James

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Labouchere, Henry

Robertson, Herbert(Hackney)

Burns, John

Lambert, George

Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

Burt, Thomas

Langley, Batty

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Lea, Sir Thomas(Londonderry)

Sinclair, Capt. John(Forfarsh.)

Caldwell, James

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accringt'n)

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Cameron, SirCharles(Glasgow)

Leng, Sir John

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Campbell-Bennerman, Sir H.

Leuty, Thomas Richmond

Spicer, Albert

Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

Lewis, John Herbert

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Cawley, Frederick

Lloyd-George, David

Steadman, William Charles

Channing, Francis Allston

Logan, John William

Stevenson, Francis S.

Clark, Dr. G. B.(Caithness-sh.)

Lough, Thomas

Strachey, Edward

Colville, John

Lyell, Sir Leonard

Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.

Macaleese Daniel

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Crombie, John William

McDonnell, Dr MA (Queen's Co.)

Tennant, Harold John

Davitt, Michael

McArthur, William(Cornwall)

Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Ghee, Richard

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Dillon, John

McLeod, John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Donelan, Captain A.

Maddison, Fred.

Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

Duckworth, James

Maden, John Henry

Wallace, Robert (Perth)

Dunn, Sir William

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

Ellis, John Edward

Marks, Harry H.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Fenwick, Charles

Morgan,J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

Wedderburn, Sir William

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

Weir, James Galloway

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Moulton, John Fletcher

Williams, John Carvell(Notts)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Wills, Sir William Henry

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Wilson, Henry J.(York, W.R.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J.

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

Wilson, John (Govan)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Woods, Samuel

Gold, Charles.

Oldroyd, Mark

Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Palmer, George W.(Reading)

Harwood, George

Paulton, James Mellor

TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Bryn Roberts and Mr. Hedderwick

Hobhouse, Henry

Pease, Joseph A.(Northumb.)

Holland, W.H.(York, W.R.)

Pease, Sir Joseph W.(Durham)

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Beckett, Ernest William

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Allsopp, Hon. George

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.)

Ascroft, Robert

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Beresford, Lord Charles

Cecil, Evelyn(Hertford, East)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bethell, Commander

Cecil, Lord Hugh(Greenwich)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Biddulph, Michael

Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Bill, Charles

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.)

Baird, John George Alexander

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Chamberlain, J Austen(Worc'r)

Baldwin, Alfred

Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J.(Manc'r)

Bond, Edward

Charrington, Spencer

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G.W.(Leeds)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Chelsea, Viscount

Banbury, Frederick George

Bowles, Capt. H.F.(Middlesex)

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E.

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Bowles, T. Gibson(King'sLynn)

Coddington, Sir William

Barry, Rt. Hn A H Smith(Hunts.)

Brassey, Albert

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Barry, SirFrancisT.(Windsor)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Barton, Dunbar Plunkett

Brown, Alexander H.

Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Beach, Rt HnSirM. H. (Bristol)

Carlile, William Walter

Cox, Irwin Edward B.(Harrow)

400

401

Cranborne, Viscount

Howard, Joseph

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

Rankin, Sir James

Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Rentoul, James Alexander

Cruddas, William Donaldson

Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.)

Richards, Henry Charles

Curzon, Viscount

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Mathew W.

Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Ritchie, Rt. Hn Chas. Thomson

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Round, James

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Joliffe, Hon. H. George

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Doughty, George

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Russell, Gen. F.S.(Cheltenham)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Kimber, Henry

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Drage, Geoffrey

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Rutherford, John

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert, V.

Knowles, Lees

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Lafone, Alfred

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Fardell, Sir T. George

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

Savory, Sir Joseph

Fergusson, Rt. HnSirJ. (Manc'r

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William E. H.

Seeley, Charles Hilton

Finch, George H

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Leighton, Stanley

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Smith, Abel H.(Christchurch)

Fisher, William Hayes

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

Fison, Frederick William

Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

Smith, Hon. W.F.D.(Strand)

FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Spencer, Ernest

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Lowe, Francis William

Stanley, Edw. Jas.(Somerset)

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Lowles, John

Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

Flower, Ernest

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Folkestone, Viscount

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Fry, Lewis

Macartney, W, G. Ellison

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Galloway, William Johnson

McCalmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

Stock, James Henry

Garfit, William

McIver, Sir Lewis (Edin, W.)

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'd Un.)

Gilliat, John Saunders

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Thorburn, Walter

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Monckton, Edward Philip

Valentia, Viscount

Goschen, Rt. HnG. J. (St. Geo's)

Monk, Charles James

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Morgan, Hn Fred(Monm'thsh.)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

Gourley, Sir Edwd. Temperley

Murray, Rt. HnAGraham(Bute)

Webster, Sir R.E.(I of Wight)

Graham, Henry Robert

Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

Green, Walford D.(Wednesb'y)

Myers, William Henry

Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

Gull, Sir Cameron

Nicholson, William Graham

Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh. N.)

Gunter, Colonel

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford

Wodehouse, Rt. HnE. R. (Bath)

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Pender, Sir James

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Percy, Earl

Wyndham-Quin, Major W.H.

Hardy, Laurence

Pierpoint, Robert

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Pinkerton, John

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Heath, James

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Young, Commander(Berks, E.)

Heaton, John Henniker

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Younger, William

Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Holland, Hon. Lionel E. (Bow)

Purvis, Robert

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Pym, C. Guy

Main Question put—
"That after this day, the several stages of the London Government Bill and the Finance Bill have precedence of all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions on every day for which the Bills or either of them are appointed." — (Mr. Balfour.)
The House divided: —Ayes 262; Noes 88.—(Division List No. 93.)
Ordered, That, after this day, the several stages of the London Government Bill and the Finance Bill have precedence of all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions on every day for which the Bills or either of them are appointed.

AGED DESERVING POOR
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a Select Committee of Seventeen Members be appointed to consider and report upon the best means of improving the condition of the Aged Deserving Poor, and of providing for those of them who are helpless and infirm; and to inquire whether any of the Bills dealing with Old-Age Pensions, and submitted to Parliament during the present Session, can with advantage be adopted either with or without amendment."—(Sir William Walrond.)
MR. BUCHANANon a point of order, asked, with regard to the second part of the Motion beginning with the words "and to inquire," whether there was any precedent for it, and whether it was in order, in the case of certain Bills which had not yet passed their Second Reading in the House, to ask a Select Committee to inquire whether any of them "can with advantage be adopted either with or without amendment"?
*MR. SPEAKER: I really have not had any opportunity of considering this question—my attention having only been called to it since I entered the House—in order to see whether there is any precise precedent for the wording of the Motion. But there are precedents certainly for the referring to a Select Committee of Bills before the House which have not passed the Second Read-

407
ing stage, as documents for the purpose of inquiring into their merits. The honourable Members will see that, although the words included in the Motion as to whether the Bills can be adopted "with or without amendment might convey the idea to anyone unpractised in Parliamentary procedure that the Committee were to proceed through the Bill clause by clause as if legislating on these Bills. No one who understands Parliamentary procedure would suppose that they could bear that meaning. The words simply amount to an Order of the House that the Committee, in dealing with this subject of old-age pensions, should take into consideration any proposals contained in the Bills which have been introduced just as they might consider any proposals embodied in a pamphlet or any other document. No report or recommendation of the Committee with regard to these Bills can have any effect whatever by way of advancing the Bills a stage in this House. It is not for me, therefore, to say that the Motion is out of order; it is a matter entirely for the House to say whether it adopts the suggestion.
MR. ASQUITH: I presume, Sir, we are to infer from the silence of the right honourable Baronet that the grounds upon which this proposal is recommended by the Government to the House were exhaustively stated in the speech delivered about a month ago by my right honourable Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. On that hypothesis, I think it is not out of place—indeed, I think it is incumbent upon us—to examine this proposal, not merely in the daylight of its abstract merits, but with some regard, at any rate, to the various steps and stages in the interesting historical process by which we have travelled to the point reached to-night. Sir, the question of making better provision for the aged and destitute and deserving poor is not a novel question. As the right honourable Gentleman aptly reminded us the other day, it is a question which has only comparatively recently entered into the polemical arena of Party controversy. Dr. Hunter, the late Member for Aberdeen, whose loss we have such frequent occasion to deplore, was, if not the first, at any rate one of the first to bring it to public prominence, and it is the
408
barest justice to acknowledge what no one, I am sure, in the House will be chary of admitting that there is no man in this country who did more than the Colonial Secretary himself both to awaken the conscience of the people to the scandals of our existing system and to urge upon their judgment the necessity of devising some appropriate form of remedy. Sir, the question was in that stage, and it had not passed beyond that stage, when, in the autumn of 1892, Mr. Gladstone's Government took office. They were impressed, as deeply impressed as any of their successors could have been, with the urgency of this problem. They were also as alive as I believe Her Majesty's Government are to-day to the dangers and even to the disasters which might follow from what I may call the precipitate and empirical handling of the question. They accordingly took a step which I venture to think, upon reflection, every impartial man will agree was wise and just—they appointed a representative and authoritative Commission, a Commission of which two members of the present Cabinet, the Colonial Secretary and the President of the Board of Trade, were members, and though the terms of reference to that Commission were in some respects wider than those which are suggested in the proposed Committee tonight, yet, in point of fact, it fell within the purview of their duty to make substantially the same inquiry in 1893 which you now propose to refer to the Committee in 1899. Sir that Commission sat for two years. It took an enormous mass of valuable evidence, which demonstrated what, I think, can hardly be denied—namely, the existence of large and irreconcilable diversities of opinion, not only among the witnesses whom it examined, but among the members of the Commission itself, not indeed as to the magnitude of the evil, but as to the wisest and most efficacious form of remedying it. But, Sir, while this process of inquiry before the Commission was going on, the temptation which besets even the most virtuous and high-minded Opposition to manufacture a little Party capital against the Government of the day began to assert itself in certain quarters, and at last assumed irresistible force. On a Wednesday afternoon in the month

409
of April 1894, almost exactly five years ago, a Private Member's Bill, associated, I think, with the name of the honourable Member for Islington, dealing with this subject, came on for discussion, and the Government of the day, through Mr. Shaw Lefevre, who was then President of the Local Government Board, while expressing its strongest sympathy with the objects of the Bill, while cordially agreeing with its promoters that Parliament, as soon as it was properly informed and equipped, ought to take the subject in hand as a matter of practical legislation, pointed to the fact that this Commission was only midway in its inquiry, and, without asking the House to pronounce one way or the other on the merits, they moved and carried the adjournment of the Debate. Sir, I ask the House whether that was an unreasonable course. It certainly does not lie in the mouths of the right honourable Gentlemen opposite and their supporters to deny that it was reasonable, because a year and a half later, when they themselves came into power, their first step was to repeat the conduct of their predecessors and to refer this matter again to a Committee; and now to-night, five years after that Debate, they acknowledge, by the terms of this Motion, that they must have yet another Committee. No sooner had the Session come to an end than I find that my right honourable Friend the Colonial Secretary went down to Liverpool and made a very remarkable speech—on 6th September 1894. He denounced the Government, as he, of course, was entitled to do, for its Irish policy, and for a thousand faults, both of omission and commission; but, Sir, the sting of his attack became pointed and obvious when he went on to say that he would like to call the attention of his audience and the country "to the way in which this Government [Lord Rosebery's] deals with questions that concern the happiness of the people," and he took, as his first illustration, the question of old-age pensions. He described the history of the Bill, the consideration of which had been adjourned at the suggestion of Mr. Shaw Lefevre, and he said—
"What did the Government do? Assisted by those who call themselves the representatives of labour in the House of Commons, they
410
summoned their forces, and, with the Irish at their back, they defeated the Second Reading of the Bill, which aimed at establishing the principle for which I am contending."
Sir, that statement was as inaccurate in point of fact as it was unfair in point of argument. The Government did not oppose the Second Reading; they merely asked the House to adjourn the consideration of the question, identically the same thing that you are doing to-night. That speech of the right honourable Gentleman marked the beginning of the second stage in the history of this question—a stage when it was dragged, and deliberately dragged, for Party purposes into the arena of political controversy. I will not trouble the House with many quotations, though the material is copious, and I am indeed most sorry to have to make so many references to the Secretary of State for the Colonies; but, Sir, it is not my fault. From the first scene to the last the right honourable Gentleman has played the party of protagonist. He followed up that speech by another at Birmingham, and he invited the representatives of the various friendly societies of the Midland counties to meet him there to discuss this question upon a non-political occasion. Well, Sir, the discussion took place, and I have no doubt it was very valuable and interesting; but at the close the right honourable Gentleman wound it up with these remarkable words, which I think it is worth while to recall to the attention of the House. He said—
"I should myself imagine that a great scheme of this kind [a scheme for old-age pensions] should not be proposed to Parliament until some Chancellor of the Exchequer shall come who would have a surplus and not a deficit to deal with."
We were then in a year of deficit, and my right honourable Friend the Member for West Monmouthshire (Sir W. Harcourt) had only a few months before forged that great fiscal instrument which has provided his successors with an abounding revenue, even for their large and lavish expenditure. But the right honourable Gentleman went on—
"You will recollect that we waited a long time for free education, but there comes a time when, under the administration of a Chancellor of the Exchequer whom I will not name, because I do not wish to revive political associations"—

411
The House, I am sure, will observe and admire the delicate dexterity with which it is possible to handle a nonpolitical occasion—
"there was a very fruitful surplus, and that surplus was at once applied to give to the working classes the greatest boon which has been given to them during my political time."
That was not a mere academical excursion into the paths of recent history. The object of the right honourable Gentleman was to let historians and the country infer from what had been done in the past what they were entitled to expect in the future. Then the right honourable Gentleman exercised a little prudent self-restraint, for he goes on to say—
"My hope is that, under another administration, and under another Chancellor of the Exchequer"—
This, again, to a non-political audience—
"whom also I will not name, we may return to a time of prosperity, to a period of surpluses, and my hope and belief is that these surpluses may be used in order to stimulate the provision of those old-age pensions, which would do more, I believe, than anything else to secure the happiness of the working classes."
Well, Sir, to some extent, my right honourable Friend showed himself in that passage to have a correct prevision of the future. The Administration—the unfortuate Administration—on which he poured the phials of his contempt, left office, I think, within a year. The new Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom the right honourable Gentleman coyly declined to name to his non-political audience, was installed, and has sat for nearly four years at the Treasury. The time of prosperity, the period of surpluses, to which the right honourable Gentleman referred, has come, and, perhaps, gone. The sum of £12,000,000 sterling represents what in the course of three years has been the balance of your realised income over your realised expenditure. But what has become of the provision for Old-Age Pensions? I will not discuss the question. But, at any rate, not one halfpenny out of those £12,000,000 has been applied, or ever will be applied, to the purpose which the right honourable Gentleman suggests. Well, Sir, a month or two later, in February 1895, the Aberdare Com-
412
mission reported. Its members agreed upon very little, but there was one point on which they were agreed, and that was that it was necessary that further inquiry should be made upon the subject. Meanwhile the General Election drew near. The right honourable Gentleman the other day made—I forget where—a speech in which he challenged me to name one speaker of authority on the Unionist side who in the General Election of 1895 made promises of Old-Age Pensions. It was a challenge that it was not at all difficult to take up. I will not go over again the old familiar story about the election card of the First Lord of the Treasury.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Hear, hear.
MR. ASQUITH: The right honourable Gentleman has told us—and we all accepted the assurance, of couse, with the most perfect confidence—that that card was issued without his knowledge or authority. It is unfortunate, but the card, whether issued with or without the right honourable Gentleman's authority, was, at any rate, a summarised epitome, drawn up by skilled agents, who presumably had attended meetings and had heard the right honourable Gentleman's speeches. These gentlemen drew up the card and circulated it by thousands to the electors of Manchester, either on the day before or on the day of the election, with this item of old-age pensions occupying either the first or second place on the programme.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Perhaps the right honourable Gentleman, who takes such an interest in this matter, will allow me to repeat that the card was issued not on the day of the election, but actually before I went down to my constituents. I was at that moment leading the House, and trying to bring the business of the Session to a conclusion. I did not go to Manchester as early as I desired. The card was issued before I went down to my constituents, and was not a summary of the speeches I made to them, for it was issued before any of those speeches were made. My speeches and my addresses to my constituents may be in the hands of the right honourable Gentleman, and there he will find the views I laid before my constituents, and not on the card.
MR. ASQUITH: Of course I accept the statement of the right honourable Gentleman, but I must say it was rather an odd method of electioneering. So far as I know, there never was any repudiation. The terms of the card were circulated broadcast in the streets of Manchester for a considerable period before the election; but I will turn to another no less authoritative statesman in the Government—I mean the Colonial Secretary. At the General Election the right honourable Gentleman went, among other places, to Hanley. On the 12th July 1895, he devoted part of his speech to this question, and I must really ask the House, for my accuracy in this matter has been directly challenged, to be good enough to listen to the textual quotation of what the right honourable Gentleman said—
"My proposal" [he said, after speaking of schemes for granting universal old-age pensions] "is more modest than that, and therefore it is more practical. I want to see, in the first place, a distinction made in the administration of the poor law between those who have good characters behind them and those who have been brought to poverty by their own fault."
With that we all agree. The right honourable Gentleman went on—
"I want, in the second place, to assist friendly societies. I want to enable them to secure old-age pensions to their members, and at a cost well within their means. My proposal, broadly, is so simple that anyone can understand it."
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): It was a proposal, not a promise.
MR. ASQUITH: I am deeply indebted to the right honourable Gentleman for that distinction. I think it will be sufficient to maintain an action for breach of promise. Well, this proposal—the House would like to know what it is—the proposal which was not a promise, and yet so simple that anybody can understand—
"I suggest" [said the right honourable Gentleman] "that whenever a man acquires for himself in a friendly society, or any other society, a pension of 2s. 6d. per week, the State should come in and double that pension."
What need for further inquiry? Here is a statesman who had got his cut-and-dried proposal, and could produce it to the electors of Hanley, and through them
414
to the electors of the country, four or five years ago. For my part, I do not think that the electors who listened to that statement were guilty of fatuous or inexcusable credulity if, hearing this language from a responsible Minister of the Crown—for the new Government were then in power—they believed that one of the first acts of the Government, if they succeeded in obtaining a majority, would be to carry out this "modest and simple proposal, which any man in the street could so easily understand." But, though modest, it was not yet ripe to be put into an Act of Parliament. We must have a Commission, which would sit for two years and then make an inconclusive report; after waiting the best part of another year, we shall come down to the House of Commons and ask the House to admit the impracticability of all the schemes proposed, and to institute a further inquiry before legislation is entered upon. Do you think that if the electors had been told that in 1895 they would have thought it consistent with the proposal or promise, whichever it was, which the right honourable Gentleman, in his responsible position, and speaking for himself and his colleagues, made to them at that time? I observe that my right honourable Friend the other day in his speech resorted to the familiar expedient of the tu quoque. He said that the Party most to blame was the Party who promised most, and if people were to be judged by their lavish promises the Liberal Party did more by holding out bribes to people than the Unionist Party did. Well, what is the evidence? He referred to the existence and the work of a body called the Imperial Old-Age Pensions League, which, it appears, proposed to grant universal pensions out of funds derived from the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church of England. It may be inexcusable ignorance on my part, but I confess that I never heard of the Imperial Old-Age Pensions League; but I can say for myself and my colleagues in the late Cabinet that we had no part in its formation, programme, or propaganda.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: One of your colleagues attended a meeting of the League.
MR. ASQUITH: I said of the late Cabinet. It is quite true that my

415
honourable Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Sir Walter Foster) was a member of the late Government, but he was the only member of it who had any connection of any sort or kind with that League. I do not want in any way to disparage that body, but when the right honourable Gentleman puts it forward as though it had been the official mouthpiece of the propaganda of the Liberal Party, I find, on investigation, that he himself, speaking at Birmingham on 11th October 1894, and referring in the most scoffing language to this same League, remarked that no prominent or responsible member of the Gladstonian Party had given it the slightest support. You really cannot have it both ways. Well, Sir, I do not profess to say exactly what weight these promises or proposals made by responsible Unionist statesmen had with the electors of 1895, but I am sure there is no impartially-minded man on either side of the House who went through that election who does not know that over large parts of the country, at any rate, vast bodies of people were influenced by the belief, well or ill founded, which proposals of this kind engendered in their minds, that this question of old-age pensions would not, when the new Parliament met, be again the subject of protracted and repeated inquiries, but would become a matter of prompt and practical legislation. If I were required to call witnesses, I could appeal to the memorial signed by more than a hundred honourable Gentlemen who sit behind the Treasury Bench. Old-age pensions having served its purpose as a Party watchword, is now to return again to neutralised territory which it ought never to have left. I rejoice in the change. We are as sensible, and always have been, of the urgency and gravity of this problem as any honourable Member who sits on the other side of the House, and we are as keen to find a practical solution. There are also many of us on this side of the House who are not satisfied that any one of the schemes yet put forward is either practicable or adequate. It would not be consistent with my conviction or my duty for me to vote against this proposal of the Government, but, at the same time, I conceive that we should have been grievously wanting in our duty if we had not made
416
this the occasion for recording an emphatic protest, not only in condemnation of the past, but as a warning for the future, against the procedure adopted in this case, by which the fortunes of a great social question have been subordinated to the petty exigencies of Party.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: I am loth to take part in this Debate so early, but the personal attack which has been made upon me by the right honourable Gentleman seems to make it necessary that I should make a few remarks in reply. I wondered throughout the whole of that speech what was the object with which it was made. The right honourable Gentleman recognises the extreme importance of the question which we have to discuss, but towards the solution of the question he made not the slightest practical suggestion from beginning to end of his speech. He told us that he deprecated wholly making this a Party question, and that he desired that it should be returned to neutralised territory. The whole object of the speech from beginning to end was to wrest the question from a neutralised position, and to make it a polemical and Party question. The right honourable Gentleman went back to a practice very common in the heat of the Home Rule controversy, and which I had almost hoped had died out. He based a long speech entirely upon extracts taken from speeches made by myself. Well, is it worth the right honourable Gentleman's while to try, by extracts which I will not call garbled, but which are necessarily incomplete and imperfect, and which give a most unfair view of the general argument which I have used in reference to this question—is it worth his while to waste half an hour of the time of this House in calling attention to what is, after all, a purely personal question, instead of leaving it to the House to discuss the important subject-matter before us? Now, what are the points which the right honourable Gentleman attempted to make. He goes back to the 6th September 1894, and he complains of the action then taken by the Party now sitting on this side of the House, and he attempts to show that it is inconsistent with the action we are taking to-day. But the action on both occa-

417
sions was identical. The action which we took then upon a Bill similar to that which was before the House a month ago, is precisely the action which we recommended the House to take in the case of the Bill of my honourable Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley. On that occasion it was perfectly well known that the Report of the Royal Commission to which the right honourable Gentleman referred, although not yet issued, would be entirely inconclusive; and what we urged the House to do then, and what the Government refused to do, was to accept the Second Reading of the Bill as an acceptance of the principle of the Bill without committing itself in any way to the details. And subsequently we asked that the Report of the majority of the Royal Commission should have the attention of the Government, and that they should appoint a further and expert Committee to consider the details. That is exactly what we did when we came into office, and it was exactly in accordance with the action of a month ago. The right honourable Gentleman quotes from a speech of mine addressed to a great meeting of representatives of friendly societies, but he wrests altogether the sense of that speech. What I said then was what was common sense even now, that an important element in the consideration of such a subject as this was the possession by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of a surplus. At that moment we had not a surplus, and I said very naturally if we had a surplus—I hoped some other Chancellor of the Exchequer would have a surplus—that I thought this question would then be materially advanced. Well, then, the right honourable Gentleman referred lastly to a speech of mine made at Hanley. I also desire to refer to that speech, because that is a speech in respect of which he is justified, if ever, in charging me with attempting to make Party capital out of this matter. That speech was made on the 12th July 1895, in the very heat of the election, and at a time when a contest was going on in a district around. On that occasion, what I wished most earnestly to impress on my audience was that they should not have exaggerated notions as to what could be done in this matter. I rejected absolutely the extreme proposals that had been made by different
418
persons and pointed out the impossibility of bringing them to any fruitful result. I urged that all the difficulties of the matter should be taken into account, that we should proceed gradually and step by step, and, for myself, I offered a proposal, not a promise, for the consideration of the audience. The right honourable Gentleman made a very witty use of my interruption when I asked him to make a distinction between a proposal and a promise. Surely, there is a distinction between the two. A promise, even though made by myself personally, would impose the fulfilment of a distinct and definite pledge; but a proposal is merely a suggestion for discussion. For the life of me, I cannot understand why my honourable Friends opposite should be so much amused. Surely that is absolutely the fact. I am prepared to maintain that from first to last I have treated this question as a subject for discussion, and I have endeavoured to discuss it in all its different phases in scores of speeches, not as definite and dogmatic utterances on a difficult question, but as suggestions and proposals which I was anxious to have considered before anything in the nature of a definite legislation was introduced. Is it really contended by the right honourable Gentleman that no prominent politician on either side may discuss a question of this kind coram populo without being held to give a pledge which he must fulfil the first moment after assuming office? I think that would be an absolutely intolerable position. I have acted with perfect good faith in this matter. I took up the question at a time when I could have no possible Party object in dealing with it, inasmuch as my own Party were in office at the time, and it might be a cause of some embarrassment to them if I had pushed too far a proposition with which they were unprepared to deal. But I felt the matter was of so much importance that from that day, which was very early in the Eighties, down to the present day I have hardly ever made a public speech without referring to it and endeavouring, I hope, to throw some light upon it. In the course of the discussion of the matter—I do not know whether the right honourable Gentleman will think still worse of me on this account—in the course of that continued discussion, I have made

419
various proposals and suggested various schemes; and some of the proposals which I have made in the first instance I have myself subsequently rejected as being, as the right honourable Gentleman says, inadequate and impracticable. But I do not think I am to be condemned, or that my colleagues are to be held responsible, because in reference to a matter of this kind, which I have done something to popularise, I have called the attention of the country to the issues involved, and to make it easier to be dealt with sooner or later. Now, what is the good of all this recrimination in which the right honourable Gentleman has indulged? I have shown that, so far as I am concerned, at any rate, I did not endeavour at the time of the election to make Party capital out of the business. On the contrary, I was so modest in my proposals that I can well understand that others who are able, more or less conscientiously, to go further than I could, may have succeeded, to my disadvantage. But there is no doubt the subject was alluded to at the last General Election, but not by one Party alone. Has the right honourable Gentleman ever referred to the addresses of his own followers? If he has, he must have found in them passage after passage dealing with the subject on precisely the same lines as it was dealt with by those on this side of the House, except that inasmuch as we were then in office, and expected to remain in office, we were possibly a little more cautious than honourable and right honourable Gentlemen opposite, who had no fear of responsibility for a considerable time. Well, Sir, the proposition before the House is that another Committee should be appointed, and the right honourable Gentleman has concluded that he is unable to vote against it, although no one would have thought that throughout the greater length of his speech. But why won't he vote against it? Because he admits that up to the present time no scheme has been produced which, in his opinion, is both practicable and adequate. Well, I am inclined to agree with him, but I am not inclined on that account to say that no scheme will be found which, at all events, will be practicable. As to the adequacy, that is to some extent a matter of argument. As I pointed out when I last spoke on this question, I do not believe that it is in the power of any Party in
420
the House, as a whole, to propose any scheme which would be a final settlement of this question. I am perfectly convinced that we must be content to proceed step by step, because it is only in that way that we shall arrive at a satisfactory result and go further forward. Not only must we proceed step by step, but we must regard anything we do as to a large extent of an experimental character. We must be prepared to go back if we find we are on the wrong track, and to go forward if experience justifies what we are now doing. I am convinced that the Committee which is going to be appointed will enter on this inquiry with great advantage. The Royal Commission appointed by the right honourable Gentleman opposite, and the committee of experts appointed by this Government, have cleared the way to a great extent, and have shown the direction in which we may possibly proceed with great advantage. I do not think it is at all beyond reasonable hope that if this Committee is appointed at once—it has unfortunately been delayed by the opposition on the other side of the House—
MR. ASQUITH: How?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: Certainly, objection was taken.
MR. ASQUITH: We objected to its being taken without discussion.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: Precisely. That is what the right honourable Gentleman means, and in consequence of that the appointment of the Committee has been considerably delayed. If the appointment of the Committee had been allowed to be taken as a matter of course it would have got to work several weeks earlier than it is possible for it to do now. At all events, let us get it as quickly as we possibly can now, and I do not think then that it is unreasonable to hope that it will be able in the time still at its disposal to deal with the question and make a recommendation to the House on which the Government may base legislation. Let me remind the House and the country that the appointment of the Committee will not delay the dealing with this matter. The Government never pretended that they intended to deal with this matter the

421
moment they came into office, and no promise or pledge of the kind has been given by any Member of the Government, or by any Member of the Party who sit on these Benches. But it was said again and again, and I am prepared to say it now, that we do hope and intend to deal with this matter before we leave office. That is perfectly true, but as we cannot deal with it at the earliest until next Session of Parliament, the reference to a Committee will not delay the practical determination of the matter. Now, I really only rose in order to make some reply to the personal attack of the right honourable Gentleman, and I can only say in conclusion that I congratulate the House upon the practical progress that has been made. I express again my confident hope that before the Government goes out of office we shall have done something which, if not adequate in the opinon of the right honourable Gentleman, will, at all events, furnish a practical scheme the experience of which will be extremely useful in the future, and will lead to the ultimate solution of the question.
MR. LAMBERT: I rise to move an Amendment to the Motion of the right honourable Member for Tiverton—
"To leave out all after 'that' and insert, 'having regard to the fact that a Royal Commission and a Special Committee have within the last four years reported upon the condition of, and the providing of pensions for, the aged poor, this House considers that further inquiry means unnecessary delay in the fulfilment of these promises of providing old-age pensions for the deserving poor which were made by Members of the Government at the last election."
The right honourable Gentleman has stated that this Committee would have been appointed several weeks ago had it not been for the opposition on this side of the House. Now, it is a notorious fact that the Motion for the appointment of the Committee was only put down on the Paper by the Government ten days ago. The right honourable Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies, with customary inaccuracy, accused the Opposition of delaying the matter for several weeks. That is on a level with what the right honourable Gentleman said on the Second Reading of the Bill
422
introduced by the honourable Member for Bow and Bromley, when he accused us of wasting time. On the contrary, it was the Leader of the House, the right honourable the First Lord of the Treasury, who had done his best to prevent progress on this matter by always putting down Government business in front of it. It was only when the Liberals came into office that the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies blossomed out as a very strong and strenuous advocate for old-age pensions. The right honourable Gentleman suffers from unaccountable attacks of modesty, for before the last General Election he went up and down the country advocating old-age pensions, and attempting to make Party capital out of the subject. But since the General Election he has been so much occupied in the Colonial Office that he has not had time to answer even correspondence on the subject. It is all very well for the right honourable Gentleman to deny now that he ever attempted to make Party capital out of the question of old-age pensions. He did make Party capital out of it, and that to a very considerable degree. He told his audience, in a speech at Hanley, that he had made a proposal before the Aged Poor Commission in which he introduced a scheme of his own.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: No, Sir, I did not. It was introduced in a full explanation that it was a Parliamentary Committee scheme.
MR. LAMBERT: I will quote from the Minutes of Evidence of the Royal Commission. On the 4th July 1893, Question 12,981, the Chairman asked the right honourable Gentleman, "Is it in consequence of this that you have prepared a scheme," and the right honourable Gentleman answered, "Yes."
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: One knows how questions are asked and answered on a Commission of that kind. One answers in a sense which is not always technically accurate. If the honourable Member looks at a full account of my examination before the Commission, I pledge myself that he will find that I

423
fully explained to the Commission that it was a Parliamentary Committee scheme.
MR. LAMBERT: I am bound to accept the explanation of the right honourable Gentleman, but in reading these Minutes and the Report of the Commission there is no reference made to a Parliamentary Committee scheme. It was referred to throughout that Commission, and in the Report of that Commission, as "Mr. Chamberlain's scheme." The right honourable Gentleman sat on that Committee, and he did in his Report attempt to controvert that statement. Well, now, Mr. Speaker, it is all very well for honourable Gentlemen opposite to come down to the House at this time of day and ask for a Commission of Inquiry. They did not want a Commission of Inquiry before the election of 1895. The right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House does not like to hear of his election card. I am very glad to hear that the right honourable Gentleman does not mind being told that he gained votes in East Manchester under false pretences. I have a copy of that very card in my hand. It was a canvassing card, and according to the usual routine in electioneering one of these cards was left at every house in the right honourable Gentleman's constituency by his friends. But the right honourable Gentleman did not disown them until after the election, and after he had been returned by a considerable majority. It is all very well to go down to a constituency where your friends make all kinds of promises, and then after these promises have done their work to say that you disown the promises of your friends. The right honourable Gentleman would not do that in private life. If on his estate in Scotland his agent had made a promise of a pension to one of his aged servants he would not disown that promise, but would fulfil it like a gentleman. Some honourable Gentlemen seem to forget altogether what is due to political promises, and act as if these promises need not be fulfilled. For my own part I am quite sure that there are 121 Gentlemen opposite who, at any rate, know perfectly well that these promises were made at the General Election. I have here a copy
424
of the Memorial to the Government, signed by these 121 Unionists. In that Memorial they express their opinion—
"That a definite attempt should be made to fulfil the pledges given at the late General Election by the Members of the Government on the subject of Old-Age Pensions."
These honourable Gentlemen understood that, in spite of the denial and the minimising words of the right honourable the Colonial Secretary that pledges had been given at the General Election, and, therefore, they solemnly asked that a definite attempt should be made to legislate in fulfilment of the pledges given by the Government. These honourable Gentlemen knew that they were elected largely by their constituents on these promises, that old-age pensions would be given to the working classes. It is all very well, after having made these promises, now to propose an inquiry. They put the cart before the horse; they ought to have made the inquiry first, and then made the promises after. But they first made the promises and got into office by them, and then they come to say, "We must see whether it is practicable for us to carry out these promises or not." Well, Mr. Speaker, we have had the Report of the Rothschild Committee, which considered scheme after scheme of old-age pensions; the Parliamentary scheme, Sir Henry Drummond's scheme, the. Rev. James Wilkinson's scheme, a scheme relating to Friendly Societies, the scheme of the honourable Member for Bow and Bromley, the Booth scheme, and many others; but the Rothschild Committee said they could not recommend any one of them, and all they did was to give the working classes some good advice. The right honourable Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies says, however, that the resources of civilisation are not exhausted. And what are these sources of civilisation which are going to be employed? They are the resources which we hear of in the bankruptcy court, when the lawyers keep on asking questions until no money is left for the expectant creditor. We are to have inquiry after inquiry. The Aged-Poor Commission sat from January 1893 till January 1895, during which they asked 18,000 questions. The Rothschild Committee sat from July 1896 to July 1898, so that altogether we have had no less than

425
four years' inquiry into the subject which the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies stated at the General Election was so simple that anybody could understand it. The Aged-Poor Commission consisted of 19 members; but, says the right honourable Gentleman, in his Report—
"That for such a task the numbers of that Commission seem to us to be too great, especially as being largely composed of members identified with schemes which were openly and widely divergent."
The course now proposed is to refer the subject to a Committee of 17 Members, 19 having proved too numerous. But why should 17 Members be the exact body which will discover a solution to this question? I say that it is not the duty of 17 Members of the House of Commons to endeavour to extricate the Government from their difficulties; but it is the duty of the 19 Members of the Cabinet to formulate a scheme for themselves. I maintain that the present action of the Government is only a mean manœuvre to get out of their election promises. We, on the Liberal side of the House, have been taunted with the Newcastle Programme; but the late Government, at any rate, were never afraid of placing their proposals before the House of Commons. At the end of the present Parliament I imagine that the Members must be regarded as a set of very learned men, for at the instigation of the Government we are inquiring into pretty nearly every subject under the sun, but without much result. Our complaint is that, while the Government are inquiring, they are spending the money. They have had large surpluses at the commencement of their tenure of office, yet on this question, of which the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Birmingham stated he hoped for another Chancellor of the Exchequer and another period of surpluses—we have had that period of surpluses and that other Chancellor of the Exchequer, but not old-age pensions for the working classes. The Government, instead, have endeavoured to pension nearly everyone else. There was no Royal Commission of Inquiry before passing the Agricultural Rating Act. There was no Royal Commission before passing the Irish Landlord Relief Bill; a Royal Commission was not needed before the doles to the Voluntary schools, or for the re-
426
mission of the tobacco duty. The present Government have increased the expenditure of the country by from £18,000,000 to £20,000,000 per annum, which is actually nearly the amount which would have secured to every man and woman in the country at the age of 65 a pension of 5s. per week. I say if they had been in earnest about old-age pensions they would not have pressed the Agricultural Rating Bill, they would not have taken the duty off tobacco, or have granted the doles to the Voluntary schools, but they would have had a sum of £4,000,000 with which to initiate an old-age pensions scheme. Now, I do think that at the last election the Party opposite, which has been called the Patriotic Party, did pander to the most sordid instincts of the electorate. They went before the electors and said, "Only vote for us and we will give you a pension." Of course, if you talk to a man about Home Rule, or the British Empire, or anything else, he is not very much interested, but if you promise him 5s. a week when he is 65 years of age he will take far more notice of that than even the grandest scheme about the British Empire which you could lay before him. By this scheme they hit upon the very best means of attracting the working classes, and consequently it was an attempt to bribe the electors by the Party opposite, not with their own money but with the money of the nation. Now, the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies says, "Oh, yes; we do not know how to carry this out. Appoint a Committee to see what can be done." I may point out that a number of Committees have already been appointed, and this is the proposal made this afternoon to carry out the pledges of the Government. All I have to say is that I have an Amendment on the Paper which embodies my views upon this subject, and I beg leave to amend it in a certain degree. I beg leave to move to add to my Amendment after the word "fulfilment," in the last line but one, to insert these words—
"This House considers that further inquiry means unnecessary delay in the fulfilment of the pledges given at the last General Election by Members of the Government on the subject of old-age pensions."
Those are words which are taken directly from the memorial which was presented

427
to the Government from honourable Gentlemen opposite. As the Leader of the Opposition and the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Fife have stated that they cannot vote for this Amendment, I am sorry to find that I have placed myself in antagonism to them. The Amendment I have placed on the Paper, however, embodies my views absolutely, and I am sorry the right honourable Gentlemen on the Front Bench cannot support it.
MR. BOUSFIELD: I have listened to the speeches of Gentlemen opposite, and I must confess that I have not heard one single sentence which can be called an argument against the proposal of the Government. We have heard a good deal about election cards and election pledges, the utter irrelevancy of which is perfectly obvious when we remember that the Government have not even repudiated such a pledge, if they ever gave one upon the subject. But so far from disowning any pledge, we have had from the Government a distinct pledge that they intend to deal with this question before the close of the present Parliament. I do not know how honourable Members on the other side can possibly call that disowning election pledges. The Government have, through the Colonial Secretary, given a distinct pledge to deal with this question during the present Parliament. Therefore, that being so, the only question before the House is whether or not what is proposed is the most sensible way of dealing with the matter. The Reports of the Commission and the Committee which have previously considered this subject are absolutely inconclusive as to the result. They have, however, cleared a great deal of ground, and they have shown us a great many things that will not do. They have put up certain warning posts and cautions which will be extremely useful to us when we come to deal with this question by an Act of Parliament, for the question is a great deal more thorny than anybody ever thought it was a few years ago. Notwithstanding the opposition which comes from some honourable Members on the other side of the House, I think everybody will see that the most reasonable way of making some advance with this scheme during the current Session is to appoint a Commission to con-
428
sider the various propositions which have been placed before the House to see how the subject can be best dealt with. Therefore, under these circumstances, I venture to think that the less that is said about this matter on the other side of the House the better.
MR. BROADHURST: I should certainly not have said a word in this Debate had not the Colonial Secretary mentioned my name in connection with a statement made by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Fife. I think it has all arisen out of a statement made by the Colonial Secretary a week or two back in the country, in which he appears to have said that my honourable Friend the Member for Colne Valley and myself had joined a pension society which made it a condition that first of all the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church of England should take place before the pensions should be provided. Now that is entirely misleading altogether. It is altogether unwarranted and, I may say, also untrue. I am sure the Colonial Secretary could not have made such a statement had he known the true facts of the case; and had he cared to make inquiries of the honourable Baronet the Member for Colne Valley or myself he could have been informed exactly of what actually took place. It is perfectly true that there were some people who proposed to disestablish and disendow the Church, and that with the funds thus placed at the disposal of the State to give old-age pensions. I attended that meeting and made a speech, and my honourable Friend the Member for Colne Valley also made a speech. I may say, however, that both of us distinctly and definitely dissociated ourselves from any idea that a pension must depend upon either disendowment or disestablishment. On the contrary, we refused to associate ourselves with such a society that imposed such a condition, and from the commencement it was only upon one occasion that I met those Birmingham gentlemen who had made this proposal. I know what my honourable Friend said at that meeting, and I know what I said myself, and we both distinctly dissociated ourselves altogether from it, and our argument was that the time had not arrived for disendowment and dis-

429
establishment, and that there were other means at the disposal of the State sufficiently ample to meet all the necessities for old-age pensions if the Government thought proper to lay their hands upon those means. The Colonial Secretary has made a statement which is entirely incorrect, and which I cannot believe he would have made had he been acquainted with the statement which I have just submitted to the House. May I say that I do not wish this statement to be taken as any apology for keeping up disestablishment and disendowment. I am in favour, and have been all my life, of the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church of England, although I must not give my reasons why at the present time. I still maintain in regard to this question that neither my honourable Friend nor myself ever by word or deed or act ever agreed to any such a ridiculous proposition as that of advising that old-age pensions should wait till the State Church had disgorged its money and placed it at the disposal of the people to whom it justly belongs. With regard to the Motion before the House I think I may say this, that had my honourable Friend gone to a division upon it I should certainly have supported him. I sat for two years on one Commission inquiring into this question, and I am sure the labours given by the members of that Commission were almost exhaustive of the subject. Every class of witness and every person who could throw the least light upon the subject was examined at great length by that Commission, which was largely composed of gentlemen who were supposed to have great and large information upon the subject. The right honourable Gentleman the Colonial Secretary was one of the most prominent members of that Commission. Mr. Booth, who is as great an authority as any living man can be on this subject, was also a member of that Commission, and many other highly capable gentlemen gave their assistance. I am perfectly satisfied myself that there cannot be much information obtained by the Select Committee about to be appointed. Anybody who knows the working of the Committees of this House, especially on a subject of this kind, with 17 members to examine every witness that may come before them, is aware that they will not be able to report this year, and they will have to ask
430
to be reappointed next year. By this time next year the right honourable Gentleman sitting opposite knows perfectly well that he will have arrived nearly at the end of his natural existence in the present Parliament. This Parliament will have come to its end by that time. (Ministerial cries of "No, no!") I say yes; and I am not so sure that it will not come to an end before that time. Another Budget like the last would about bring things to such a crisis that the Government would not last 12 months, to say nothing of 18 months longer. This proposal to-night will carry over the inquiry to the next General Election, when you will play the same game again with the election cards that was played at the last election, and the people will have to run again for the fulfilment of your pledges. The vine and fig tree around your own cottage will be painted again, and the old-age pension scheme will be again brought forward and will be again vamped up for another occasion. I was in a district the other day, and noticing a great deal of litter and dirt about it, I asked the people what steps they took to clear the dirt away. They answered "Oh, we sweep it about until we lose it." Now, that is precisely what you are doing with the old-age pensions. You have had four years which have been spent in attempting to redeem your promises and tidying up, and now you are sweeping it about trying to lose it until the General Election. The right honourable Gentleman the Colonial Secretary thought fit to unjustly bring my name into the Debate upon this question or I should not have referred to it. I much regret that my honourable Friend is not going to divide the House upon this question. I am a loyal, docile, and obedient follower of my right honourable Friends on the Front Bench, but there are times when the most obedient child takes a line of its own, and I think if ever there was a time when such an act was justifiable it would be in supporting the Amendment drawn up by my honourable Friend, who has only adopted the language of honourable Gentlemen on the opposite side, and I think we could well have justified his action and position in any assembly of men in the country. I regret that I shall not have the opportunity of voting for his Amendment.
*MR. LECKY: I cannot help regretting that the Government are not prepared to accept more readily than they appear to be inclined to do the fact that the question of old-age pensions has already been submitted to two singularly able Commissions, whose inquiries have extended over a great many months and been conducted with the assistance of the best expert knowledge that could be found in the country. After a long and patient inquiry these two Commissions have come to the conclusion that of all the various schemes proposed not one was feasible, or at least capable of being recommended, and they could not themselves discover any scheme of old-age pensions which would not bring the most grave and serious disadvantages. I think the inference to be drawn from a circumstance like this is that the Government ought to drop the question, because in the state of public opinion prevailing no scheme is really feasible. I believe I am in a minority on this subject, but I venture to think that I am not altogether isolated in thinking that this is one of the most dangerous questions that have ever been discussed in Parliament, and that it would have been very much better if we had not gone so far as we have done. Some of the best supported schemes have been those of Mr. Booth; but the result of those schemes would be to add to our annual expenditure a sum fully equal to the whole amount of the interest on the National Debt which has been swept away since the Peace of 1815. I do not say that a country so enormously rich as this country now is might not bear this immense increase of expenditure, but I would ask the House to realise what might happen supposing any great change takes place. Suppose that the United States becomes a free trade country and drives us out of our special markets; suppose that our great cotton trade passes to one of those Eastern countries where the cheapest labour exists in unlimited supply; suppose you are involved in another great war, bringing with it another great debt—how would you meet the obligations which such a scheme must impose upon you, and which you cannot deny, without producing the most terrible social catastrophe? You may take the more limited schemes connected with the friendly societies and so
432
on; but even then results would arise which would extend very far. Take the effect of an old-age pension scheme upon wages. It is hardly conceivable that it would not have a most serious effect upon them. It may not directly depress the whole body of wages, but it must tell rapidly upon those of the class who are approaching the age limit which has been chosen, and who are the very class whom we are most anxious to help. If it does not depress wages directly, it will at least prevent their natural rise, and if the Government with their vast resources act independently of the great friendly societies and the other benefit societies which are doing so much to provide for old age, it will certainly injure, and very possibly destroy and ruin a large proportion of these societies, which are among the best forms of providence existing in this country. If, on the contrary, it operates through the societies, it will lead to other difficulties of the gravest kind. It will involve the State in the finances of those societies which are sometimes very dubious. It would act with the greatest partiality, for the friendly societies exist mainly in England, only to very small extent in Scotland, and hardly at all in Ireland. To give pensions through the friendly societies would create another Irish question, for the portion of Imperial taxation spent in Ireland would become much smaller than at present. It would create another woman question, for women are almost entirely excluded from friendly societies, and you will find that in different employment and states of life the motives for saving money and inceasing income are with equally industrious and equally provident men wholly different. The whole life plan of a small farmer, whose farm will be with him till the end, is different from that of a working man, whose income may be much larger, but depends upon his health and strength. The one man will probably expend all he can in improving his farm, and will save a little or nothing, and the other will aim chiefly at acquiring an independent income. A great number also are too poor to lay by anything out of their wages. It is impossible that you can start a Measure of this kind without its leading to the gravest indirect and often unsuspected consequences. There is no

433
real analogy between the pensions which are largely of the nature of deferred pay, which an employer gives to those which are actually in his employment, and the Government pensions given to those who are in no degree bound to them or employed by them. In Holland, where the Government has dealt with great sagacity and great boldness with social questions, a Commission like that we have had in England has been lately held, and it has arrived at essentially the same conclusion. In my own opinion no general pension scheme can work efficiently without the German system of compulsion, and without inquisitorial powers for examining into the real amount of small incomes which would be practically impossible in England, while the liabilities it would entail could hardly be exaggerated—
MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the right honourable Gentleman, but although the Motion opens a wide field for debate, I think he is going beyond the terms of the Motion in discussing the different schemes of old-age pensions.
*MR. LECKY: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and all I can say is that, in my opinion, the elements of this problem are much more complex than might have been assumed from the tenour of this Debate. I trust that the Dutch Report will be translated into English, and that the Government will lay it before the new Committee, because it will throw a great deal of light on this subject. I will not pursue my argument further, but I will say that if we are to have legislation on this subject, it is certainly far better that we should have a new inquiry into it, because the result of the previous inquiries have been purely negative. It seems to me that it would be madness to embark on legislation in the present circumstances and on such evidence. I must confess that, personally, I think it is a mistake not to drop the subject altogether as a thing which is not likely to work. I fear that the result of this new inquiry may be to raise hopes which you cannot fulfil, and which may, nevertheless, lead to a great deal of rash and dangerous action.
434
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out all the words after the word 'That,' and add the words, 'having regard to the fact that a Royal Commission and a Special Committee have within the last four years reported upon the condition of and the providing pensions for the aged poor, this House considers that further inquiry is not likely to shed further light on the subject, and that the Government should undertake the responsibility of making such proposals as they may deem good.'"—(Mr. Logan.)
MR. LOGAN: I move this Amendment because I do not for one single moment believe that this move on the part of the Government is intended to facilitate the settlement of this old-age pensions question. I believe that the appointment of this Committee—and I doubt whether any man on the opposite side of this House will, in his heart of hearts, dispute that what I am saying is absolutely true—if granted, would simply be to go into this question de novo, and would put off, at any rate, for five or six years, the settlement of this question, thereby relieving the Government of their present difficulty, into which the right honourable Gentleman the Colonial Secretary has got them. If this Committee was intended to recognise the fact that every worker in this country is entitled, in his declining years, when he is past work, to a pension, then I should not at all hesitate to support this proposal. Even if it were intended that this Committee should consider the best means of finding the money necessary, and of considering the question of how to distribute it, then I should most heartily and cordially support the proposal of the Government. But people outside think that the Government are playing with this question here in the House, and I frequently doubt, when I hear of the condition of the people, whether it is worth while discussing here at length, as it was discussed on the Wednesday when this Old Age Pensions Bill was before the House to the exclusion of the millions of poor people who in this country are now verging upon starvation, and who are very anxiously expecting an Old-Age Pensions Bill. When I heard the Colonial Secretary talk as he did a few moments ago, I doubt very much whether he realises the magnitude of this question. There are to-day in

435
England, according to the right honourable Gentleman's own showing, millions of people only just able to keep above starvation point, and to show how the people out of doors are anxiously watching, let me read just a few short words from a letter which I got this morning. The writer never dreamt that this question was coming on to-day. Here is the letter from a man in a village close to my constituency, and in it he says—
"Here in this village we are considerably interested in the old-age pensions question. There are a considerable quantity of old men and women here receiving parish relief, and some of them are just at starvation point."
After the years that had been spent by different tribunals in investigating this question, one should think that there must be sufficient evidence in possession of the Government to enable them to come to a definite policy upon the subject.
MR. F. S. MENDL: I rise for the purpose of seconding the Amendment. I gather that the right honourable Member for Dublin University (Mr. Lecky) is opposed to all schemes for old-age pensions, because he has referred to what, in his opinion, is the present duty of the Government—namely, that they should drop this question. Notwithstanding that declaration, however, I also understod the right honourable Member to say that he intended to vote for the Committee of Inquiry. That position does not seem to provide a very hopeful prospect for those who consider this to be one of the most pressing and most urgent questions of social reform in the country. Reference has been made to the renewed pledge given by the Government. I do not know whether this renewed pledge is to be something like the renewal of the Bill. In this particular instance the Bill is too long overdrawn already, and the best thing that the Government can do is to frankly face it and meet it. Not only did the speeches of the Colonial Secretary, but those of the Duke of Devonshire and others, before the last General Election clearly indicate that the subject of Old-Age Pensions hold a front place in the Government's programme and that they were carefully considering the matter, but that, in fact, it was the intention of the Government to legislate on this subject at an early
436
date. In spite of these facts, however, their first act was to appoint a Committee, and now that that Committee has reported, their second act is to appoint another. In my opinion this is nothing more nor less than trifling with the subject, and therefore I beg to second the Amendment of my honourable Friend.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I hope the House may be content without any very long delay to allow us to appoint this Committee, or, at all events, to divide on the Question as to whether it is to be appointed or not. I have listened with attention to the speeches, and I totally fail, with the best will in the world, to understand the reasoning upon which this Amendment is founded. The honourable Member who moved it told us there have been one Royal Commission and one Committee already, and, therefore, any other Committee must be unnecessary and a mere excuse for delay. There might have been some reason for that contention if the Commission or the Committee had suggested any practical scheme upon which the Government might make practical proposals to the House. But it is perfectly notorious that they have not made such proposals, and though I entirely agree with the honourable Member that that fact does not relieve the Government of the responsibility of looking into the question on their own account, it surely is a sufficient argument for appointing another Committee, with all the information behind it which has been collected by the preceding Committee, to see if they cannot aid the House and the Government in a problem, the difficulty and complexity of which is admitted on all hands. The honourable Gentleman is afraid that under cover of the time that a Committee takes to Report, the Government will escape any responsibility which they may have undertaken either at the time of the last General Election or before or subsequent to it. The honourable Gentleman, who is so much occupied with electioneering devices, must know perfectly well that, when we go to the country and have to give an account of what we have done or failed to do, it will be a very poor excuse to those constituencies who have based their hopes on old-age pensions, to say that there have been several inquiries, and that none of them had led

437
to anything, and that the last inquiry by the Committee lasted so long that the Government was not in a position to undertake the matter themselves. The honourable Gentleman knows a good deal about electioneering, and he must know perfectly well that, were that excuse sound or unsound, were it based on sound policy or less suitable motives, no excuse will be admitted by those whom the honourable Gentleman represents, and if we are not able to find some method of either solving or making a practical step towards a solution of this most difficult problem, neither Committees nor Commissions will protect us from the consequences of that public misfortune.
MR. LOGAN: I had not the slightest intention of inferring that there are electioneering considerations. My consideration is the present need of the poor people.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I confess, if that is all, I really cannot understand why the honourable Gentleman should think that their needs are less likely to be adequately provided for because two abortive inquiries are to be followed by an inquiry which we hope may not be abortive. I take, I must say, very little interest in all these Party recriminations over election pledges. A certain card issued in my own constituency, and, I gather from the honourable Gentleman, issued in other constituencies also, has afforded a great deal of satisfaction to honourable Members opposite, of which I should be extremely sorry to deprive them. If they want my opinions on the subject, my opinions are to be found in my election address and my election speeches. I dealt with the question of old-age pensions and the modifications of the Poor Law both in my address and in my speeches, and to every word I said on those occasions I adhere. I expressed myself, I hope, with a caution which the inherent difficulties of the question rendered necessary to a person in a responsible position who had to touch upon it. But that I hoped at the time of the General Election, and that I led my constituents to hope that we should be able to do something in this Parliament on the question of the aged poor is true. I still adhere to that view. I still main-
438
tain that hope, and I confess I feel, if it be indeed possible to do anything for the aged poor in the course of this Parliament, that the hope which I led my constituents to entertain will, either by the fault of the Government or by circumstances which are altogether outside their power, be proved to be illusory. Now that is true enough, and honourable Gentlemen opposite may make what they choose of that statement. Honourable Members opposite are never tired of saying that we induced the electorate to support us rather than them at the last election by the fact that we put this question of old-age pensions so prominently before them. I really do not know that we hold a monopoly of the subject in our election addresses and speeches, nor do I know that honourable Members opposite abstained from all reference to the question when they were courting their constituents. At the election of 1895 it was in doubt who was to be the Government, and the electors decided by a very large majority that the Government should be drawn from the Unionist Party. The reason for that, honourable Gentlemen opposite say, was that the Unionist Party promised old-age pensions. But the other side promised old-age pensions just as much.
SEVERAL HONOURABLE MEMBERS: No, no!
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Did they not? I think they said over and over again that the question of old-age pensions was no monopoly of the Unionist Party. Let us hear no more, therefore, of their extraordinary argument that the last General Election was decided on the question of old-age pensions. What it was, do doubt, largely decided upon was this. Both Parties came forward and said they were anxious to deal with what are now called social problems; but the Unionist Party were able to say that they had no great constitutional revolution to carry out before dealing with those problems, and honourable Gentlemen opposite were not in that fortunate position, and upon that distinction there may have been some changes of votes in the constituencies where these subjects were chiefly dealt with. But I am not aware that any honourable Gentlemen

439
opposite have abstained from intimating to their constituencies that they were not less anxious than their Unionist opponents to bring forward a satisfactory scheme of old-age pensions. It must be distinctly understood that the Government do not consider themselves bound to wait necessarily for the Report of the Committee before bringing forward a scheme. We do not think that that is a necessary consequence of appointing a Committee. We hope that the general lines of such a scheme may be indicated within a period which will enable us to have the full advantage of the weight of the advice of the Committee before we present any plan of our own. But even before that period arrives it is quite clear that we may derive great advantage from the labours of the Committee, even though they have not completed their Report, and we should not consider ourselves prohibited, if other circumstances appeared favourable, from bringing forward our own scheme because the labours of the Committee had not reached their full termination. We do not appoint this Committee to shift on to other shoulders a responsibility that belongs to us, nor to delay legislation on the subject; but we say that, inasmuch as two inquiries already held have proved barren, so far as schemes are concerned, inasmuch as that Committee and that Commission, though they have collected a mass of valuable materials, have made no concrete proposal, the Government believes that it is wise and prudent to appoint a Committee to undertake the task at the point at which those two bodies left it. That seems to me a plain, practical, and statesmanlike course, and I hope that the House will not make this proposed appointment of a Committee the excuse for discussing the whole question of old-age pensions, but would come to a decision without delay.
SIR J. PEASE: I agree with the right honourable Gentleman that in his address to the electors of Manchester he stated his views with regard not only to the pension question, but to the question of the modification of the Poor Law. I believe that no pension scheme will be effective that does not deal with the question of the modification of the Poor Law. It is out of a modification of the Poor Law
440
alone that we will be able to provide the funds necessary for a pension scheme. Therefore it seems to me that the reference to the Committee should embrace the question of the Poor Law.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: It does.
SIR J. PEASE: It does not do it directly, and but for the admission of the right honourable Gentleman I should have taken the opportunity when the Committee comes to be reappointed, as it must be at the beginning of next Session, to get the Poor Law included in the reference to the Committee.
SIR W. FOSTER: As the Government is taking a course which may expedite the solution of this question, I am not prepared to vote for the Amendment. The right honourable Gentleman who has just spoken has said that at the election of 1895 the Unionist Party had not a monopoly of promises with regard to old-age pensions. I agree that promises were made on both sides, but there was a difference between them which the right honourable Gentleman carefully avoided. He and his colleagues spoke as responsible Ministers of the Crown at the time, while on the other side they spoke simply as irresponsible persons. I shall vote for the appointment of the Committee, not because it is to be a largely increased Committee, but because it is to try to find among the materials already existing some practical solution of the question.
MR. SEELY: I gladly support the Motion, and hope that while the Committee is sitting the Government and the House of Commons will try to come to some definite conclusion in their own minds as to how much of the money of the country they think it would be wise and reasonable to devote to this question. I believe that one of the reasons for the inconclusive result of all previous Committees has been that no one has come to any definite decision as to what amount of money the country would be prepared to spend in this matter.
*MR. SPEAKER: That question hardly comes under this Motion.
MR. SEELY: I hope this Parliament will be known as the one that really made provision for the aged poor.
MR. HAZELL: It appears to me that the most hopeful statement from the Treasury Bench on this subject has been the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury that it is very possible that the Government will not wait until this Committee has come to a conclusion on the inquiry. I hope that if the Committee reports before the end of this year the Government will bring in a Bill of some kind next year.
MR. MADDISON: There is nothing in the reference to the Committee to prevent them reporting in favour of a scheme of mere outdoor relief, and the very vagueness of the Motion, apart from any other defect that I may see in it, is sufficient

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Fardell, Sir T. George

Allsopp, Hon. George

Carlile, William Walter

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

Ascroft, Robert

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Asher, Alexander

Cavendish,V. C.W. (Derbysh.)

Finch, George H.

Atkinson, Right Hon. John

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Fisher, William Hayes

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Fison, Frederick William

Baker, Sir John

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.J.(Birm.)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Balcarres, Lord

Chamberlain,J.Austen(Worc'r)

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Baldwin, Alfred

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Flower, Ernest

Balfour, Rt. Hn.A.J.(Manch'r)

Charrington, Spencer

Folkestone, Viscount

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W.(Leeds)

Chelsea, Viscount

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Balfour,RtHnJ. Blair(Clackm.)

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Banbury, Frederick George

Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)

Fry, Lewis

Barnes, Frederic George

Clarke, Sir Edwd. (Plymouth)

Galloway, William Johnson

Barry, RtHnAH.Smith-(Hunts)

Clough, Walter Owen

Garfit, William

Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor)

Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

Gedge, Sydney

Bartley, George C. T.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Gibbs,HnA.G.H.(City of Lond.

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Gilliat, John Saunders

Beach,Rt.Hn. SirM.H. (Bristol)

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Berg, Ferdinand Faithfull

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Bethell, Commander

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Graham, Henry Robert

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Bigwood, James

Cranborne, Viscount

Green,WalfordD.(Wednesbury

Bill, Charles

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

Gull, Sir Cameron

Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

Cruddas, William Donaldson

Gunter, Colonel

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Curzon, Viscount

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Boulnois, Edmund

Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Bousfield, William Robert

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Bowles, Capt.H.F.(Middlesex)

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Bowles,T.Gibson(King'sLynn)

Donkin, Richard Sim

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Brassey, Albert

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Hardy, Laurence

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Doughty, George

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Brown, Alexander H.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Heath, James

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Drage, Geoffrey

Heaton, John Henniker

Burt, Thomas

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Henderson, Alexander

Butcher, John George

Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas

Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampst'd)

to make me vote against it. I cannot but feel that this question will be delayed and delayed until this Parliament goes out altogether.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out all the words after 'That,' and add the words, 'having regard to the fact that a Royal Commission and a Special Committee have within the last four years reported upon the condition of and the providing pensions for the aged poor, this House considers that further inquiry is not likely to shed further light on the subject, and that the Government should undertake the responsibility of making such proposals as they may deem good.'"
Question put—
"That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'infirm,' inclusive, stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 263; Noes 93.—(Division List No. 94.)

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Hobhouse, Henry

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn.W.F.

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

Holland, Hn. Lionel R (Bow)

Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir Herbert E.

Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Stanley, Edwd. Jas. (Somerset)

Howard, Joseph

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Stephens, Henry Charles

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

Monckton, Edward Philip

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Monk, Charles James

Stock, James Henry

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.)

Morgan, Hn. F.(Monmouthsh.)

Strauss, Arthur

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Morrell, George Herbert

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Mount, William George

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Jessel, Capt. Hebert Merton

Muntz, Philip A.

Sutherland, Sir John

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw.

Murray, RtHn A. Graham (Bute)

Tennant, Harold John

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Thorburn, Walter

Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

Myers, William Henry

Tomlinson, Wm. Ed. Murray

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Kay-Shuttleworth,RtHn SirU.

Nicholson, William Graham

Valentia, Viscount

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Verney, Hon Richard Greville

Keswick, William

Northcote, Hn. Sir H. Stafford

Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

Kimber, Henry

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Wanklyn, James Leslie

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Percy, Earl

Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

Kitson, Sir James

Pierpoint, Robert

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Knowles, Lees

Pilkington, Richard

Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

Lafone, Alfred

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Webster, Sir R. E. (Isle of W.)

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

Lawrence, SirE.Durning-(Corn)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Lawson, Sir John Grant (Yorks

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Rankin, Sir James

Williams, Jos. Powell (Birm.)

Leng, Sir John

Rentoul, James Alexander

Wills, Sir William Henry

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Richardson, J. (Durham)

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (L'pool)

Ritchie, Rt.Hn. Chas.Thomson

Wilson, J.W. (W'cestersh.,N.)

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

Lowe, Francis William

Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn.E.R.(Bath)

Lowles, John

Round, James

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Wylie, Alexander

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Rutherford, John

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Lyell, Sir Leonard

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Young, Commander (Berks,E.)

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Younger, William

Macdona, John Cumming

Saunderson Rt. Hn.Col. E. J.

McCalmont, Col.J.(Antrim,E.)

Savory, Sir Joseph

TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh,W.)

Seely, Charles Hilton

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Marks, Harry H.

Simeon, Sir Barrington

NOES.

Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)

Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley

Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Hazell, Walter

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

Morley,Rt.Hn.John(Montrose)

Bainbridge, Emerson

Holden, Sir Angus

Morton, Ed. J. C. (Devonport)

Barlow, John Emmott

Holland, W. H. (York, W.R.)

Moss, Samuel

Billson, Alfred

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Jacoby, James Alfred

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Broadhurst, Henry

Joicey, Sir James

O'Brien, James F. K. (Cork)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Kearley, Hudson E.

O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

Burns, John

Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Caldwell, James

Labouchere, Henry

Oldroyd, Mark

Cawley, Frederick

Langley, Batty

Paulton, James Mellor

Chinning, Francis Allston

Leuty, Thomas Richmond

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Colville, John

Lewis, John Herbert

Pease, Sir Jos. W. (Durham)

Crombie, John William

Lough, Thomas

Philipps, John Wynford

Davitt, Michael

Macaleese, Daniel

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

McDonnell, Dr.M.A.(Qn's Co.)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Dillon, John

McDermott, Patrick

Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Ghee, Richard

Reid, Sir Robert Threshie.

Dunn, Sir William

McKenna, Reginald

Rickett, J. Compton

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

McLeod, John

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Fenwick, Charles

Maddison, Fred.

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Gold, Charles

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

444

445

Spicer, Albert

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Wallace, Robert (Perth)

Wilson, John (Govan)

Steadman, William Charles

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Hdrsfld.)

Stevenson, Francis S.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Woods, Samuel

Strachey, Edward

Weir, James Galloway

Yoxall, James Henry

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.)

Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Logan and Mr. Mendl.

Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Another Amendment propsed—
"To leave out from the word 'infirm,' to the end of the Question."—(Mr. Buchanan.)
MR. BUCHANAN,in moving to omit from the Motion the reference to the Bills introduced in the present Session dealing with old-age pensions, said that the House would see that what the Government proposed to do was to refer a group of Bills, not one of which had passed the Second Reading, to a Committee who were to inquire into them and report upon them with or without amendment to the House. He suggested that it was a most inconvenient and unusual course to take. As an illustration of that fact, he might point out that there were a group of four or five Local Option Bills at present upon the Statute Book of the House, and if this procedure was allowed, any honourable Member might move that a Committee should be appointed to consider and report as to whether any of those Bills could be adopted. So far as he could see, if that practice was to be adopted, the House was to be asked to make a very substantial alteration in Parliamentary procedure. He would urge upon the right honourable Gentleman that without those words he had all he wanted, because it was stated in the early part of the evening that the Bills to be referred to the Committee would be sent to them merely as documents or pamphlets. If that were so, the Committee would have power under the usual Motion to send for persons, papers, and records. Therefore, he moved the Amendment.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIRseconded the Amendment. The First Lord of the Treasury, I think, in the latter part of his speech, said that the original Motion is not in accordance with the practice of the House; the Bill, which had not been read a second time, should be referred to the Select Committee. He also admits that if the words were struck out of the Resolution, the Committee would still, by treating the Bills as
446
papers, have power to examine and report upon them. If that is so, why should not we mention in the Resolution that these Bills shall be inquired into? I do not see why we should limit our ground. I cannot see what danger there would be, or what objection there could be of any sort or kind which this Resolution induces. It appears to me that we rather stultify ourselves if we ask for the Resolution in these terms.
Question proposed—
"That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Ordered, That a Select Committee of Seventeen Members be appointed to consider and report upon the best means of improving the condition of the Aged Deserving Poor, and of providing for those of them who are helpless and infirm; and to inquire whether any of the Bills dealing with Old-Age Pensions, and submitted to Parliament during the present Session, can with advantage be adopted either with or without Amendment.

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.
*MR. SPEAKER: There are various instructions on the Paper with which it is necessary for me to deal. The first two, which stand in the names of the honourable Members for Poplar and North Monmouth, invite the House to reconsider the relations between the city and the county of London. Those objects may be attained by amendment in Committee on the Bill; therefore the instructions are not in order. The next instructions are in the names of the honourable Member for North Islington and the honourable Member for

447
Stepney. They propose that the Committee have—
"power to insert clauses in the Bill providing for the transfer to the new local authorities of all the powers and duties of guardians of the poor, and to assimilate the Poor Law areas in London to the areas of the new local authorities."
That part of the instruction which proposes to insert a clause providing for the transfer to the local authorities of the duties of the guardians of the poor is beyond the scope of the Bill. The administration of the Poor Law is not referred to at all in the Bill, and is dealt with by separate statutes. The latter part of the instruction can be dealt with by amendment. It is in the power of honourable Members to propose any areas they choose by way of amendment in Committee. The next instruction stands in the name of the honourable Member for Hoxton. He proposes—
"That it be an instruction to the Committee that they have power to provide in the Bill for the more uniform and better assessment of the various districts of the county of London on the lines proposed in the recent Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation."
I think this instruction is open to the objection that it is not as definite as an instruction ought to be. And, further, this is a Bill to readjust the administrative areas and authorities of the county of London, and does not touch the question of local taxation except to make the necessary changes in the machinery of the collecting authorities. To introduce the question of local taxation would be to extend the Bill far beyond its proper scope, and, therefore, that is out of order. The same remarks apply to the proposed instruction of the honourable Member for Devonport to deal with the question of the taxation of ground values, and that also is out of order.
*MR. E. J. C. MORTONdesired, upon the point of order, to know, having regard to the fact that clause 10 of the Bill proposed to amalgamate several rates, one of which was the present sewers rate, into a single rate, to be called the "general rate," and that the occupier, who paid the present sewers rate, was entitled to deduct the amount of his rate from his rent, while no such provision was allowed for any part of
448
the "general rate," whether clause 10 of the Bill did not alter the incidence of taxation from the owner to the occupier in respect of so much of the future "general rate" as would represent the present sewers rate, and whether, under these circumstances, it could be out of the scope of the Bill for him to make provision for moving and Amendment to alter the incidence of to taxation under the Bill in the opposite sense?
*MR. SPEAKER: Objections might be raised, and properly raised, to the proposed method of dealing with the general rate and the sewer rate. It might be found inconvenient that they should be joined, and the honourable Member would be in order in proposing an Amendment to separate them. But if the instruction were agreed to, a fresh valuation of ground values and sites would have to be made throughout London; that would not obviate the difficulty raised by the honourable Member, but would create a new one. The question of ground values must be dealt with by separate legislation. The last instruction is in the name of the honourable and gallant Member for Forfarshire, and, it proposes to provide—
"For the transfer from the Metropolitan Asylums Board to the London County Council and to the new metropolitan district authorities of all or any of the powers and duties in relation to public health now exercised by the Metropolitan Asylums Board in the administrative county of London."
I think that so much of this instruction as proposes to transfer the powers of the Metropolitan Asylums Board to the County Council is beyond the scope of the Bill. This is not a Bill for extending the powers of the London County Council, but to regulate the arrangements between it and subordinate areas in which municipal authorities are to be created. So far as he proposes that some of the powers of the Metropolitan Asylums Board in relation to public health, such as are commonly exercised by municipalities, should be transferred to the new metropolitan district authorities, an Amendment to that effect would be in order if moved in Committee. Therefore his instruction is unnecessary. That disposes of all the instructions on the Paper, and therefore I am in a position to leave the Chair.

449
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith), CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
(In the Committee.)

CLAUSE 1.
*THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The first Amendment standing in the name of the honourable Member for Hoxton, is out of order, because it proposes to alter the framework of the Bill by making certain additions which are not stated in such a way as to enable the Committee to come to a decision.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 6, to leave out the word 'exclusive,' and insert the word 'instead,' thereof.—(Mr. Haldane.)
MR. HALDANEin moving his Amendment, said he wished to make quite clear what the Amendment was really to effect. The Committee which sat to consider the better government of London, and which reported in 1894, advocated the extension of its area and the making of a great municipality, with subservient municipalities around it. He did not, however, raise that proposition by this Amendment, which accepted the proposition of the Government to take the area of the administrative county of London and divide it into a number of so-called boroughs, and deal with those boroughs so as to give them uniform constitutions and sets of powers. In the 120 square miles which made up the administrative area of the county of London there was one square mile of remarkable character—the City of London. It had an ancient Corporation, with powers of its own, and, although it would form one of the new bodies which the Bill proposed to establish, it was remarkable that the Bill proposed to do nothing to alter its constitution. The Government could not plead in defence of the line they had taken, in leaving the City intact, that there was no material to go on, for three great Commissions had investigated the subject, each of which, although they might be divided on other points, unanimously reported that the constitution of the City, which remained untouched by the Municipal Corporation Act of
450
1882, was unsatisfactory, and urgently called for reform at the hands of the House. That had become more urgent at the present time when they had to speak of the corporation and constitution of the City. The local government which existed in the City until a few months ago was of a very different character from what it was to-day. Within the last 18 months there had been an entire renovation of the powers of the Corporation of the City of London which was not accompanied by any alteration in the constitution. In 1897 a Bill was passed through the House—a Private Bill—and it was always a little unfortunate, in his opinion, with regard to London matters, that so much should be done by way of Private Bill, which made a great change in the City of London. Honourable Members might remember, when the City was exempted from the Municipal Corporations Act, London government went on on very different lines from the local government in other parts of the country. Instead of new powers being given to the reformed Corporation under the Public Health Act, they were covered by means of special statutes given to a Commission called a "Commission of Sewers," A remarkable state of things was seen when the City was invested with new powers 18 months ago, and yet nothing had been done to bring its constitution into a more modern shape. He asked the Committee to consider the condition of the City of London with that of the new municipal boroughs which the Bill proposed to set up. The new boroughs would consist of 72 aldermen and councillors, together with a mayor, the number of aldermen being 18 and councillors 54. These councillors would be elected on a simple franchise, and women would be eligible for office in the manner provided under the Bill. But in the case of the City they had not got an ancient and complicated franchise, but an unwieldy governing body. The Parliament of the City might be said to consist of the Common Council. The Common Council consisted of 206 members, elected in a very complicated and antiquated manner, and they formed altogether a cumbrous body. Then, there were a number of aldermen—24 or 26 he believed—and these, again, were elected

451
in a very complicated fashion for life, and they also had certain important powers. Then there was the Lord Mayor, who, instead of being elected by either of these bodies, was elected by yet a third body, the Common Hall, which, consisted of liverymen. But their franchise was not really to elect a Lord Mayor, because, through custom, it had been the practice, not to elect, but to make selections under a certain rule by which they sent up two names, not to the Common Council, not to the representative body, but to the aldermen. Well, what had been the effect on the City? The elections had become altogether uninteresting to the people. The City, which had a very large population qualified to vote, was made up of people who did not take the trouble to vote at all.
HONOURABLE MEMBERS: No!
MR. HALDANE: Compared with the elections in other parts of London, those in the City were the merest farce. They did not, moreover, get the best men to serve. The days had long since gone by when the proud title of the Lord Mayor of the City of London was associated with the Lubbocks, the Rothschilds, the Gibbs, and other well-known families, who bore in the minds of the public the distinction of being leaders in the City. There were, of course, brilliant exceptions, and there were honouroble Members opposite who had filled that post with great distinction. In the majority of cases, however, the Lord Mayor had ceased to be the important functionary in the City ho used to be. There was a still more serious condition of things when they came to consider the power that the City wielded at the present time. It exercised powers dealing with the metropolis as a whole; it controlled the markets at Islington and Smithfield, making a profit thereon. It controlled open spaces beyond a certain limit; it controlled its own police, a power which had been denied to the rest of the metropolis; it controlled the bridges. The City was the port sanitary authority; and, finally, it occupied an important position in regard to the Central Criminal Court—no small matter. All these things were, he contended, an irresistible argument for giving a better constitution to the City, rather than
452
leaving it with a worse constitution than that which it was proposed should be given to the bodies to be set up. Another feature of the City was that there was no provision for the paying off of its debt. Again, as to the boundary question, the City was pleading for an extension of its boundaries. By reason of the exclusion of the City the Bill made no provision for machinery to extend its boundaries. In conclusion, he said he proposed the Amendment with no desire to shear the City, and he could not believe that the Government would allow the Amendment to go past without giving some ground for refusing it, and the removal of the grievance which it sought to redress.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The question raised by the honourable and learned Member is precisely the same as that raised by the Amendment moved to the Second Reading of the Bill, and the House on that occasion determined that the Government were acting wisely in not including any alteration of the constitution of the City within the purview of this already sufficiently complicated Measure. The honourable Gentleman has said the position of the City is such, and the responsibilities of the City are such, that we ought to give it, not a worse, but a better, constitution than those we propose to give to the other municipalities created by the Bill. The words "good" and "bad" in connection with any constitution in the world—certainly municipal constitutions among others—are, alter all, relative terms, and the fact that a constitution is in actual operation and that it is in working order, and that it works well, is, in my opinion, a very strong argument for leaving it alone. I think that, when the honourable Gentleman gets up and makes an attack on the constitution of the City, he should have shown that in its actual working it has proved ineffectual. One of the main objects of the Bill in regard to other parts of London is to provide a constitution which shall give to these municipalities all the dignity which municipal work ought to command. That dignity the City of London already possesses, and that alone differentiates it, and, I think, differentiates it in a very marked manner, from the other

453
areas with which we have to deal That being so, the honourable Gentleman is bound to prove that the constitution of the City of London in practice has worked with hardship either to the citizens of the City or to some other body of the citizens of the metropolis. He has not done so, and, therefore, he seems to me to have failed in carrying his argument to a successful issue. Of course, no one denies that the City is in many respects anomaleus—that it does not fit in either with the new constitution we propose to establish, or with the existing constitutions of the great municipalities in the provinces. But the anomalous character of the City of London is in no small degree due to its ancient, history. The very fact that it is anomalous is a proof that it has descended to us through long centuries of English history, and if these anomalies cannot be shown to carry in their train practical ill effects, I confess I shall see them altered with very great regret. I think it will be admitted that if we are to carry this Amendment, and put, down on the Paper all the consequential Amendments which will be involved, we shall introduce ourselves into an area of controversy which will make it extremely difficult to pass the Bill within any reasonable time. There is no maxim of practical politics more solidly established than that it is fatal to attempt to deal with every part of a complicated matter in one Measure. Under the conditions of modern legislation it is folly to attempt it. On the merits of the Amendment I cannot think of accepting it; but, even if I were prepared on the merits to accept the Amendment, I should, as a practical legislator, as a person more less responsible for the allocation of the time of the House, say that the alteration or reform of the City should be deferred to a separate Measure and a different Session. Nothing in this Bill makes it more difficult than it was before to reform the City; there is nothing in it which stereotypes existing arrangements. As the Minister responsible for the conduct, of this Measure, I must protest that I cannot have it complicated and overweighted by a number of questions which will inevitably arise if I am for a moment to contemplate the possibility of accepting the honourable and learned Member's Amendment. I hope, Sir, the
454
Committee, will follow the example of the whole House, and, by a large majority, reject an Amendment which I think, in its results, will be almost fatal to the Bill.
CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he should like to put a few points before the Committee in reply to the remarks of the right honourable Gentleman. The right honourable Gentleman had said that Epping Forest had been gained for London through the action of the City. That was precisely correct, but by what means did they do so? They did so not by drawing upon their own private purse, but by drawing upon the coal and corn dues obtained from London as a whole. With reference to the statement that little interest was taken in the wardmotes of London, he was in a position to state that little more than 1,000 out of 30,000 on the register atended the 26 wardmotes to elect 200 councillors. He found that in the great ward of Broad Street, out of no fewer than 2,301 voters on the register, and with eight, members to be elected, there was only an attendance of 21 at the wardmote meeting. Coleman Street Ward, with 1,580 voters on the register, only showed an attendance of 31 at the wardmotes; Farringdon Without, with 5,175 voters on the register, showed 42 attendances at the wardmotes. It could not, therefore, be denied that the amount of interest taken in the City elections was comparatively little. His contention was that it was impossible to adequately reform the area of the County of London as a whole if they were to place one part, and that the most important part, in a different position from that which the other areas occupied. It had been said that the City was well governed. It was governed in such a way that the Corporation expenditure was something like £800,000 per annum and that of the, City Commissioners of Sewers £400,000, or a total of £1,200,000. This was a vast, expenditure for an area of 659 acres and a, resident population of little more than 30,000. If the remainder of London were to be governed upon that principle he should like to know what the expenditure, would be, and what would be the amount which the poorer portions of the metropolis would have to pay.

455
Civil government cost over £70,000 a year, collection and management of rates considerably over £40,000, the London Central markets over £100,000, and magistracy and police not far short of £50,000. Donations, pensions, etc., stood for more than £20,000; while educational expenses figured for only £15,500 odd. Moreover, a sum of about £30,000 had been lost to the Corporation in six years on account of friction between the Commissioners of Sewers and the Board of Guardians, the loss for the past year being no less than£10,000. What Liberals all desired, and more especially those who represented areas outside the City, was to have their fair share, not in the wealth, but in the dignity of the great City of London. He would give an analogy. What would have been thought, for example, of the great architect of the Houses of Parliament if, when erecting the buildings, he had taken no notice whatever of Westminster Hall, or of the cloisters built by Henry VIII., or of that portion of the building where the original chamber of the House of Commons stood? The fact that he harmonised the whole was one of his great claims to greatness as an architect. This was precisely what they wanted to do with reference to the City of London. They had no desire to destroy the great Guilds of the. City—at least he had none—but what he did say was that they ought to take their share in forming one of those areas of which Greater London was to be composed. If the City was to be permitted to continue to hold the position it now held, without taking its share in providing its own poor as the head of the great metropolis, then he for one, was bitterly opposed to the new scheme.
On the return of the CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES, after the usual interval—
MR. LEUTY: To any-one accustomed to the vigorous life, both political and corporate, of the large towns of the country, it seems a great misfortune that the Corporation of the City of London has been strong enough hitherto to prevent reform coming within its own borders. This has distinctly deprived the metropolis of that influence in the country which it ought to have by reason of its enormous population and in many other ways. Who
456
shall say that the great power strikingly exercised by Birmingham a little while ago was not, to be largely attributed to the fact that Birmingham got the full benefit of the reform of 1835 which the Corporation of the City of London successfully obstructed, and through which there had been much legislation which might have been saved. If there were any doubt on that point it would be dissipated by the Report of the Royal Commission of 1893, presided over by Mr. Courtney, which said that—
"If the two great principles of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1835—viz., first, extension of area, and, second, reform of constitution—had been applied to the City of London half a century ago, much subsequent legislation might have been spared, and there would obviously have been no necessity for the present Commission. To complete the work then left undone, and, as far as possible, on similar lines, in order to bring London into harmony with the other municipal corporations of the country, seems to be the proper solution of the problem with which we have to deal."
We have heard a great deal lately about the repayment of debt, but the abuses that are perpetrated by the failure of reform are illustrated by the way in which the City has been permitted to deal with its debt. Some of the debts of the larger provincial cities are very great, but their assets are greater. Moreover, Parliament insists in the case of these provincial cities that their assets, even when these consist of land, must be paid for in a maximum of 60 years, though many have to be paid for in much shorter periods. But the Corporation of the City of London may borrow money for street improvements, which can hardly be called realisable assets, and if any part of their debt is paid off it is done by the expedient of the sale of properties. Then there is the injustice which arises from the different assessments made by different bodies in London. There ought to be one rate which would fall equally on all those bodies. It is useless making a rate of a shilling if it falls in one part on real value and in another part on a fancy figure considerably below real value. The evils of assessment are exaggerated in the City of London from the number of the parishes and the smallness of the population in some of them, and from the fact that many individual properties are found to be in as many as three parishes and have to be assessed by three different authorities.

457
An attempt is made to grapple with these evils so far as they affect the metropolis by clause 13 of the Bill, but why that effort has not been extended to the City of London it would be difficult to show with conclusiveness. It may be said that there would be greater difficulty in dealing with it in the City, and that the Bill is sufficiently complicated already without introducing the City. But the Bill does not seem to me to be particularly complicated, and it would have been more to the credit of the Government if, instead of speaking about complications and difficulty of working, they had set their hands to the work and dealt with those evils in the unreformed condition of the City. Again, the failure to reform the government of the City has caused great waste of money. The cost of administration by overseers within the City is just user £24,000, while the cost of administration in the proposed new borough of Chelsea, which is about the same size, is £3,000, or an eighth of the cost of the City. In the mere matter of registration the cost to the City is £4,000, and in Chelsea £600. The establishment, including the collection of rates—and I presume that it will not be urged that the great expenditure in the City is caused by the large amount of ground that the collector has to go over from one house to another—costs in the City just under £16,000, whereas in Chelsea it is a little over £1,600. These figures ought either to be shown to be wrong or the Government ought to give some more cogent reason than the difficulty and complexity of the subject for refusing to deal with it. I am afraid that the influence of the City has been so great with the Government as to secure not the advantage of the City, but rather that it will continue hampered by old and expensive methods. But if there is one thing proved conclusively from the past history of the various attempts made to grapple with the reform of the City it is, that the longer the delay in the matter it does not become easier, but that it will increase in difficulty and magnitude.
MR. TREVELYAN: The right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury began his speech by complaining of this discussion having been raised by my
458
honourable Friend. Now, Sir, I think it is as well that the Committee should make up its mind that this discussion is not the same as that on the Second Reading of the Bill. The discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill was chiefly on the powers to be exercised by the new authorities and by the City and the County Council respectively. The question we are discussing is the foam of the government of the City alone Honourable Gentlemen on the other side of the House should not, as they appear to have done, form a conspiracy of silence, and apparently make no attempt whatever to answer the real arguments that are put forward on this side. The right honourable Gentleman who introduced the Bill in his first speech about it said that the Bill was intended to complete, as far as may be, the local government of the metropolitan area. I should have thought that anyone who introduced a Bill of this kind would have first considered what particular local body required most reformation in its constitution. Our argument in bringing forward this Amendment is, that of all local bodies which exist in London that which most demands internal reform is the City and not the vestries. We are perfectly ready to admit that the vestries are not ideal bodies, but the City needs a great deal more reformation than the vestries and the other local bodies. I will add a few facts to those already brought forward to show that the local government areas within the City of London are clumsy, numerous, and a cause of great expense to the City; that a great deal of simplification is required; that the government is not truly representative and is largely irresponsible; that the management of the finances of the City is bad and under less control than in the municipalities. To take first of all the question of local government areas within the City, I put aside the question of the different wards which elect the Common Council. It is true that they are numerous—more numerous than they should be—more numerous than any Commission which ever sat thinks that they should be. I point out that there is another local government area besides the wards which deserves our consideration. These are the parishes for the purpose of overseeing the City, and these parishes number 112. Some of them are not much more than a

459
single acre in area. The Bank of England extends over three of them, and entirely includes one of them. All this is, of course, a source of very great expense indeed to the people of the City, so much so that the City pays to these authorities a sum of £24,608, whereas Chelsea for the same purposes and with an area just a little larger than the City pays £3,050. I therefore want to know how it adds to the dignity of the City—which is the only argument brought forward by the right honourable Gentleman in defence of his exclusion of the City from the Bill—to waste this money every year. It is no revolutionary suggestion that the City should be, at any rate, assisted to spend rather less money than in this wasteful manner. I go on to the question of the system of election. We on this side of the House are not necessarily enamoured with any one particular system of election. "That which is best administered is best." But there is a very strong probability that if you have not got a system in which the people of the district take any interest, a system which actually causes, by its complications, that the people cannot take any interest in it, it is extremely likely that such a system will lead to bad administration. We say that the system of the election of the mayor, for instance, by a body quite other than that over which he will preside, and the system of the election of the Common Council, is not one that is likely to lead to good government in the City. Now Lord Salisbury, who is very fond of attacking the London County Council, sometime ago made a speech, in which he said—
"The vice of the body is that it represents so large a community that men will not take an interest in its election."
That was an a priori argument of the Prime Minister which fell in with his views of what things should have been with regard to the London County Council, but it does not in the least fall in with the real facts of the case. As a matter of fact, in the elections of 1892, 42 per cent. of the electors went to the poll; in 1895, 48 per cent. voted; and in 1898, 50 per cent. went to the poll, which shows a steadily increasing interest all round in the affairs of the London County Council. Now, I will turn and put Lord Salisbury's test to
460
the City of London, and see what becomes of the vice of the men that do not take an interest in their local elections. I take the years when you would have expected that the City of London would have taken the greatest interest in the election of its Common Council, namely, the years 1893 and 1894. Those were the years in which there were proposals made for the amalgamation of the City with the London County Council. Those were the years when the defenders of the City themselves tried to urge those who were voters in the City to take some part in the elections. Upon this occasion the "City Press" wrote the day before St. Thomas's Day in 1894—
"The City elections this year will, no doubt, be watched as they have never been watched before, and it is important that citizens should show that they mean to maintain the local institutions and privileges which have been handed down to them."
Now what was the result of that appeal, and what was the result of the other appeals made to them to come and defend their privileges, which one would have thought was the first thing they would have been desirous of doing? We found that in the Lime Street Ward, where four members had to be elected, that out of 591 voters, there was only an attendance of 14 in one year, and 12 in another.
SIR E. CLARKE: Was there any contest?
MR. TREVELYAN: There was not a contest, and there was generally an average of one contest in the course of a year. Now, is there any other body or constituency in the country that would be satisfied with returning the same men every year, and with practically, I am bound to say, allowing these men to return themselves, for in the figures I am reading there are included all the candidates who are standing for the different wards, of whom there are between 8 and 14 in the different wards of the City. Certainly the people in the City themselves do not regard it as a matter of great credit to themselves in reference to this entire indifference which is taken in the elections. In one of these areas, in the ward of Farringdon Without, there were 5,175 voters, and in one year 42 attended, and in the other 29 attended.
MR. R. G. WEBSTER: Was there any contest?
MR. TREVELYAN: There was no contest. In this election, one of the gentlemen present asked a question. According to what appeared in the "City Press"—
"Mr. Shires asked what the Government or the County Council would think if the representatives of either body attended a meeting such as that. Out of 5,000 electors, there were not 50 present. They took no interest in their own affairs, and the apathy was enough to make one's blood run cold."
I say that such a system as this is not worthy of imitation. If the Government of the City was one to which no reproach could be attached at all; if there was nothing to say beyond this, that they did not take an interest in their elections, the point would not be of much value. But the point is, that the City in many quarters is very seriously criticised, and the fact that they themselves and their representatives care so little about criticism that they go on returning the same members as they do at present, is only an additional proof that some kind of reform is wanted. I call attention also to another fact. There are in the Corporation 232 members. Now this Bill which has been brought forward by the Government is partly directed to reducing what is undoubtedly the too numerous membership of the various vestries throughout London, and I should have thought it was worth the attention of a reforming Government on those lines to have considered whether the Common Council ought not to have its numbers reduced to something like a working number. The result of the action of a body which is so elected is, at any rate, serious, and worthy of consideration in one respect. There has never been any sufficient answer given as to why the finances of the City are in the condition in which they are at the present time, and why year after year there is a deficit; why no economies are practised, and why the debt goes on increasing. Why are the finances of the City in this condition? Why, when Parliament is reforming London government, should it choose to leave out the City of London and extend to it a privilege which is not extended to any other corporation of involving itself in debt which it is
462
not bound to repay by a certain date? As long as the Corporation is open to this criticism, I think the Government is bound to consider whether the City should not be put on a different basis. On this side of the House we have no feeling of dislike against the City on account of the antiquity of its institutions, for there is nothing which we are more likely to be proud of than its antiquity. We were proud of the City in the old days when it sent out trained bands to fight for the liberties of the country; we were proud of the stand made for Wilkes, and we are proud of what the City did in 1832. All that we want on this side of the House is that that antiquity should be continued in modern hands, and should be vested in some body that can carry it on under some system by which it may be enabled to continue its good work, so that we may still be proud of its present existence as we are already proud of its antiquity.
MR. PICKERSGILL: I was waiting to see whether anyone would rise to reply to the excellent speech hade by my honourable Friend who has just sat down. No one having risen, I take it that no answer can be given to the very strong indictment which my honourable Friend has made against the present government of the City. We have had only one speech from the other side, and therefore I will revert to the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury. That speech was one of a kind in which, since I have been a Member of this House, I have grown very familiar with whenever the question of the reform of the Corporation of the City of London is raised, and it is this, that however appropriate it may be, the occasion is not now, and however relevant the subject matter of the Bill before the House may be, we are always told that it is not a convenient season. I remember very well the passage of the Local Government Act of 1888, and upon that occasion the present President of the Board of Trade was strongly opposed to the inclusion of the City Corporation within the purview of that Bill. Now what did the right honourable Gentleman say in reply. He said—
"The Government do not regard this as a complete Measure for the reform of local

463
government in London, and we hope, on some future occasion, to bring in a Bill dealing with the local area of London."
And then he went on to say—
"One of the local areas in London, of course, will be the City."
Now, I think we have a very fair claim to say that that opportunity has arisen to-day to which the right honourable Gentleman then referred, and that, as one of the local areas in London is the City, we are fairly entitled to press the Amendment which is now before the House. The First Lord of the Treasury said that the question which is raised by this Amendment has already been discussed upon the Second Reading of the Bill. I venture, with all respect, to distinctly traverse that statement. What was really decided on the Second Reading was that the Government were not willing upon the present occasion to amalgamate the City and the London County Council upon the lines more or less suggested by the Commission presided over by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Bodmin. I, for one, reluctantly, of course, accept that decision. I recognise that the Government is still determined to exclude London from its proper inheritance, and that that one square mile included in the City is still to continue to absorb the prestige and the honour and the control of things which properly belong to London as a whole. I accept that, but if I correctly apprehend the Amendment now before the House, a very different question is raised, for the objects at which this Amendment is directed are, if I may say so, upon a very much lower plane than the object which this House sought to obtain by the Amendment which was moved the other day, for the object this Amendment mainly has in view is recommended by businesslike considerations and considerations of administrative convenience which must, I think, be as welcome and agreeable to the ratepayers in the City as to the ratepayers in any other part of London. The right honourable Gentleman gave illustrations of the kind of reform which he desired to see carried out if his Amendment were accepted, and perhaps I may be permitted to add to his illustrations one or two more. Take, for instance, the case of the overseers and the duties which they discharge. Now this
464
Bill, as it is drawn, proposes that in each metropolitan borough the borough councils shall combine the overseers, and that where there is more than one parish within the borough they shall appoint the same gentlemen as overseers for all the parishes. That is as the Bill is drawn, but there are Amendments from both sides of the House which desire the simplification of the matter, and to make the borough council, without the intervention of the overseers, discharge the duties which the overseers have hitherto performed. This evil which the present Bill seeks to correct exists in an exaggerated form in the City of London, where you have no fewer than 112 parishes with separate sets of overseers. Surely, the simplification which you desire in London as a whole should be applied also to the City, where there is far more reason for applying it than in other parts of London. Then, again, this Bill deals with assessments to this extent—it provides that under certain conditions the borough council shall appoint the assessment committee. That is a reform in a businesslike and practical manner which is much more ugently required within the square mile of the City than outside. What do we find in the City? Why, we find the most insignificant areas as units of assessment. Each parish is the assessment authority. My honourable Friend mentioned a moment ago that the Bank of England is situated in three different parishes, and wholly absorbs one of them. May I add to what he had said that the Bank of England actually appoints its own overseers, and itself assesses that part of its property which constitutes the whole of one parish, and it is also the dominating influence in the assessment of the adjoining parishes. And with what result? The Bank of England, for rating purposes, is assessed at something over £55,000. The London County Council states, up in the authority of expert opinion, that this £55,000 as the valuation of the Bank of England is grossly inadequate, and ought to be considerably over £100,000. But what can the Committee expect when the Bank of England is actually allowed to assess its own property? Just one word more before I sit down. The question of auditing has been raised, and there appears to be an impression, from some

465
cheers which have been raised from the other side of the House, that the City Corporation is so absolutely immaculate in regard to its proceedings that it is almost sacrilege to raise this question of the audit. I wish to speak respectfully with regard to the City Corporation, but I cannot forget that since I have been a Member of this House there has been a Select Committee which has inquired into the expenditure of the City Corporation, and it found that in 1888 a special committee of the Corporation of the City of London had spent enormous sums, amounting to thousands of pounds, out of the City's estate in a grossly improper and indefensible manner in subsidising bogus associations. In these circumstances, I think you ought to give to the City of London the same advantages, at least, and the same benefits which are given with regard to audit which you are applying to the rest of the metropolis. I only desire to say that I hope it will be understood that this Amendment certainly raises a different question from that which we discussed on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I cannot for the life of me understand why ratepayers in the City of London should object to be included in the businesslike and practical reforms which are being applied to other parts of the metropolis.
MR. BUXTON: I think it is to be regretted that we are to be allowed to discuss this Bill without any attempt being made to reply to a very important Amendment, which raises a matter which I think the Committee is fully entitled to discuss. I heard the whole speech of the right honourable Gentleman, and what I am complaining of is that there is a conspiracy of silence in regard to this Amendment, and I would therefore make an appeal to honourable Members on the other side of the House with regard to this point. I think I may say that we have no desire to obstruct this Bill, or to destroy it. But when Amendments of importance are proposed, I think we should have a reasonable discussion upon them. In his very short speech, the chief argument of the right honourable Gentleman was that we had already discussed this matter on the Second Reading, and therefore there was no necessity to discuss it again upon this
466
occasion. I think my honourable Friend has shown quite conclusively that the point which he now proposes is a totally different one to that which we were discussing on the Second Reading of this Bill. The point then was the question raised by the Report of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Bodmin, namely, whether the City should be amalgamated and practically absorbed by, the London County Council, and whether the whole of London should be brought under the government of one body in that way. What, at all events, will be raised if the Amendment is carried is whether certain powers which the City has at present should or should not be transferred to the central body governing, the whole of the metropolis. I do not think that this is a large question, as stated by the Leader of the House. His argument was, as I understood it, not so much going into the merits of the case, as the fact that this Bill did not raise the question of the City at all. I think the point I have in my mind in regard to this Amendment is, that there are certain reforms proposed in regard to the rest of the metropolis which is largely managed by the central body, and the City alone is excluded, and that other powers which the City has are not given to the rest of the metropolis, and which might very usefully be transferred to the London County Council. The right honourable Gentleman stated that by leaving out the City he did not prejudice the question, but on an occasion like this, when you are raising the whole question of London government, is it not most seriously prejudicing the question by leaving out altogether one section of it? It is quite certain that the House of Commons will not allow the same question to be discussed over and over again within a limited number of years. In consequence of not touching it on the present occasion, the result will be that the House will be prevented from discussing the question for many years to come. The honourable Gentleman said my honourable Friend had not put his finger upon any blots in the government of the City, and had not shown any particular matters which should be reformed; in fact, that he had not made out his case for proposing any alteration in I he present system. The answer to that is that we have had a Royal Commission, which

467
pointed out very serious blots of omission and commission on the part of the City, and it pointed out something like twenty matters of great importance which it was necessary to reform, and I believe at the present moment, which is more than 40 years after that Commission reported, only about 10 per cent. of these reforms have been instituted, and every one of them of the smaller degree. There were reforms proposed with regard to the election of the mayor, aldermen and the Common Council, the selection of whom was to be placed on a more popular basis, and the reason given was that they were doing to deal with these matters as questions of practical reforms. This met with the greatest possible opposition, and they had not the least intention of carrying out these reforms. I know that the honourable and learned Member for Ply-month said the other night in the Second Reading Debate that the City required no reforms. All I can say is that I do not think we should take his view upon the status of municipal reform as of very great value, because the Committee will remember that he made an emphatic declaration that the Metropolitan Board of Works was the best form of municipal government which this country had ever seen. A man who sets that Board up on such a high pinnacle has not much idea, of what municipal reforms ought to be. The right honourable Gentleman in his speech has put the whole basis for this Bill which he has introduced on what I think is a right and sound business footing, namely, to give greater dignity to these local bodies, and he says that if you do that you will get a better set of men to manage local affairs. He also said that the City had got that dignity. All I say is, that they may have got the dignity, but they have not got the men. I am not speaking disrespectfully of those who govern the City, but I think every member of the Committee will admit that those principally interested in the City, such as the merchants, the capitalists, and the bankers, and so on, either practically ignore the whole government of the City, or take very little part in it, because it has no attractions for them. I think that shows conclusively that in the City they have not succeeded in attracting the best sort of men. My honourable Friend behind me urged one or two points in which it is perfectly clear that there is plenty of room for reform.
468
There is the question of the audit and the question of loans. I do not want however, to bring the right honourable Gentleman's attention so much to there particular points which have been made and which have shown that there are great blots at present in the government of the City, but what I want to bring out is this—that this Amendment in my opinion, is not director against the City as such, but is drawn up in the interest of the great community and the better administration of the metropolis as a whole. There are two classes of powers which the City has at the present moment, and I do think that some Amendment ought to be introduced into this Bill to enable us to discuss whether or not any of those powers should be transferred from the City to the London County Council. There is one in which the City practically administers far the whole of London, and over which it has entire control, and there are other powers which the London Count; Council at, the present moment administer in the rest of the metropolis, but not in the City. Reference has been mad already to the question of the markets, and surely that point is one in which we ought to have an opportunity in this Bill of discussing. That subject in entirely in the hands of the City of London. I think we ought to be allowed to consider whether the markets should be in the hands of a central body which would represent the interests of the metropolis at large. I am not going to say anything in regard to the administration of the markets, although I am bound to nay that, there has been a good many allegations which appear to have some foundation in regard to the management of these markets. There is the sum of £120,000 a year profit on those markets, and most of that money goes to the relief of the rates in the City instead of to the rates of London as a whole. Therefore I say that this is a matter which we are entitled to discuss here, for the reform in connection with these markets is one which ought to be carried out for the benefit of the whole of the metropolis, for it is not right that the profits of the markets, which are derived from London as a whole, should go to one small portion of the metropolis. Then there are other matters to which I have referred, in which the County Council have the power and jurisdiction on through-

469
out the rest of the metropolis, but not, unfortunately, in the City as well. There was one question that ought to be controlled by the central authority for London. He did not think it was right that the City should get rid of its obligation under the Artisans' Dwellings Act, and at the same time get rid of its proper share as against the rest of the metropolis. The question of bridges was also a matter which affected the whole of the metropolis, and ought to be also under the control of the central authority. He desired to say that, so far as he was concerned, he had no desire to attack the City; he merely wished to bring it into closer touch with the rest of the metropolis.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: It appears to me that it is not needful to go into details as to the grievances brought against the City. Honourable Gentlemen will observe that these criticisms, be they well or ill-founded, are not really relevant to this discussion. All the questions which have been touched upon are questions of interest and importance; but surely it is in the just jurisdiction of any Government to say whether they will cover the whole subject in their legislation, or whether they will be more moderate in their endeavours and cover only a part. We think that the Bill would be overloaded if we dealt with all the subjects that have been specified. I do not think that there are any abuses connected with the City of London which call specially for immediate reform, but even if there are, I think we are perfectly entitled to ask the Committee to deal with the area, limited, indeed, though it be, but still surely large enough for our efforts for one Session, and which are contained between the four corners of this Bill. The honourable Gentleman complained that we have so drawn the Bill that a large number of topics which ought to be discussed cannot be discussed. The honourable Gentleman must, indeed, have a grievance When the subjects which are left in the Bill are not sufficient to satisfy the most omnivorous appetite. The course which we have pursued does not prejudice at all any scheme for the reform of the City. It does not lay down that in the opinion of Parliament the City ought not to be touched. It does not imply that the reform of the City of
470
London, if it is desirable, shall not be a subject which shall be dealt with by Parliament in some future Session; but it does say that in the course of the Sestion of 1899 it is sufficient for the Committee to deal with the vast area to which this Bill applies, and we may limit the discussions to that area, and leave untouched the complex problems Which the enlargement of the City of London must invariably involve.
MR. BURNSsaid the right honourable Gentleman was entitled to any opinion he might hold as to the limits of the Bill, haying regard to the large majority which he could command. The House was confronted with a Bill for the better government of London, and it did seem ridiculous to leave out from its discussion an authority which controlled Epping Forest on the one side and vast commons on the other, as well as the markets of the old metropolis. If it suited the convenience of the Government to leave the City untouched this Session, it was the misfortune of the Committee and not their fault. The fact was that successive Governments were afraid to include the reform of the City when they set about reforming other parts of the great metropolis. He was not more tender towards the City than the right honourable Gentleman was towards the area of Westminster, the Strand, Mile End, and Stepney, the local lives of which were to be disintegrated on the ground of good government. He thought the City was capable of reform and needed it, and it was a remarkable fact that it was to be left out of the Bill. Why it should be left out he failed to understand, especially when they had regard to the safeguards with which the new municipalities were to be surrounded, which were not to apply to the City. The new localities were to be subjected to an audit by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the President of the Board of Trade, and could not spend 3d on a cup of tea, whilst the City could spend £22,000 without exception being taken. If the City was not to be included on the ground of its antiquity, then he submitted that that in its present form could not be defended on that ground. It was no more ancient than a vestry. If they went into history some vestries had a claim to be left alone, but what would be done to those which asked

471
to be left alone The Government cut down the members of them from 102, on the ground it was too large a number, to 70. The City, which was a very small area, had 206, which were to be left untouched. With regard to public works, he thought that London had a right to ask that those works which were performed by the City at the cost of London as a whole should not be left in their hands any longer, but that they should be taken over by the central authority, the County Council. It was not fair for a city with 31,000 night population and one square mile to levy a heavy duty on 5,000,000 of people of Greater London, and whether that was the appropriate opportunity or not he protested against such a course. Some honourable Members on the other side were only too anxious to defend the City when it was right or wrong, and they could never hear the word City "mentioned unless they heard the magic words 'Epping Forest." He ventured to say that if they had had a great municipality for London, including the City, they would have preserved more of Epping Forest than the City had; and if the City had represented the whole of London there would have been more parks and open spaces. The City, perhaps, was in some respects the most extravagantly administered square mile in the world. Admitting that the square mile was widely different from any other square mile, the amount of money spent on roads, paving, etc., was considerably disproportionate to the number of acres that were kept in order. Much that the City got credit for was what was done by other bodies. For instance, the City ought to look after its fire brigade. At the present moment the London County Council was responsible for the fire brigade and many other branches of work requiring close supervision. The City did not even do its main drainage. The fact was that the City did the more ornamental civic duties on an extravagant scale, while much of the effective work within its area was remitted to the County Council. The same fault was to be found with the assessment work of the City. The Bank of England was assessed at £55,000 a year rateable value, while on the County Council scale it ought to be assessed at £108,000. The State, for reasons best known to itself, let the old woman of Thread-
472
needle Street off very lightly. No Government, however, ought to allow such a difference to be made by taxing the food of the poor in Billingsgate and Smithfield markets. The sum of £22,000 per annum was spent on the Mansion House and Lord Mayor, while £120 per annum only was spent on administering the Shop Houses Act. The administration of the City was bringing about a state of things which first begat apathy, then indifference, maladministration, and corruption. He believed there was but one remedy, and that was to make the Guildhall the centre of the 119 square miles of Greater London, with the five or six millions of people within its jurisdiction. He wanted to see the City in its right place, representative of that City of London which Members on both sides of that House represented; and it was because he believed that the City could no longer stand without reform, and that this was the opportunity for it, that he should vote for the Amendment of his honourable and learned Friend.
*SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid he thought a few words should be said on behalf of the City in reply to some of the statements made by honourable Members opposite. His honourable Friend the Member for Poplar left the Committee under the impression that the City made a large profit out of the markets. It was quite true that on the Foreign Cattle Market there was a profit, but on the other markets there was a loss.
MR. BUXTONsaid that the latest returns showed that, taking the last seven years, there was a profit on the markets of £50,000 a year.
*Sir J. LUBBOCKsaid he was informed that there was a loss on the markets as a whole. Probably his honourable Friend made no allowance for interest and sinking fund. His honourable Friend said that if the Tower Bridge had been built by the London County Council it might have been placed on a different site. He believed the general opinion in the City was that the most convenient site had been selected. The honourable Member for Battersea said that Epping Forest was bought by the City with other people's

473
money, but he should like to know who those other people were. Then the honourable Member proceeded to tell the Committee that the fire brigade and sewers in the City were kept up by the London County Council, but he omitted to mention the important fact that the City paid an eighth of the whole expenses of the fire brigade and the sewers. As regards the administration of the Shop Hours Act, the great bulk of the population left the City early, and there was no reason why the shops should be kept open late at night. Then, with reference to the Guildhall, even if the City were treated precisely Ike other districts, the Guildhall would still be required for City purposes. Every part of London had its own hall. So much for the reasons given for including the City. He had the honour of addressing the House on the Second Reading, and the reasons he then gave why the City should not be included had not been touched upon in the Debate except as regarded the points he had mentioned. Then he came to the question of the advantage it would be to the City to be included. The honourable Member for the Elland Division stated that there were not many contested elections in the City, and that the Common Council was improperly elected. It is quite true that there were not many contested elections in the City, because if a man stood well in the City it was useless for a stranger to oppose him. They took great care to get the best amen, and when they got them they thought it wise to keep them. He entirely denied, however, that there was any indifference or apathy in the City in reference to municipal government. He believed there was no part of the metropolis which possessed more civic life than the City, and he was surprised that the honourable Member for Battersea should have made such sweeping statements without facts to support them. It was a remarkable circumstance that the honourable Gentlemen who attacked the City came from Scotland and the North of England. The bankers, the merchants, and the manufacturers of the City of London made no complaint of the present administration. He thought the Committee would agree that those engaged in mercantile affairs in the City were likely to know What was the best in their own interests than Gentlemen who came from the North.
MR. STUART (Shorediteh, Hoxton)said he was sure the Committee was very glad that someone had risen from the other side to defend the position of the City, and no one was better able to undertake that task than the right honourable Baronet. There were two concurrent groups of points urged in the Debate, one not germane to the Amendment, though the other was. The points Which had not been answered by the right honourable Baronet were very distinctly germane to the question before the Committee, which was, how would the Amendment really affect the method of the internal government of the City? They were about to create certain boroughs in London with certain powers. They were going to alter the powers of the governing bodies, and the question raised by the Amendment was whether the City of London was to be submitted to that operation also. He would recall to the Committee some of the points which it was necessary to answer. For instance, they were going to alter in the other districts of London the action of the assessment committees in the interests of sound assessment He had sat for years on the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, and he was convinced by the evidence that on the whole the assessment of the local districts of London was better carried out than the assessments of local districts in any other part of the country with one great exception—the City of London. The Report of the Commission showed that the assessment of the City of London was exceedingly badly conducted. It was largely under assessed, and most irregularly assessed, and the result affected the receipts of the whole City of London. He therefore wished to know why the assessment of the City was not to be dealt with. The reason for its bad assessment was perfectly clear. It had 112 assessing bodies, 30 covering less than a couple of acres, and something like 20 having less than 30 inhabitants. How could the assessment be properly conducted under these circumstances? Why was not the City included in the Bill even in that respect. He assumed that the object of the form of words in the part of the Bill they were now considering was to exclude the City from that and other reforms, although the City needed the reforms which were to be conferred in the boroughs. There

475
was another reform he would mention. The City audit was extremely bad and absolutely insufficient, and no one would say it was satisfactory. The Government were about to improve the audit in the other districts, not as he would wish, but according to the best of their lights. That was provided for in clause 10, sub-section 2. Why should not London be brought up to the level of the other districts in that respect? Then, again, the borrowing powers of the London County Council were to be transferred to the Local Government Board. Why were not the borrowing powers of the City to be dealt with? It was not any advantage to the citizens of London that they should be able to borrow money without a sinking fund. The result was a stationary and unreduced debt—an evil which it would be well to get rid of. The City of London had also the right to sell its property without the leave of any supervising board. Other vestries in London had that right at present, but it was going to be taken away from them. Why was not that reform extended to the City, and why was not the method of rating proposed in the Bill to apply to the City? All these were matters in which it could not be contended that the position of the City was satisfactory. In fact, it was highly unsatisfactory. He should like to put a question to the Chair as to the effect of the Amendment. The words in the clause were—
"The whole administrative county of London, exclusive of the City of London."
The Amendment was to substitute "inclusive" for "exclusive." It was pot the case, as had been frequently stated, that the City was not dealt with in the Bill. Clause 8 contained the words—
"This section shall apply as if the Common Council of the City of London were a council of a metropolitan borough."
He wished to know whether if the Amendment where not carried they would be precluded thereby from moving the addition of words to other clauses similar to the words he had quoted from clause 8? For instance, clause 4 dealt with the appointment and duties of overseers and collectors of rates. Would it be open to them, if the Amend-
476
Ment were now rejected, to move at the end of that clause the following words—
"This section shall apply as if the Common Council of the City of London were a metropolitan borough."
MR. COURTNEY: I think we are entirely misconceiving the effect of this clause. As I conceive it, it only says that the whole of the administrative county of London, except the City, shall be organised in a certain specified manner, but that that organisation shall not apply to the City. The question dealt with in this clause is not the functions of the new boroughs, but their organisation, and the adoption of the Amendment would simply be to subject the City to the same organisation as the other boroughs, leaving undoubtedly the City with its present functions, which would constitute a question for subsequent consideration. We are now rather confusing the question of organisation with the question of the functions of the City and the other parts of London. We are now discussing the organisation; and the question of functions, which may separately arise, is not affected by it.
*THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: It seems to me that the first three clauses deal with the establishment of metropolitan boroughs, and the effect of the words, "exclusive of the City of London," being retained is simply that the machinery for the establishment of metropolitan boroughs throughout London is not to be applied to the City. I will not go any further than that. If any Amendments affecting the City of London arise at a future stage, I shall be prepared to deal with them when they are reached.
MR. ASQUITH: Do I understand you to rule, Sir, that if these words are retained it will still be competent to move at a later stage Amendments dealing with the existing powers and functions of the City?
*THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: It is rather a point that I wish to avoid giving a decision on. Sufficient to the day is the evil thereof. When we reach that stage I shall be prepared to deal with the matter.
MR. STUARTsaid he would very briefly conclude the remarks which had elicited the Chairman's ruling. He again asked for a reply to the points he had raised, which were completely germane to the Amendment.
MR. LOUGH: The right honourable Baronet who represented the University of London rather neglected one point, namely, the principle involved in markets in other areas in the metropolis being left subject to the authority of the City. Surely the boroughs to be created by the Bill could not be boroughs in any accepted sense of the word if they had not control over the markets in their respective areas. He could not follow the right honourable Gentleman in charge of the Bill on the argument on which he maintained the words which the Amendment proposed to omit, namely, that they were not going to touch the central authority. He would point out to the right honourable Gentleman that he did touch the central authority when it happened to be the County Council, and that he only avoided touching the central authority as far as it was necessary for the protection of the City. The right honourable Baronet spoke of honourable Members attacking the City. He had no desire to do anything of the kind. He had spent 30 years of his life in the City, and the thousands who came from all parts of the world received a hearty welcome. He therefore would be very reluctant to make any attack on the City, but was it an indignity or an attack to improve the government of the City? In improving the municipal government of Islington and Poplar and the other districts, they did not mean that there was corruption and maladministration. They only said that the requirements of municipal life demanded an improvement in government. Why should not the same argument apply to the City? They were fixing the areas all over London, and why should this single area of the City be excluded? What sub-divisions had they in the City? They had got 112 parishes there, and 28 wards, but the wards did not mean parishes, for they overlapped one another. The number of parishes was quite ridiculous, and there ought to be some recognition of the internal as well as the external area. If such matters were to be settled
478
all over the metropolis, why should the I City be left untouched, and all these anomalies be allowed to remain as in the I past. It would not deprive the City Corporation of any of its emoluments to simplify its areas in the manner in which the other areas throughout the rest of the metropolis were simplified. He would remind the House that the Irish Local Government Bill last year contained some 80 or 86 clauses when it was introduced, and when it was finished it contained 120 clauses, and the Government got the Bill through in a most amicable manner. Therefore, the a present Bill might be made three times as big if they consulted the views of municipal reformers generally, and the Government would still get the Measure through quite easily. With regard to the authority in the City, let the House I look at it separately for a moment. It consisted of the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of the City of London. Now, a how was the Lord Mayor chosen? He must be selected from a very small circle of aldermen who had served in the office of sheriff. He believed that that office alone cost something like £6,000 or £7,000 a year The mayor had a splendid carriage, and the sheriffs also had a carriage a little less splendid; but what they did besides acting as aides-decamp to the Lord Mayor would puzzle anyone to say. He did not see why the Lord Mayor should be selected from such a limited few when there was such a variety to choose from. Why should they not have a great actor, a great author, an eminent lawyer, or some member of the aristocracy as Lord Mayor? That was a very important point which ought to be considered. With regard to the aldermen, they should not forget the anomalous position which they occupied in the City, where they had 24 instead of the number pro, vided for in the Bill. He did not see why City aldermen should be elected for life, and made justices of the peace for life, because the aldermen under this Bill were only elected for six years, and were justices of the peace for only that period. He could not see any reason at all for the great distinction made between the City area and those areas outside. Why should there be 72 councillors for a large district like Islington, when for a small area like the City there were no less than 206 councillors carrying

479
on a sort of imitation of the proceedings of this House. With regard to the question of powers retained by the City, again they were face to face with certain anomalies in reference to assessment and other matters. Why should a single institution like the Bank of England be permitted to assess itself, for this was a general scandal. The Bank of England was the sole assessing authority for one parish, and it controlled two other parishes. The result was that the Bank of England fixed its assessment at £55,000 a year instead of £110,000. That was not the only example, because there were a few houses in Cornhill which constituted a parish in themselves and practically made their own assessment. Surely that was a scandal which ought not to be allowed, and it cannot be said that it adds to the honour and dignity of the City Corporation that such abuses should be allowed to continue. Those arguments had not been answered, and the progress of the Bill would not be facilitated by refusing to give them a fair reply to their criticisms. If they were not strong in the Division Lobby, surely they must be treated fairly in Debate. If such anomalies in the City could be justified, let them hear the justification. He denied that they were attacking the City of London, for he maintained that they were its best friends, and they were proceeding in accordance with good democratic principles which were embodied in the City Corporation centuries ago. They were now asking that those abuses should be cleared away, and that the Corporation like the other boroughs, should be made fit for the great duties which it was asked to perform.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am very reluctant to trouble the House again, but the honourable Gentleman and other speakers opposite seem to think they have been treated with some discourtesy by the Government because speakers from this Bench have not gone into detail as to certain arguments honourable Gentlemen have brought forward. I can assure them they are entirely mistaken. The difference between us on the present occasion is this. The honourable Member for Islington and those who have preceded him have brought forward against the City of London a series of arguments
480
in dealing with matters which they say show a necessity for the reform of the Corporation and the present constitution of the City of London. The Government replied that these matters may or may not be of the importance which the honourable Gentlemen think they are; but, after all, the Bill is intended to deal with a smaller area of reform. The Government do not dogmatically assert that the City of London is incapable of reform; we do not assert that the matters referred to do not deserve the consideration of the House. We lay down no proposition whatever. We may express our own view, but we do not ask the Committee as a whole to accept it. All we do ask the Committee to do is to allow us to proceed with the reform of this metropolitan area, which is surely enough in itself to occupy the time of the House of Commons for one Session That is a reasonable demand. The honourable Gentleman must not think that it is in any sense of discourtesy to him that I refuse to go into the details of City administration—such as the question of assessment—raised by the honourable Gentleman. If the House desires, in addition to reforming the enormous metropolitan area, to reform also the City of Londonwhich is an entirely different and a more complicated problem—let it be done in a separate Bill; but I do think the Committee might be allowed to come to a decision, without any longer delay, on the simple issue before it. Honourable Gentlemen, at all events, must not suppose that we have the least desire at all to burke discussion.
MR. ASQUITH: The right honourable Gentleman brings in a Bill which purports to be a Local Government Bill dealing with the government of London; but he deliberately omits what many of us regard as the crux of the problem—namely, the City of London; and then the right honourable Gentleman takes his stand on the admitted incompleteness of his own proposal to deprecate what he calls the undue enlargement of the area of discussion. I demur to the proposition advanced by the right honourable Gentleman in an early part of the proceedings that the question involved in the Amendment was practically decided on the Second Reading of the Bill. The question which was

481
decided on the Second Reading, and which the Amendment does not reopen, was, whether the City central authority and the County Council should be fused into one body, and those dignified associations and ceremonial functions which at present cluster round the City should be in future asociated with the proposed new body representing 120 square miles of London at large, as the Commission presided over by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Bodmin recommended. The question which the Amendment raises is whether the reform which the Bill proposes to introduce in the case of every local authority in London should be denied to the central district of the City, and surely it is one which is worthy of full discussion and the deliberate judgment of the Committee. The important point is this—that if the Amendment is rejected, it will be impossible, in debating the later clauses of the Bill, to introduce by way of amendment any reference to the internal administration of the City. [Hear, hear.] That proposition is assented to on the other side of the House, and is borne out by the statement of the right honourable Gentleman himself. There has been in many respects a large improvement within recent years in the administration of the domestic affairs of the City of London. But there still remains in the City a number of what I will not call anomalies, because the First Lord of the Treasury loves anomalies, being of the opinion that there is a sentimental attraction in an anomaly which has a certain amount of historical association, which gives them a sort of primâ facie title; but I will style them practical grievances, of a serious and substantial kind, which, if the Bill is passed, will not be possible in any of the other local areas of London. There is the system of personal assessment. A more ridiculous system of assessment than that which at present prevails in the City of London it is impossible to imagine. This vast number of infinitesimal authorities, sometimes representing districts of not more than one or two acres in extent, with only 20 or 30 inhabitants, and each having a separate assessment, cannot be defended upon grounds of practical convenience, and it is absolutely impossible that such a system can be continued. What can be more absurd than the manner in which
482
the chief magistrate of the City of London was elected, and the system of audit? All these things will be impossible in any of the local authorities proposed to be created by this Bill. The principal object of this Amendment is to leave it open at a future state of the Committee to introduce within the area of the City of London remedies for these admitted and substantial grievances, which would not be allowed to exist in any other area in the metropolis, but which, if this Bill is passed, will continue to exist in the City of London stereotyped form. It is upon that ground rather than with the desire or intention of reopening the larger question of the amalgamation of the City authority with the London County Council that I ask the Committee to accept the Amendment.
MR. STEADMANsaid that personally he was a very young Member of the House, but he represented a London constituency, and he looked upon that Bill as one of the most important that had ever been introduced since the passing of County Councils Act in 1888. He was astonished to find that Members on the opposite side of the House had not had the courage to get up and support the Bill. The, Leader of the House had stated that the Bill was quite large enough in its present form without dealing with the City, but he might just as well say that it was large enough without dealing with Mile End Old Town. [Ministerial interruptions.] He had not received a University education, but he thought that he could still teach some honourable Members opposite a lesson in manners. Now, what were the facts of the case? The Government had a majority of 140 behind them, and yet the Leader of the House actually got up and told both the House and the country that the Bill in its present form was quite large enough for one Session without including the City within its scope. A more lame excuse he never heard in his life. The City of London had two representatives in this House, and not one of them had had the courage to speak in support of the proposal of the Government in regard to the City. Why did they not get up and refute the charges brought against the City of corruption and administration?
SIR E. CLARKE: There has been no such charge.
MR. STEADMAN (continuing)said that one of the most important questions they had to deal with was the housing problem, and the City evaded their responsibilities under the Housing Act of 1894. The natural consequence had been that the landlords had taken advantage of the great demand for house accommodation, and rents had risen not 25 per cent. only in the East End, but in some cases they had gone up 75 per cent. The minimum rate levied in the City was 2s. 11½d. in the £ and maximum 3s. 0½d., whereas the poorest districts of London had to pay 7s. and 8s. in the £ Surely they had a right to ask that they should share in the profits derived from the City. The poor people who had to live on the cheap fish left over at the Billingsgate Market and the "cag-mag" and what were known as "block ornaments" from Smithfield Market, did not participate in the profits of those markets, because they were under the control of the City. The Leader of the House, in winding up the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, said that, although the City of London was not included, that fact did not prevent any other Government at any future time from dealing with the question. If the right honourable Gentleman meant anything by that he meant that whenever the Liberal Party came into power it would be for them to bring in a Bill dealing with the City of London. That was all very well, but why did he make that statement? Simply because he knew very well that if the Liberal Party carried such a Bill through this House, the House of Lords would prevent it from becoming law. The Measure was a badly constructed one, and he should have thought that with all the machinery at their disposal, they would have been able to produce a Bill much more perfect in its character. He advised them to drop the Measure so far as this Session was concerned, and after the House had prorogued they would have more time to think the matter over, and then they might introduce a Measure more democratic in its character than the present Bill.
MR. MADDISONsaid that in the course of the Debate he had heard one or
484
two rather strange remarks. They had been twitted that those who supported the Amendment were only Scotchmen and Northcountrymen. He maintained, notwithstanding this charge, that it was quite possible for them to take some intelligent and active interest in the Government of London. He did not think it ought to be necessary to apologise in that House either for being a Scotchman or a Northcountryman when they intervened in a discussion of that sort. Some of them who had had provincial experience were able to look at the Measure with some close knowledge and perhaps a little more impartiality than the London Members. It did seem strange that the Government were resisting an Amendment which sought to extend the benefit of reform to the very place where it was needed most. No provincial town would entertain a proposal for municipal reform which left out that part which needed reforming the most. He had seen a great deal in vestrydom to excite much of his admiration, although it was a parochial sort of government which he thought could very well be improved.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I would ask the honourable Member to confine his remarks to the question before the Committee. He is wandering away from the subject.
MR. MADDISONsaid he had no desire to wander, and he did not intend to go into detail with regard to the various questions which had been raised. The First Lord of the Treasury had in his speech practically admitted that, so far as he was concerned, he was not prepared to say that the City was an ideal municipality, and the instances given had made it quite clear that anomalies did exist. There were grievances in the City at the present time which would not be tolerated in any other municipality in the kingdom, and the talk about the Amendment being an attack upon the City appeared to him to be very wide of the mark. There could only be one result of that Debate, and it would be that they would be very badly beaten in the Division Lobby; but another equally certain result would be that the country would see that the desire put forward by the Government to reform the City was not a thorough and real

485
one, because they had refused to admit an Amendment which they might have accepted even without traversing their major proposition, the object of which was to secure the absolute unity of London as a whole.

AYES.

Allhusen, Augustus H. E.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Arnold, Alfred

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Macdona, John Cumming

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ.(Manc'r

Maclure, Sir John William

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Finch, George H.

McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Marks, Harry H.

Balcarres, Lord

Fisher, William Hayes

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Balfour, Rt. Hn A.J.(Manch'r)

Fitz-Gerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Banbury, Frederick George

Folkestone, Viscount

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Forster, Henry William

Milward, Colonel Victor

Barry, Rt. Hn A. H. Smith-(Hunts

Fry, Lewis

Monckton, Edward Philip

Bartley, George C. T.

Galloway, William Johnson

Monk, Charles James

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Garfit, William

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin

Gedge, Sydney

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Beach, Rt. Hn Sir M. H.(Bristol)

Gibbs, Hn A. G. H. (City of Lond.

Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

Beckett, Ernest William

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Morrell, George Herbert

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Gilliat, John Saunders

Morrison, Walter

Bethell, Commander

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Morton, ArthurH. A. (Deptford)

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Mount, William George

Bigwood, James

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Muntz, Philip A.

Bill, Charles

Gorst, Rt. Hn Sir John Eldon

Murray, Rt. Hn A.Graham(Bute)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Goschen, Rt. Hn G.J. (St George's

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Bond, Edward

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Myers, William Henry

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Nicholson, William Graham

Boulnois, Edmund

Graham, Henry Robert

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Bousfield, William Robert

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Northcote, Hn. SirH. Stafford.

Brassey, Albert

Green, Walford D.(Wednesbury

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Penn, John

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Gretton, John

Percy, Earl

Butcher, John George

Gull, Sir Cameron

Pilkington, Richard

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

Hall, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. LordGeorge

Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Purvis, Robert

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

Hardy, Laurence

Rentoul, James Alexander

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Henderson, Alexander

Richards, Henry Charles

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hoare, Edw. Brodie(Hampstead

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Charrington, Spencer

Holland, Hn. Lionel R. (Bow)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Chelsea, Viscount

Howard, Joseph

Robinson, Brooke

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Howell, William Tudor

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Clarke, Sir Edwd. (Plymouth)

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

Round, James

Clough, Walter Owen

Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Rutherford, John

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Kemp, George

Sandys, Lieut. -Col. Thos. Myles

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Savory, Sir Joseph

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Kimber, Henry

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Cox, Irwin Edward B.(Harrow)

Knowles, Lees

Seely, Charles Hilton

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Lafone, Alfred

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton)

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Curzon, Viscount

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Smith, Abel H.(Christchurch)

Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Long, Rt. Hn Walter(Liverpool)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Stewart, Sir MarkJ. M'Taggart

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Lowles, John

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

Doughty, George

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Stock, James Henry

Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

Lubbock, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Strauss, Arthur

Drage, Geoffrey

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier

Question put—
"That the word 'exclusive' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: —Ayes 208; Noes 103.—(Division List No. 95.)

Sutherland, Sir Thomas

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Talbot, Rt. HnJ. G. (Oxf'd Univ)

Williams, Joseph Powell(Birm.

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Young, Commander(Berks, E.)

Valentia, Viscount

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn E. R. (Bath)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Webster, SirR. E. (Isle of Wight

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Wylie, Alexander

NOES.

Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.)

Hazell, Walter

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Allen, Wm(Newc.-under-Lyme)

Hedderwick, Thos. Charles H.

Roberts, John H.(Denbighsh.)

Allison, Robert Andrew

Holden, Sir Angus

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Asher, Alexander

Holland, Wm. H. (York, W.R.)

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Horniman, Frederick John

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Asquith, Rt. Hn Herbert Henry

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Baker, Sir John

Jones, William(Carnarvonsh.)

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Balfour, Rt. Hn J. Blair(Clackm.)

Kay-Shuttle worth, Rt. Hn Sir U.

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Barlow, John Emmott

Kearley, Hudson E.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Labouchere, Henry

Spicer, Albert

Billson, Alfred

Lambert, George

Steadman, William Charles

Birrell, Augustine

Langley, Batty

Stevenson, Francis S.

Broadhurst, Henry

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accringtn)

Strachey, Edward

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Leng, Sir John

Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

Burns, John

Leuty, Thomas Richmond

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Burt, Thomas

Lyell, Sir Leonard

Tennant, Harold John

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Macaleese, Daniel

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

Caldwell, James

McArthur, William (Cornwall)

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

M'Ghee, Richard

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Causton, Richard Knight

McKenna, Reginald

Wallace, Robert (Perth)

Cawley, Frederick

Maddison, Fred.

Walton John Lawson (Leeds, S.)

Channing, Francis Allston

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh)

Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.

Morgan, W. Pritchard(Merthyr

Wedderburn, Sir William

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Dillon, John

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Williams, John Carvell(Notts)

Dunn, Sir William

Moulton, John Fletcher

Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Fenwick, Charles

Nussey, Thomas Wilkins

Wilson, John (Govan)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Woodhouse, Sir J T(Huddersf'd

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Oldroyd, Mark

Yoxall, James Henry

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Gold, Charles

Power, Patrick Joseph

Mr. Haldane and Mr. Lough.

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Rickett, J. Compton

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
Progress was then reported.

REPORT OF SUPPLY.
  SUPPLY [21ST APRIL].
  Resolutions reported—

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1899–1900.
  1. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,211,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Staff for Engineer Services, and Expenditure for
  488
  Royal Engineer Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad (including Purchases) which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1900."
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,425,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1900."
  3. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,090,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Clothing Establishments and Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1900."
  4. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,531,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Supply and Repair of Warlike and other Stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1900."
  Resolutions read a second time.
  Amendment proposed to the First Resolution—
  "To leave out '£1,211,900' and insert '£1,191,900,' instead thereof."—(Mr. Dillon.)
  MR. DILLONsaid he desired to move the reduction of this Vote by £20,000 in respect of the sum which was asked for to complete the accommodation for the increased garrison in South Africa. The subject was raised on Friday last and Debated for some time in Committee, but no satisfactory explanation was given as to the cause of the increased garrison or whether it was intended to be a permanent increase. No satisfactory explanation had been given as to the locality in which the money was to be spent. The stun of £129,600 had already been voted, and £22,400 was now asked for to complete that sum. He felt it his duty to take this opportunity of protesting against this Vote, because it appeared to him that the House of Commons was called upon to acquiesce in an immense permanent increase in the military garrison in South Africa. Why was so large an increase required? It appeared to him that the policy of increasing their garrison from 3,000 to upwards of 9,000 men, at which figure it stood at the present moment, was a policy calculated to create and maintain irritation in that country, and to increase the likelihood of disturbance and, possibly, of war. It was to him a great question of principle, which the House should not agree to without protest. The sum of £129,600 had already been voted, and they were now called upon to vote £22,400 as a further sum. That made a total of £152,000, and yet the total estimated cost of the works was only £150.200. Under the circumstances why were they asked to vote £152,000? It seemed to him that the Estimates were prepared in a slipshod fashion, and he should like some explanation from the Colonial Secretary.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: The honourable Member has raised some question of detail in this Estimate, and he has also raised a question of principle to which I may be permitted to reply. He asks where this expenditure is to take place? This money is for the establishment of appropriate accommodation for the troops for the different garrisons in South Africa. Assuming that the principle accepted by the House that it is desirable to increase the garrison in South Africa, I think there will be no difficulty whatever in inducing the House to provide proper accommodation for the troops in such a way that their health and comfort may be secured without erecting more permanent buildings than at present exist. So far as the detail of the objection is concerned, I do not think the honourable Member attaches much weight to it. As far as the principle of the honourable Member's objection is concerned, I hardly think I am entitled to consider the honourable Member as a representative of the interests of the United Kingdom. I do not think the honourable Member will accept such a character, for he and one or two other Members from Ireland, unfortunately, in the case of any possible difficulties which may occur between this country and any foreign country, and even barbarous chiefs, were inclined to accept the position of advocate of the foreign country or the barbarous chiefs rather than of the United Kingdom. The honourable Member asked why it was necessary to increase the permanent garrison in South Africa, which, as he correctly states, was some few years ago between 3,000 and 4,000 men. I hope that upon this point I shall give an answer which will be satisfactory to the majority of the House. It was part of the general principle on which Her Majesty's Government thought it to be their duty to defend the possessions of Her Majesty against possible attacks. Those steps are regulated by the proceedings of other countries. If any other country should feel it necessary to increase its navy, we increased our Navy in proportion, on purely defensive principles and on the assumption that we are bound to maintain a certain proportion between the forces of this country and those of other countries. Fortunately that concludes Her Majesty's obligations with regard to

  491
  most of her possessions, as they are of an insular character and could be defended by the Navy. In the case of Africa, where we had a land frontier, the same principle obtains with regard to the land forces, and if our neighbours increase their military preparations we are bound also to increase ours. Let me take an illustration. It is only an illustration, because, fortunately, the hypothesis has net arisen and is not likely to arise. For instance, suppose the French Government, in the exercise of its discretion, thought it necessary to send large forces to Dahomey, we might think it necessary to increase our forces at Lagos. The Transvaal Republic, which borders both on the Colony of Natal and Cape Colony, has enormously increased their offensive or defensive forces within the last few years. It is within the knowledge of every Member of the House that they have spent enormous sums in forts, artillery, and rifles, and millions of cartridges have been imported. In these circumstances, what we considered a sufficient defensive force in previous years has become totally insufficient now under the altered circumstances. That is the sole reason—it is a necessity imposed upon us, and one which I think the House will recognise—for the increase of the garrison, and it is an increase which the Government must insist upon so long as they have the responsibility for the peace of South Africa.
  *MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)congratulated the right honourable Gentleman upon the fact that he had been able to make the assertion with a grave face that the precautions taken by the Transvaal Government bad been taken possibly with a view of invading British territory. The right honourable Gentleman appeared to have forgotten the fact that a raid had been made by English troops on the Transvaal, and in consequence the greatest antagonism was excited. The right honourable Gentleman appeared to harbour the idea of forcing a conflict with the Transvaal with the view of annexing that country. He did not think that anyone in that House believed that there was the slightest intention on the part of the Transvaal Government to make any raid into English territory. Under the guidance of
  492
  the right honourable Gentleman they were constantly nagging at President Kruger and interfering with the internal relations of the Transvaal, with which they had nothing to do, for the Transvaal was as independent of England in its internal relations as. Russia was so far as international rights were concerned.
  MR. BUCHANANthought the speech just delivered by the Secretary for the Colonies was very different both in substance, tone, and temper from that which was delivered by the First Lord of the Treasury on the same subject last Friday, when it was stated that their forces in South Africa were mainly for the purpose of defending their coaling stations. The military forces in South Africa were continuously increasing, and had done ever since the right honourable Gentleman accepted the office of Colonial Secretary. If this country was going to engage in a competition with the military strength of other great Powers, either in Africa or elsewhere, he thought that was a very serious prospect for this country.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid the Colonial Secretary had followed up defiant action by a defiant speech. It was perfectly true that the Transvaal only had recourse to defensive measures after a most scandalous and outrageous raid had been made upon their country. He did not suppose that the right honourable Gentleman himself would ever dream that President Kruger, if not attacked, would think of marching on Cape Colony or Natal. When the Treaty between England and the Transvaal was signed, Lord Stanley, who was then Minister for Foreign Affairs, wrote a letter to the negotiators, in which he said that we must prevent the Transvaal Government from making treaties with Foreign Powers without our consent, but in everything else England had nothing to do with the Transvaal. Now the right honourable Gentleman had laid it down as a sort of law that wherever a country whose frontier marched with that of England increased its army there we should send a similar number of troops and do the same thing. They knew that the Russians were going to increase their army in Manchuria. Did the right

  493
  honourable Gentleman propose to increase our army in China and make it equal to that of the Russians in Manchuria? That declaration of policy on the part of the right honourable Gentleman, if carried out, would be perfectly ruinous to this country. Why should those troops in South Africa be maintained at the cost of the British taxpayer? They did not do, this sort of thing in Canada, and why should they make this distinction in Cape Colony? The Secretary for the Colonies had threatened that if President Kruger increased his defensive power he would increase the garrison in South Africa. He was sorry that the Leader of the Opposition was not in his place, for if he had been he felt perfectly sure that he would have renewed his vote against this attempt to establish a, permanent garrison in. South Africa. He did not think that they should be called upon to maintain such an army in a self-governing Colony, and he thought the Members on the Opposition side were bound to follow his honourable Friend into the Lobby.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid he did not often intervene in that class of business, but the speech of the Colonial Secretary was of such an alarming character that he thought the Debate ought to be adjourned until some more responsible persons on this side of the House were present to deal with it. The right honourable Gentleman had practically stated that they should put man for Man whatever France or any other Power having possessions in. Africa thought proper to place in that country. Supposing Germany or France sent 150,000 men, where was this country going to find that number? He never heard anything more alarming, and a reduction in their expenditure was perfectly hopeless if that sort of thing went on. The Government, of the Transvaal would be wanting in their public duty if they did not take steps to defend themselves against invasion, especially bearing mind the buccaneering raid made into their territory not long ago, which had never been reprimanded properly by the Government of this country. There was
  494
  on justification whatever for Great Britain to keep such a large Army in South Africa, and he should go into the Division Lobby against this Vote.
  Dn. CLARKcontended that the sites for the military buildings in South Africa, viewed either from a sanitary or a military standpoint, were the worst that could possibly be conceived. Now, what had the Transvaal Government done in the direction of defending their country? They had put additional forts in Pretoria and Johannesburg, where there was a very turbulent population. They had also, in consequence of the last raid made by British troops into, their country, imported new rifles and a certain amount of ammunition. England raided their country in 1848 and in 1871, and in 1896 there was another semi-official raid. Upon each occasion the Boers were unprotected and unprepared, and how could they be blamed now for taking steps to protect their country against any future invasion. As to the sites for the military buildings, there were plenty of splendid plateaux in South Africa, from 2,000 to, 4,000 feet where the troops could live free from disease, and under conditions, that would be in every way satisfactory. He supposed that it was no use saying anything more about this policy, for they were going to pay that money and place an extra, burden upon the country because it pleased the right honourable Gentleman to carry on this policy of irritation which he had pursued almost from the time when he came into office. Had he adopted, instead of this policy, a more friendly attitude, he believed that all the questions at issue between the Transvaal and this country could have been settled. England had never yet undone the wrong which was done by the raid of 1873, for they had never yet given back to the Boers the rights which were then taken away from them. They heard on Friday night last from the First Lord of the Treasury that this was simply a policy of defending their coaling stations, but now they had received practically the real reason from the Colonial Secretary. There had

  495
  been a suggestion made that the Boers in Cape Colony required watching as much as the Boers in the Transvaal; but that had been repudiated, for the Colonial Secretary had now told them why their forces in South Africa had been nearly trebled. England had not treated the Boers like the other countries of Europe had, for it was far more to our own interests to have them friendly than otherwise, and when the position we have taken up with regard to the Transvaal comes to be written it will not look very well for Great Britain on the pages of history
  MR. LEUTYsaid he would not have troubled the House at such a late hour, but he, thought it was manifest that they had been detained because of a very important declaration of policy which had been made by the Colonial Secretary at a very inopportune time. They had been told upon a previous

  AYES.

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Myers, William Henry

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gedge, Sydney

  Northcote, Hn. Sir H. Stafford

  Balcarres, Lord

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Penn, John

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Goschen, Rt. Hn GJ.(St. George's

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Barry, Rt. Hn A. H. Smith-(Hunts

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Purvis, Robert

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn Chas. Thomson

  Beach, Rt. Hn Sir M. H. (Bristol)

  Gretton, John

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Robinson, Brooke

  Bethell, Commander

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord George

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Bond, Edward

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Henderson, Alexander

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Brassey, Albert

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Butcher, John George

  Kimber, Henry

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Lafone, Alfred

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Valentia, Viscount

  Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Long, Rt. Hn Walter(Liverpool)

  Webster, Sir R. E. (Isle of Wight)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Williams, Joseph Powell(Birm.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  M'Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

  Cox, Irwin Edward B.(Harrow)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Wylie, Alexander

  Curzon, Viscount

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Doughty, George

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Morgan, Hn. Fred.(Monm'thsh)

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham(Bute

  occasion that it was necessary for this country to have a Fleet as strong as any two other nations, and now it had been suggested that the same principle should he extended to the Army. That was an astounding extension of policy, and if pursued to its logical conclusion meant that wherever we found the army of a foreign nation close to our own territory we must have an army there of equal number. Such a policy could only be justified by a feeling that this country was in a tottering condition, and that very heroic measures were necessary to save it from absolute ruin. Surely if that was not the motive it must be Jingoism gone absolutely mad.
  Question put—
  "That £1,211,900 stand part of the Resolution."
  The house divided:—Ayes 103; Noes 22.—(Division List No. 96.)

  NOES.

  Asher, Alexander

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Burns, John

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Caldwell, James

  Maddison, Fred.

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Mr. Dillon and Mr. Buchanan.

  Labouchere, Henry

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Lambert, George

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  *MR. BRYN ROBERTSasked why the Volunteer battalion of the 23rd Royal Welsh Fusiliers was not permitted to wear the flash, which consisted of a piece of flat silk which was sewn below the collar at the back, which was a survival of the old time when soldiers wore pigtails? The 23rd Regiment was the only one that retained the flash, but although the Militia as well as the Line battalions wore it, it was not permitted to the officers of the Volunteer battalions of the regiment. He thought they should be permitted to wear that distinction. Of course, he did not expect an answer straight off, because it was a matter which he had sprung upon the House, but he hoped that the honourable Gentleman opposite would take the matter into his consideration.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL WILLIAMS, Birmingham, S.)promised to make inquiries into the subject and to give the honourable Member the most favourable answer which he could. He could not, for the moment, say how favourable that answer might be.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Remaining Resolutions agreed to.

  ANCHORS AND CHAIN CABLES BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time this day.
  INFECTIOUS DISEASES (NOTIFICATION) ACT (1889) EXTENSION BILL.
  Considered in Committee and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
BUSINESS DEFERRED.
  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [9th March] further adjourned till Thursday.
  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Thursday.
  SUPPLY.
  Committee deferred till Wednesday.
  WAYS AND MEANS
  Committee deferred till Wednesday.
  COLONIAL LOANS FUND BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  REGULATION OF RAILWAYS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  TELEGRAPHS (TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION, ETC.)BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  INEBRIATES ACT (1898) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  IMPROVEMENT OF LAND BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  CHARITABLE LOANS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  PALATINE COURT OF DURHAM BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  SOLICITORS BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING (CLAUSES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  METROPOLITAN STREETS ACT (1867) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  FARNLEY TYAS MARRIAGES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  TELEGRAPH (CHANNEL ISLANDS) BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  TEINDS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 15th May.
  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL.
  Second reading deferred till Tuesday 9th May.
  CROWN CASES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 9th May.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 15th May.
  UNIVERSITY DEGREES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  TANCRED'S CHARITIES SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  INCEST (PUNISHMENT) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 15th May.
  CONSTRUCTIVE MURDER LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 15th May.
  LIMITATIONS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  PARLIAMENTARY DEPOSITS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

  CORONERS' INQUESTS (RAILWAY FATALITIES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till this day.
  House adjourned at fifty-five minutes after Twelve of the clock.