Commons Sitting of 24 March 1899

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Three of the clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
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 Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders not previously inquired into are applicable, viz.: —
Aberdeen Harbour Bill [H.L.]
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY (NEW RAILWAYS) BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

  DIVORCE BILLS.
  Ordered, That the Select Committee on Divorce Bills do consist of the following Members: —Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr. J. B. Balfour, Mr. Hemphill, Mr. Lawson Walton, The Lord Advocate, Sir Robert Reid, Mr. Solicitor-General, and Mr. Wodehouse.
  Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to communicate to the House Copies of the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings, together with Documents deposited, in the case of Cath-cart's Divorce Bill. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on Divorce Bills that they do hear Counsel and examine Witnesses for Cathcart's Divorce Bill [H.L.], and also that they do hear Counsel and examine Witnesses against the Bill, if the parties concerned think fit to be heard by Counsel and produce Witnesses.—(Sir William Walrond.)
  Ilford Gas Bill.
  Clay Cross Water Bill.
  Goole Urban District Council Bill.
  Rhondda Urban District Council Bill.
  Dublin Improvement (Bull Alley Area) Bill.
  Nottingham Corporation Bill.
  Tenterden Railway Bill.
  Barry Railway Bill.
  Burley-in-Wharfedale Urban District Water Bill.
  Horsforth Urban District Council (Water) Bill.
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  HORSFORTH WATER BILL.
  Reported (Preamble not proved); Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to enable the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the City of Bristol to construct a culvert and other works for the relief of the floods in the Cutlers Mills Brook; and for other purposes." [Bristol Floods Prevention Bill [H.L.]
  Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to enable the District Committee of the Middle Ward of the county of Lanark to construct additional waterworks and certain railways in connection with their undertaking; to confer further powers on the County Council of the county of Lanark with respect to the domestic water rate authorised by the Lanarkshire (Middle Ward District) Water Act, 1892, and to enable them

  313
  to borrow additional money; to amend the provisions of the said Act; and for other purposes." [Lanarkshire (Middle Ward District) Water Bill [H.L.]
  Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to provide for the constitution of the City and Royal Burgh of Aberdeen as a County of a City, to authorise the Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council of the said City and Burgh, to execute sewage works; and for other purposes." [Aberdeen Corporation Bill [H.L.]
  Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to make further provision for protecting Cromer from encroachment of the sea; to authorise the construction of a pier; and for other purposes."[Cromer Protection Bill [H.L.]
  >And also a Bill intituled, "An Act to authorise the Wallasey Urban District Council to construct tramways, street improvements, and promenades; and for other purposes." [Wallasey Tramways and Improvements Bill [H.L.]

PETITIONS.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions from Larkhall, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES SERVANTS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Weymouth; —Croydon; — Tottenham; — Bishop's Castle:—and Alnwick; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  Petitions for extension to women;— From Birmingham (two);—North Sal-ford; — Manchester; —and Birkenhead (two); to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Lochgelly, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Norwich, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Petition from Halifax, against establishment; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Eccles; —Liverpool; — York (three); — Bury; —Stoke-on-Trent;—and Kingston; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS (ARMY VOTES)
  Copy presented,—of Treasury Minute, dated 18th March 1899, authorising the temporary application of Surpluses on certain Army Votes for the year 1898–9 to meet Excesses on certain Army Votes for the same year (pursuant to Resolution of the House of 4th March 1879); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 128.)

  RAILWAYS ABANDONMENT.
  Copies presented,—of Reports by the Board of Trade respecting the following Bills and their objects, viz.:—

  Birmingham, North Warwickshire, and Stratford-upon-Avon Railway Bill;

  Great Central Railway Bill;

  North Pembrokeshire and Fishguard Railway Bill;

  Port Talbot Railway and Docks Bill;

  Tenterden Railway Bill;

  Woodhouse and Conisbrough Railway Bill

  (in pursuance of Standing Order 158A).
  Ordered, That the said Reports be severally referred to the Committee on the Bill to which it relates.

  MARRIAGES, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS (ENGLAND).
  Copy presented,—of General Abstract of Marriages, Births, and Deaths registered in England in the year 1898 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (RULES).
  Copy presented,—of Rules, dated 13th March 1899, in relation to proceedings under the Land Law (Ireland) Acts (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented,—of Rules, dated 13th March 1899, as to Assistant Commissioners (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented,—of Return of Proceedings during the month of December 1898 (by Command): to lie upon the Table.

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS ASSOCIATIONS.
  Return ordered—
  "Showing for each Association under the Voluntary Schools Act, 1897, and also for the Unassociated Schools (1) what Schools in the School year preceding the first payment of Aid Grant paid rent in excess of the receipts from Voluntary Contributions, and the amount of such excess; (2) what Schools paid rent in excess of the receipts from Voluntary Contributions and Endowment, and the amount of such excess; and (3) what Schools paid rent in excess of the receipts from Voluntary Contributions, Endowment, and Fees, and the amount of such excess."—(Sir Francis Powell.)

  EAST INDIA (RAILWAYS AND IRRIGATION WORKS).
  Address—
  "For Return showing the estimated position, as regards Capital Expenditure, of the several Railways and Irrigation Works under construction, on the 31st day of March 1899, and the proposed Expenditure thereon during 1899–1900."—(Mr. Price.)

  METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments (Provisional Order confirmed); Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
  Bristol Floods Prevention Bill [H.L.]
  Lanarkshire (Middle Ward District) Water Bill [H.L.]
  Aberdeen Corporation Bill [H.L.]
  Cromer Protection Bill [H.L.]
  Wallasey Tramways and Improvements Bill [H.L.]
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  SUSPENSION OF TWELVE O'CLOCK RULE.
  Ordered, That the proceedings on the London Government Bill, if under consideration at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order Sittings of the House.—(Mr. Balfour.)
NEW BILLS.
  JUSTICES' DISQUALIFICATION REPEAL (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To alter the Law with respect to Law Agents acting as Justices of the Peace in Scotland," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday 20th April, and to be printed. (Bill 140.)
  SUNDAY CLOSING (WALES) ACT (1881) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Sunday Closing (Wales) Act, 1881, and to make further provision respecting the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors in Wales," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 12th April, and to be printed. (Bill 141.)
  LIMITATIONS BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the Limitations of Actions," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday 17th April, and to be printed. [Bill 142.]
QUESTIONS.

  TRADE STATISTICS.
  COLONEL SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the excess in 1898 of exports from the United States of America, amounting to 621,000,000 dollars, while in the case of the United Kingdom the excess, of imports amounted to £175,000,000; and if, in view of these circumstances and the rise in the United States exports in the last three years of 52 per cent. and of industrial exports by 26 per cent., while those of the United Kingdom show no such vitality, Her Majesty's Government is prepared to issue a Royal Commission or move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the causes of this condition of things?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): The facts and figures stated in the Question are substantially correct. The causes which have led to this condition of things are, generally speaking, well known, and there seems no necessity for a special inquiry such as is suggested, more especially as I have no reason to regard the general condition of trade and industry in this country as other than satisfactory.

  PRISON SCHOOLMASTERS.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the schoolmasters (clerk and schoolmaster warders) in the prison service are still called upon to perform ordinary discipline duty in addition to their scholastic or clerical work, notwithstanding the fact that the Departmental Committee of 1896 deprecated the practice and ultimately recommended in their Report the discontinuance of the imposition of menial duties upon these officers, as being incompatible with their position as teachers or clerks; and if he will take such steps as may be necessary for removing this grievance?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. J. COLLINGS,): Clerk and schoolmaster warders are employed entirely on clerical or scholastic work, and are exempt from ordinary discipline duties, except that they may be called upon to take their turn of Sunday duty (when a large proportion of the staff are away) and of sleeping in the prison, should the necessities of the service require them to do so. The Secretary of State does not think that the very limited extent to which the important and difficult duties discharged by ordinary warders may become incumbent on schoolmaster warders is in any way inconsistent with the full and effective exercise of their teaching duties.

  READING POSTMAN'S GRIEVANCE.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if he will give favourable consideration to the petition of Postman Heather, of Reading, who, for accidentally missing a train on 22nd June 1891, and consequently arriving on duty an hour late, was not only fined one day's pay and deprived of his stripe (with the allowance attached thereto) for one year, but has also been compelled to forfeit credit for all auxiliary service prior to the commission of the offence so heavily punished?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): Heather was not punished for missing his train, which he did not miss on the day named. After arriving at Reading early on the morning of the 22nd of June, and receiving instructions to attend at the office for duty, he neglected to do so, and thus delayed the delivery by one hour. He was not deprived of his good conduct stripe, as he had not one to lose. His actual punishment was the loss of a day's pay. He was appointed postman in January 1890, and had previously served as auxiliary since September 1886. In strictness, the award of his first stripe might have

  319
  been deferred until June 1896—namely, five years from the date of misconduct, but he received it in January of that year. Heather will become eligible for a second stripe, assuming his conduct to merit it, in January 1901.

  GOVERNMENT LAND ON SALISBURY PLAIN.
  MR. BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War when the Return, ordered by the House on the 21st February, of further information on the purchase of land on Salisbury Plain by the Government, will be in the hands of Members?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL WILLIAMS,): The Return is not yet quite complete. It will be presented as soon as possible—probably in a few days.
  MR. BAYLEY: But the valuers, before they valued the estate, must have had these Returns?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: That is not the case: they had not the Returns.

  TRAINING OF NAVAL SHIPWRIGHTS.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what has been the number of candidates who have offered themselves for examination under the new scheme of training naval shipwrights from boy shipwrights in Her Majesty's Dockyards; what are the reasons for adopting the present scheme; and how many shipwright ratings, not carpenters' crews, have left the Navy during the last five years, how many have entered, and what deficiencies there are at the present time?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. E. MACARTNEY,): No examination has yet been held. The scheme has been adopted for the purpose of training men who will fulfil the requirements of the Service.
  320
  Eighty-nine shipwrights have left the Service during the last five years, and 169 have entered. There are at present 60 short borne.

  SUDDEN DEATH OF A RECRUIT AT WINDSOR.
  MAJOR RASCH: On behalf of the honourable and gallant Member for Cheltenham I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the sudden death of a specially enlisted recruit, on Friday last, on parade at Windsor; whether this recruit was passed by a civilian doctor or a duly qualified member of the Army Medical Staff; and whether he will cause a special inquiry to be made into this case so as to avoid, if possible, such weak and diseased men being again admitted into Her Majesty's Service.
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: Yes, Sir. My attention has been called to the death of Private Higson, of the Scots Guards. He was passed by a duly-qualified officer of the Royal Army Medical Corps. A full inquiry into his case is now in progress.
  MAJOR RASCH: Are these specially-enlisted recruits men under 5ft. 3in. in height, 32in. chest measurement, and 9½st. in weight, of whom some 70 per cent. of the new recruits consist?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  HIGHLAND CROFTERS AND THEIR VOTES.
  MR. WEIR: I bog to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state the number of ratepayers in each of the six Highland crofting counties who, while being entitled to vote at Parliamentary and County Council elections, have no vote at School Board elections?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): It is not possible to give the honourable Member the information desired in answer to a

  321
  Question. To give the information in the form of a Return would entail a laborious inquiry, and I am not disposed to think that there is reason to warrant the preparation of such a Return.
  MR. WEIR: Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that there are 6,500 in Ross-shire alone?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: If the honourable Member knows so much. I wonder he asks me the Question.

  COMPULSORY RETIREMENT FROM THE POSTAL SERVICE
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether the Order dated December 1896, directing that in future retirement from the Postal Service shall be compulsory at 60 years of age, provided the officer has completed 40 years of service, is being-carried out; and whether the Postmaster-General can state the reasons which have led to the retention of a number of telegraph officials employed in the Liverpool and London offices when that age and service have been exceeded?
  MR. HANBURY: A notice was issued on the 20th of November 1896 respecting retirement of Post Office servants at the age of 60, and is being acted upon. The notice states that "all officers of 60 years of age, whose conduct is good, and who are certified by their superior officers as thoroughly efficient, shall be allowed to remain until they have completed 40 years of service, and, in special cases, till they have attained to the age of 65." The officers to whom the honourable Member refers come under these conditions.

  LASCAR SEAMEN.
  COLONEL DENNY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that there are employed in the Mercantile Marine of Great Britain and India at the present moment many thousands of
  322
  lascars, will he state whether any complaint or representation has been received from them as to insufficiency of accommodation provided for them on board ship?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: So far as I am aware no representations have been received on behalf of the lascars themselves.

  NATIONAL TELEPHONE COMPANY.
  MR. FIELD (, St. Patrick): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government receives 10 per cent. commission from the National Telephone Company, or from any other private Telephone Company; and whether it is on account of this arrangement that Government refuses to take over and make the telephone a public service?
  MR. HANBURY: The present licencees pay, as all future licencees will pay, a royalty of 10 per cent. The answer to the second paragraph of the honourable Member's Question in the negative.

  HOVE POLICE GRIEVANCES.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it has come to his knowledge that, owing to a number of constables of the Hove police having presented a memorial, setting forth certain grievances under which they allege that they suffer, to the chairman of the Watch Committee of Hove instead of to the chief constable, the latter functionary reduced the rank and pay of the complainants; and whether he will inquire into these grievances?
  MR. COLLINGS: The constables were punished, not as suggested in the Question by the Chief Constable, but by the Watch Committee, after a careful investigation, lasting three days. The inspector of constabulary has inquired into the alleged grievances, and reports that he considers that the action of the Watch Committee was justified. The Secretary of State does not consider further investigation necessary.

  SCOTTISH CONGESTED DISTRICTS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if the Secretary for Scotland will state how it is proposed to provide for the maintenance of the bridges and minor roads and footpaths in congested districts referred to on page 6 of the Board's Report?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Congested Districts Board that if such roads are fit for wheel traffic, and receive a grant, an engagement is made with the county council to take them over, and keep them in repair like any public road in the county. In the case of footpaths, a similar engagement is made with the parish council, under section 29 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894.

  FOREIGN TRAWLERS IN THE MORAY FIRTH
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that during the year 1898 the Fishery Board cruisers observed four Dutch, ten German, four French, nine Belgian, and five Danish trawlers in the Moray Firth, will he state in the aggregate the number of days, for each nationality, on which these trawlers were observed; and will he state whether there is any reason to suppose that any of these vessels belonged to British capitalists flying a foreign flag?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Fishery Board that the number of days for each nationality on which foreign trawlers were observed by cruisers in 1898 is as follows: German 16, Belgian 16, Danish 10, Dutch 6, and French 6. The Fishery Board are not in possession of information which would lead them to suppose that the foreign vessels fly any flag other than that of the country in which they were registered and owned.

  BALLANTRAE SPAWNING BANKS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the destruction of fish which is said to arise from seine-net fishing on fishing banks during the spawning season, will the Sec-
  324
  retary for Scotland state whether there is any intention on the part of the Fishery Board to pass a by-law closing the Ballantrae spawning banks against this method of fishing during the spawning season; and, if so, will he state whether it is contemplated to include any other fishing banks in the operation of the by-law?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is there any ground for believing that there is much destruction caused by the seine-net fishing?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am very much inclined to think not. There is no such intention as is suggested by the Question of the honourable Member for Ross and Cromarty. I am informed by the Fishery Board that to adopt it would be equivalent to putting a stop to the herring fishing at that place entirely.

  IRISH RURAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education if he is aware that, in the rural elementary schools of Ireland, agriculture is a compulsory subject for boys in the higher classes; that, in addition to theoretical teaching in the subject given to 85,000 pupils, 48 school farms and 101 school gardens are being used for practical instruction in agriculture; and that a large number of Queen's scholars and National school teachers are trained every year in the Agricultural College at Glasnevin, whereas in England agriculture is only taken as a specific subject by 825 boys, and grants for cottage gardening were only awarded in 1897–8 to 1,021 boys; and if, in view of the fact that it is illegal for local authorities under the Technical Instruction Acts to aid agricultural teaching in elementary schools, he will consider, in conjunction with the President of the Board of Agriculture, what steps can be taken, by a modification of the Code or otherwise, to encourage the study of agricultural subjects in the rural districts of England to the same extent that it is encouraged in Ireland?
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): There is no reason to doubt that the figures given in the Question are substantially correct. The matter is one which will receive the earnest attention of the Committee of Council.

  STATE ADVANCES FOR IRISH RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the honourable Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the total amount of money advanced by the State for the construction of railways in Ireland; also the separate amounts advanced on the different lines now in the possession of the present existing companies, also the amount of baronial guarantees paid by each Irish county to railway companies, and the amount paid last year, and the companies to whom it was paid; also the amount of principal and interest repaid by railway companies to the Treasury segregated amongst the present existing companies; and what powers of control over the railway companies have been granted to the Treasury and the local authorities in Ireland in consideration of their payments to the railway companies?
  MR. HANBUBY: The information which the honourable Member desires is too complicated to be given in an answer to a Question. I shall be glad, however, to consider the possibility of giving a Return which will cover the points that he has raised, and perhaps the honourable Member will communicate with me on the subject. With regard to the last paragraph of the Question, I understand that over all guaranteed lines under the Tramways (Ireland) Act, 1883, the county and the Treasury have certain controlling powers fixed by the Order in Council sanctioning the making of the line as regards inspection of works and auditing of accounts. The county also can, in case they have for not less than two years paid any money towards the working expenses of the line, take possession of
  326
  it and work it themselves. Under the Railways (Ireland) Act, 1896, the Board of Works have power to inspect and report on the condition of the guaranteed undertaking, and its working, maintenance, and development, and if it is not efficiently worked, maintained, and developed, the Lord Lieutenant, on getting a report to this effect from the Board, and on hearing all parties interested, may make an Order appointing a manager or receiver, for such time and with such powers as the Privy Council may determine.

  REGIMENTAL CANTEENS.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, with reference to the Committee which is sitting at Aldershot to inquire into the system of garrison and regimental canteens, whether the Government will enlarge the scope of the inquiry so as to include the prevalent habit of giving and accepting commissions for the provision and sale of liquor in Army canteens; whether, seeing that the United States Legislature has, owing to the experience of the detrimental effect of the canteen system during the late Spanish-American War on the health of its army, unanimously passed a Bill entirely abolishing the liquor canteen in the United States army, the Aldershot Committee should be requested to report on the advisability of similar steps being taken in this country and the possibility of our present canteen system being replaced by facilities being more extended to soldiers than at present of purchasing a limited amount of beer to be consumed with their dinner; and whether the Report of the Committee, when the inquiry has been completed, will be laid before the House?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: The terms of reference to the Committee cover the point referred to in the first paragraph of the Question. It is not proposed to refer to the Committee the point raised in the second paragraph, nor is it proposed to lay the Report, when completed, before the House.
  MR. PIRIE: May I ask will the honourable Gentleman take into considera-

  327
  tion the desirability of calling for a Report from the United States Military Attaché on the subject in question?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: I should like to have Notice of that Question.

  GORDON'S PAPER MONEY.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information to give the House with reference to the statement that claims have been put forward by Greeks from Khartoum against the Government for sums of money due on paper money issued by General Gordon, and what is the total amount claimed; and if he can state the number of European men and women set free by the defeat of the Mahdi, and what has become of them?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): We have received no information with regard to the claims referred to in the first paragraph of the Question. In his report of the Battle of Omdurman, dated 5th September last, the Sirdar stated that the European prisoners had been released, but no Return of their names or number has been received, nor any information as to what has become of them.

  IRISH BARONIAL HIGH CONSTABLES.
  MR. DILLON: On behalf of the honourable Member for East Cavan, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether under the Local Government Act (Ireland) a candidate who is a postmaster and a baronial high constable is eligible for nomination and election as district councillor in a rural district; and whether the fact of his payment for the collection of the cess for the barony disqualifies him from seeking any such office?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I would refer the honourable Member
  328
  to my replies to the Questions already put to me on the 17th and 21st instant respecting the eligibility of a postmaster for nomination and election as a district councillor. As regards a baronial high constable, if he is not retained in office as a collector of poor rates by the county council, it does not appear that he will be disqualified from being a rural district councillor.

  THE KHALIFA.
  MR. J. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the latest information as to the whereabouts and forces of the Khalifa; and whether the Egyptian authorities have suggested the expediency of another military expedition against him; and, in that case, what is contemplated by the British Government?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Khalifa with his main body is reported to be at Sherkila with a post at Godid. The estimate of his forces has varied, but it is understood that the majority of his men are not armed with rifles. It is not expected that any question of another military expedition against him will arise for the present.

  VACANT POSTMASTERSHIPS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether vacant postmasterships are all advertised in the "Post Office Circular"; whether some candidates applying for vacancies before the publication of the circular containing the announcement receive the posts, while others are informed that the public notice must precede applications being made; and whether the Postmaster-General will direct that a uniform system may prevail, to ensure equal opportunities for all applicants?
  MR. HANBURY: To advertise all vacancies would only lead to confusion and disappointment, as there are often departmental reasons for filling a vacant

  329
  office by transfer from another office or by the appointment of a particular officer, and in such cases to advertise for candidates would be misleading. When an office is advertised as vacant no applications from candidates are considered until all the applications have been received and reported upon. It is not proposed to make any alteration in the existing system.

  ALLEGED COWARDICE BY HERTFORD CONSTABLES.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will bring the facts as to the neglect of duty and cowardice shown by the dismissed police-constables Langton and Sharwood at Hertford on Thursday 9th March before the Public Prosecutor, with a view to these men being criminally proceeded against?
  MR. COLLINGS: The Secretary of State is making inquiries into this matter.

  IRISH COUNTY SURVEYORS.
  MR. SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether in the event of an existing county surveyor in any county being appointed by the county council of another county as their county suveyor, such surveyor will be entitled to increased remuneration under the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, section 115 (18), for duties over and above those he would have performed under the Grand Jury Acts; and whether a county surveyor so appointed will retain all his rights as an existing officer under the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, section 115 (18), and be entitled, in addition, to the rights with regard to pension given in the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, section 83 (13)?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Sub-section (18) of section 115 applies only to existing officers transferred in the same administrative county; but in the event of a county surveyor being appointed by the county council of another county, the council of that county can fix his
  330
  salary, with the consent of the Local Government Board, at whatever amount they consider should attach to the office in regard to the duties appertaining thereto. Any existing county surveyor who may be appointed to another county will be entitled to the rights with regard to pension given by section 83 sub-section (13).

  SALVAGE OF MAIL BAGS
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether his attention has been called to a report that a mail bag from the wrecked steamer "Labrador" was observed recently by a lad while out fishing a few miles off Scarinish, in the north-west of Mull, and that he did not take the trouble to convey it ashore as no definite reward had been offered for the salvage of mails; and will he consider the expediency, in similar cases of wreck, of immediately offering rewards for the salvage of the mails?
  MR. HANBURY: The report referred to is probably identical with one which has reached the Post Office about a boatman who professed to have seen a mail bag in the sea near Dervaig, in Mull. It is well known that persons who save mail bags are rewarded; and a considerable number of such bags cast away by the wreck of the "Labrador" have been recovered through the efforts of boat-men and fishermen. Some of the claims for reward have already been settled, and others are under consideration.

  PROTECTION OF NATIONAL SEA FISHERIES.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the resolutions passed at the annual meeting of the National Sea Fisheries' Protection Association, held at Fishmongers' Hall on the 21st instant; and in view of the strong condemnation of the presence of foreign trawlers in the Moray Firth, will he arrange for this question to be brought prominently

  331
  under the notice of the approaching Hydrographical Conference?
  MR. BRODRICK: Reports of this meeting have appeared in the Press, but the attention of the Secretary of State has not otherwise been called to the resolutions passed at it. Full regard will be had by the British members of the Conference to the Moray Firth, but the precise points to be discussed at the forthcoming Hydrographical Conference must be settled in conjunction with the other Powers' interests.

  ARMY CHAPLAINS.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts,: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state the number of ministers who either act as chaplains to the British Army, or receive allowances for spiritual ministrations to soldiers, giving the number connected with each of the several religious denominations of which they are ministers?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: The duty of appointing officiating clergymen may be deputed to the officer commanding the troops at the station. Accordingly it is not possible to state the numbers now employed, except approximately, without calling for Returns from all stations at home and abroad. The approximate numbers are as follows:— Church of England, 314; Presbyterian, 155; Roman Catholic, 288; Wesleyan, 153; Baptist, 5; total, 915.

  AUSTRALIAN FEDERATION.
  SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is risk of failure to accomplish Australian Federation by reason of the Legislative Council in New South Wales having inserted in the Federal Enabling Bill, agreed upon by the Colonial Prime Ministers, amendments which the Government of New South Wales have felt themselves unable, having regard to the opinion of the Colonies generally, to accept, and
  332
  which have been rejected by the Legislative Assembly?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The right honourable Member will have seen by the Press telegram that a Conference is about to be held between the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales respecting the amendments referred to. It would be premature to express an opinion as to the probable effect of the action of the Legislative Council.

  WOUNDED DERVISHES AT OMDURMAN.
  MR. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, having re-gad to the apparently small number of Dervishes who received aid after the battle of Omdurman, he can give any information as to the proportion they bore to the total number of wounded; and, whether he can give any idea of the numbers of those who died on the battlefield without receiving any aid whatever?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Before the right honourable Gentleman answers, I should like to ask whether it is not within his knowledge that encouragement was given to the relations and friends of wounded Dervishes to go out and take care of them, and whether the regimental transport was not sent with them to give assistance; and, secondly, whether, after the battle of Omdurman, the Sirdar's Army did not march for many miles, and was then engaged in heavy duties, so that it was impossible for it to be occupied in collecting and relieving the enemy's wounded?
  MR. BRODRICK: I believe that what my right honourable Friend has just stated is substantially correct. The great distance over the field of battle and also the heavy work which fell to the troops on that and the following day made it impossible for the troops to do more than they did do. As regards the question of the honourable Member for Leigh, I have to say that

  333
  we have no information except that given in the Memorandum by Sir R. Wingate, which has just been published.
  MR. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that Lord Cromer's Report, just published, makes no reference to the charge made by a number of eye-witnesses that, on the day of the battle of Omdurman, camp followers of the Sirdar's Army came out and murdered and plundered wounded Dervishes, as to which a Report was promised, he will request Lord Cromer to make a further Report on this subject?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Sirdar has denied all these allegations, and I do not think any public purpose would be served by asking Lord Cromer for a further Report.

  GENERAL GATACRE'S ARTICLE.
  MR. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to explain the apparent discrepancy between the statement made by General Gatacre, in a recently published article, to the effect that the beaten army of the Khalifa, accompanied by many women, was fired upon as it retired, with the categorical denial of the Sirdar?
  MR. BRODRICK: General Gatacre stated in his article that as the Khalifa's beaten army retired up the Nile it was impossible to prevent the casualties among the women who accompanied it, but equally impossible to allow the Dervishes to escape unmolested. The Sirdar's denial referred to the charge relating to fire being opened on the fugitives in the streets of Omdurman. There is no discrepancy between the accounts.

  IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have decided that candidates for district or county councillor ships in Ire-
  334
  land cannot act as polling agents; and, if so, for what reason this decision has been arrived at?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Local Government Board have held that candidates should not be polling agents, but may be present at the counting of the votes if they do not appoint a counting agent. The Board fear that undue influence might be exercised upon the voters within the polling booths, especially upon illiterate voters, if candidates were admitted. The large number of candidates at each polling place would accentuate the objection to admitting them. The exclusion of candidates from the booths at the municipal elections appears to have given satisfaction throughout the country, except to the candidates themselves.

  MR. GARVEY, OF MURRISK.
  DR. R. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that Mr. Garvey, of Murrisk, county Mayo, admitted, during the hearing of his claim for compensation for malicious burning at the Mayo Assizes held at Castlebar on 18th instant, that he had been dismissed from the Royal Navy and imprisoned for stealing the money of a brother naval officer, and also that he had to resign the petty sessions clerkship of Louisburg Petty Sessions district owing to defalcations in his accounts; and whether he is still entrusted with the distribution of the funds of the Congested Districts Board in connection with the improvement of the breed of farm stock and poultry?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have read a newspaper report of the proceedings before the Grand Jury of Mayo on Friday last, on the hearing of Mr. Garvey's claim for compensation for the malicious burning of his dwelling-house and out-offices. From that report it appears that Mr. Garvey stated he had been dismissed from the Royal Navy for larceny upwards of 30 years ago, when he was only 16 years of age. It does not appear from the newspaper report that he admitted he had to resign the office of petty sessions clerk owing to

  335
  defalcations in his accounts. As a matter of fact, he held that office for 11 years, and there were no defalcations' in his accounts, or any other circumstances necessitating his resignation. As regards the second paragraph, Mr. Garvey keeps poultry, under an agreement with the Congested Districts Board, for the distribution of eggs, and an ass, the property of the Board, is also under his charge for breeding purposes. He is not entrusted with the distribution of the funds of the Board, nor is he a salaried officer of the Board.

  RABIES IN ESSEX.
  MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of his recent statement in regard to the muzzling of dogs, that rabies in dogs did not prevail to any large extent in the county of Essex or within the metropolitan area, and also that he was considering whether he could relax the stringency of the present regulation, he can state to the House whether he can now see his way to withdraw the present Muzzling Order; and, if not, how far can he go in this direction?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. H. LONG,): It is not possible for me as yet to add anything to the statements which I have recently made on this subject.

  BROAD BAY, ISLAND OF LEWIS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has received a memorial from the Lewis District Committee of the County Council of Ross and Cromarty urging that a harbour should be constructed in Broad Bay, Island of Lewis; and will he state what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: Yes, Sir; I received the memorial referred to. The application is one which evidently does not come within the limitations laid down by me in a recent Debate in the House, but appears rather to be one for the con-
  336
  sideration of the Secretary for Scotland. I have been in communication with him, and have to-day been informed by him that he has no fund at his disposal for the object sought by the memorialists. If an application were made to the Treasury for a loan with the guarantee of the county council, it would, no doubt, receive consideration.

  SIR CLAUDE MACDONALD.
  MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Sir Claude Macdonald is coming to England on leave; and, if so, what arrangements have been made to replace him during his absence from Pekin?
  MR. BRODRICK: Sir C. Macdonald has been at Pekin for three years, and applied for leave, which he has thoroughly earned, on the ground of health. He left Pekin yesterday on his way home. The Secretary of Legation, Mr. Bax Ironside, will act as Chargé d'Affaires.

  INDIAN GOVERNMENT AND LASCAR ACCOMMODATION.
  COLONEL DENNY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the question of sufficiency of accommodation for lascars was fully considered by the Indian Government lately; whether a clause to assimilate the Indian to the British law in this particular was abandoned after careful consideration of a petition by the lascars themselves, who declared themselves to be fully satisfied with the existing arrangements; and whether it was shown on that occasion that the present allowance of space was ample for the health and comfort of the lascars?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The answers to all three clauses of my honourable Friend's Question are in the affirmative; but I should add that the Select Committee, on whose recommendation the proposal to increase the space for native crews was aban-

  337
  doned, based to some extent their recommendation on the fact that they thought such an alteration of the law would be out of place in a Consolidation Bill.

  THE BLUE AND WHITE NILES.
  Mr. J. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government has been informed of the results of the recent explorations of the valleys of the Blue and White Niles by Sir W. E. Garston, Chief of the Egyptian Irrigation Department; whether it is correct that he has stated that the possession of the Soudan beyond Khartoum can be of no practical advantage to any civilised Power, and affords no field for the application of capital; and whether the Report from Sir W. E. Garston, as to his exploration, can be laid upon the Table, and distributed?
  MR. BRODRICK: Sir W. Garston has only just returned to Cairo, and no information as to the nature of his Report has yet been received.
  Mr. J. ELLIS: Will it be asked for?
  [No Reply.]

  THE BUDGET.
  MR. J. ELLIS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now state when he proposes to make his Financial Statement?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): I shall do so on Thursday the 13th April.

  THE MAHDI'S BODY.
  MR. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Lord Cromer has given his official sanction not merely to the removal of the Mahdi's body from its tomb, but to its mutilation and the
  338
  throwing of the headless body into the Nile; and whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government in any way to express disapproval of these last proceedings?
  MR. BRODRICK: Lord Cromer's opinion as to the whole proceeding has been published, and there is nothing to add to it. The matter does not appear to call for any further action on the part of Her Majesty's Government.

  TRAINED NURSES IN IRISH UNIONS.
  MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the Circular issued on the 12th January by the Local Government Board informing boards of guardians of the qualifications it was proposed to prescribe as necessary in the case of any person claiming to be a trained nurse for the purposes of section 58, sub-section (2); whether there is any possibility of having the qualifications which it is proposed to prescribe so modified as to include nurses who, although not trained in the technical sense of the term, yet possessed at the time of their appointment to workhouse hospitals sufficient qualifications to warrant the Local Government Board in ratifying their appointment; and whether he has considered that if the Local Government Board now refuse to allow out of the Local Taxation Account recoupment in respect of the salaries of such nurses, a great hardship will accrue in the case of those unions where only such nurses are employed?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am afraid I can only refer the honourable Member to my answers to the Questions addressed to me on this matter on the 10th, 14th, and 20th of the present month. I have already stated that where the existing infirmary nurse of a workhouse has received training, though not sufficient to comply with the regulations of the Local Government Board, the guardians are authorised to allow her, if approved by the medical officer, leave of absence for such a period as will enable her to complete the training necessary to place her on the Board's register of trained nurses.

  BALLYFARNON VOTERS.
  MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether arrangements can be made to place a booth in the town of Ballyfarnon to save the voters of the district from having to walk four miles to Keadue as is proposed under the present arrangement?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The polling stations will be arranged by the returning officer, to whom the honourable Member's suggestion will be communicated for his consideration.

  EDUCATION IN RURAL DISTRICTS.
  MR. MORRELL: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, with a view to encourage managers of rural schools to select subjects of educational value more appropriate to the industrial needs of country life than grammar, he would consider the desirability of removing English from the "class" to the "specific" group of subjects in the Code, open to individual children above the Sixth Standard only, thereby giving more prominence to the other, and especially agricultural, subjects in the "class" group?
  SIR. J. GORST: This matter shall be considered before next year's Code; but the proposed change is not absolutely necessary, as managers who regard English as an unsuitable subject of instruction for rural children need not adopt it, whether it be included among "class" subjects or among "specific" subjects.

  AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION.
  MR. MORRELL: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the practice as well as the principles of agriculture (as distinct from horticulture) can be taught under the Day School Code as a specific subject; and whether the time occupied by instruction in processes of agriculture on a farm can be reckoned as attendance if conducted in manner approved by inspector?
  SIR J. GORST: No scheme of instruction in agriculture would be rejected by the Education Department because it included practice as well as principles. Time occupied in the practical teaching of agriculture can be reckoned towards "attendance" under Article 12 (f), subject to the general conditions stated in that article.

  ZANZIBAR SLAVERY QUESTION.
  MR. BAYLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether a British judge or magistrate in the Zanzibar mainland coast slip who makes an order or delivers judgment, the direct and immediate consequence of which is to cause a fugitive slave to be delivered into possession of his or her former master, commits any offence against British law; and whether he would be punishable for the same?
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): These Questions cannot be answered in the abstract. Each case must be decided upon its special circumstances.
  MR. BAYLEY: But is not the special circumstance in this case the judgment of Mr. Lloyd?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  OVERCROWDING IN EAST LONDON.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in order that he may have full information of how rents have been increased in East London and the results of overcrowding thereby, he will appoint Commissioners whose duties shall be to investigate to what extent rents have been increased during the last two years, and the causes and results of such increases upon the working classes?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I agree with the honourable Gentleman that the question of overcrowding is one of the most important that can be considered in connection with the

  341
  urban problems that face us, but I do not think that much is to be gained from the course suggested by the honourable Gentleman.
  MR. STEADMAN: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman if he is aware that the working classes of London are being treated as badly by landlords——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  SUNDAY PAPERS.
  MR. PIRTE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government are aware of the proposal to shortly issue daily papers on Sundays as well as on week days; whether, having regard to the fact that this innovation will infallibly bring about an increase of Sunday work to many other classes than to those immediately affected, the Government will consider the propriety of legislation on the subject, and thus prevent what may prove a dangerous example; and, if not prepared to legislate on the subject, will the Government cause the Post Office to adopt regulations so restricting the advantages of transmission as to discourage the practice of publishing papers seven days a week?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have no information on the point as to which the honourable Gentleman asks me, and, considering that Sunday papers, as far as I know, have been issued for a very long period of time without any legislative interference, it is certainly not for me to announce any change of policy in regard to this matter.
  SIR W. LAWSON: I should like to ask whether the publication of papers on Monday does not involve much more work on Sunday than the publication of a Sunday paper?
  [No Reply.]

  MUNICIPAL TRADING.
  SIR J. LUBBOCK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he will be in a position to nominate the Joint Committee on Municipal Trading?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I hope to be able to appoint the Committee soon after Easter.

  RURAL COTTAGE TENANCIES.
  MR. F. WILSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is aware of the serious consequences arising from the liability to ejectment at short notice of cottage tenants in rural districts; and whether he is prepared to make any legislative proposals to give the country population greater security in their homes?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Such inquiries as I have been able to make show that the ejectment of cottage tenants under the circumstances referred to in this Question is of very rare occurrence.
  MR. F. WILSON: I wish to ask whether the right honourable Gentleman will ensure that the question is brought before the Select Committee on the Cottage Homes Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: At first sight I can see no connection at all between this matter and the subject referred to the Committee the honourable Member speaks of.

  ST. PAUL'S CATHEDRAL.
  MR. PAULTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that in the process of decorating St. Paul's Cathedral with Byzantine mosaics, black lettering and stencilling in red paint, the original stonework has been cut away to make room for the mosaics: and whether, having regard to the importance of preserving intact the architectural and artistic features of this

  343
  great national monument, he will use his influence to assist in having inquiry made into the subject of the injury alleged to be caused in these respects by carrying out the present scheme of decoration?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: As the honourable Gentleman is aware, the Government have no power either of control or advice in the matter to which he refers in his Question, but I feel certain that the great artistic authorities who are concerned in the work of decorating St. Paul's Cathedral will feel, as everybody must feel, the great importance of preserving that historic structure unimpaired.

  LLANFWROG BURIAL DISPUTE.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that on October 24th last the Reverend J. F. Reece, rector of Llanfwrog, Denbighshire, refused to allow Mrs. Williams, a Nonconformist, residing at time of death in the borough of Ruthin, to be buried in the parish churchyard of Llanfwrog; that the deceased had resided in the parish of Llanfwrog from childhood, for 31 years; that her family have long possessed two graves in the parish churchyard; that the grave in which it was desired that the burial should take place had been acquired or paid for by her husband; and that two of her infant children, who died outside the parish of Llanfwrog in 1885, are there interred; whether ho is aware that the father of the deceased died outside the parish of Llanfwrog in 1881, and was buried in Llanfwrog parish churchyard; and that several persons, not resident at death within the parish of Llanfwrog, have during the last two years been buried in that parish churchyard; whether he will state the reasons given for denying to the deceased a right of burial in the Llanfwrog parish churchyard, previously granted to her family and others; whether the rector was entitled to prevent the deceased being buried in a grave held by her husband under such circumstances; and whether it will be open to the rector in the future to order
  344
  the burial of another parishioner in the grave referred to?
  MR. COLLINGS: I am informed by the rector that the husband of the deceased lady had not acquired any grave in the churchyard referred to by purchase, nor had he obtained any rights of future interment in the grave in which the two infant children were buried. It appears, further, that Mrs. Williams had ceased to be a parishioner more than 15 years ago, and that her interment in the parish churchyard was refused in pursuance of a rule, which has been in force for some years, restricting the interments of non-parishioners in this churchyard to husbands and wives of persons already buried therein.
  MR. H. ROBERTS: Is the honourable Gentleman aware that the rector himself lives outside the parish?
  MR. COLLINGS: I am not.

  WAIMA.
  MR. YERBURGH: On behalf of the honourable Member for the Leek Division of Staffordshire, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the subject of the Waima claim was included in the negotiations respecting Africa between the Government and that of the French Republic, which have just been brought to a close?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Waima claim is a matter which is being dealt with separately, and it was not included in the negotiations referred to.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: Will the right honourable Gentleman state in plain language what the Government have done during the past year?
  MR. BRODRICK: I must ask for notice.

  MURDER OF COLONEL LE MARHCANT.
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: I wish to ask the noble Lord whether he has received any further account than that mentioned in the papers of the lamentable murder of

  345
  Colonel Le Marchant in the Khaibar Pass?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: No' Sir, I have no further information beyond this, that the report is corroborated and that the murderer has been arrested.

  ANGLO-FRENCH AGREEMENT.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the statements in the newspapers correctly report the agreement which has been signed between France and Great Britain as to the Upper Nile Valley and the Western Soudan, and whether the route for trade will be open and free from duties between the Nile and the Niger territory?
  MR. BRODRICK: In the main the accounts which have appeared of the agreement between Great Britain and France as to the delimitation of territory in Africa are correct, and we are in communication with the French Government as to publishing the text of the agreement. I hope to be able to lay it on the Table in a few days. The agreement stipulates for equal treatment of British and French trade between the Nile and Lake Chad, which affords access to the Niger territory.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  MR. DILLON: I wish to take this opportunity of raising the question of the persecution to which the rector of St. Clement's Church, Belfast, has been subjected for the last six months—a persecution of an extraordinarily inhuman character and of continuous and increasing intensity. What has been the history of this extraordinary business? For a, period of, I believe, nearly six months the Rev. Mr. Peoples, the officiating clergyman of this church in Belfast, has been subjected to a constant and organised system of persecution, and,
  346
  so far as I am aware, this has been directed against him for only one offence, namely, that he conducts the services of the Church of St. Clement's in a certain fashion which gives offence to a how Church party in Belfast—in fact, that he indulges in certain Ritualistic practices. I desire, at the outset, to draw a broad distinction, which I think may fairly be drawn, between the offence given to those who dissent from certain religious practices by services conducted in the open street, and those conducted in a church. Now, in the present instance, the Rev. Mr. Peoples cannot be charged by his enemies with making any attempt to obtrude his particular religious views on any one who does not desire to enter his church, or to be present at any of his ceremonies. On the contrary, his ministrations are entirely confined to his own church, and, so far as my information goes, are not objected to by his own congregation. But because he has carried on certain Ritualistic practices which, I believe, are largely indulged in in this country, this campaign has been conducted against him Sunday after Sunday for many weeks. I may divide the persecution of which I complain into two classes. First, there is the barbarous conduct of those who invade this gentleman's church and turn it into a pandemonium; and, secondly, there is the conduct which commences at the door of the church, and which consists in assaulting Mr. Peoples while walking through the streets. My complaint to-day is chiefly concerned with the conduct of the mob outside the church, and I shall say little or nothing about the extraordinary scenes which, Sunday after Sunday, are taking place inside that edifice. So far as the persecution outside the church is concerned, I desire at the very outset to draw attention to one very remarkable characteristic of it. It is not spontaneous. It is not an isolated outbreak of popular feeling caused by sudden provocation or outrage. It has been deliberately organised at meetings held during the last six months in front of the Customs House steps, and also in close proximity to St. Clement's Church, and, at these meetings, this campaign has been boasted of and encouraged by various speakers who have addressed them, and especially by a gentleman of the name of Trew. I gave some speci-

  347
  mens the other day of the expressions used by these gentlemen, and the right honourable gentleman said that it was not so, because the policemen had been examined, and they said that no such lauguage had been used. I believe that that is a very insufficient answer.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I was not aware that any such language had been used.
  MR. DILLON: I only know what the information is which was sent to me by gentlemen who were in the crowd; but the language used was certainly of a very violent character. But as the right honourable Gentleman denies the use of the language which I gave the other day, I shall not repeat it; but, having regard to the view that I have taken of this matter, and the language used—I said first of all, for I do not think that the right honourable Gentleman will deny that this conspiracy against Mr. Peoples —and that is what it amounts to—was encouraged, and the avowed purpose of this thing was to disturb the conduct of the service at St. Clement's Church. But I do not base my case on that or on the language used at the public meetings; I hold in my hands a copy of one of the most infamous newspapers ever published—which is very wisely, I think, on the part of those responsible for its publication, printed illegally without any imprint—the "Belfast Protestant," and you will see the kind of language that is used in this newspaper in Belfast in respect of the fearful persecution that I am now about to lay before the House. The headline of the first column is as follows, "Victorious Again," and then it says that the "Belfast Protestant" has at last been compelled to let the people see that they still existed, that their friends in the country had thought that the "Protestant" had fulfilled its mission and died; but that is not so, that work that it has been engaged in has been going on day by day lest Ritualism should gain an inch of ground. Then it goes on to describe what the work was, and says that Mr. Peoples has attempted to erect a cross in the church, but has been prevented by a band of workers who have resisted the objectionable
  348
  emblem being raised. Now, note this language—
  "Mr. Peoples tried all the little tricks he knew to get police protection, but failed, with the result that the contractor was obliged to give up the job and take his workmen away."
  Now, how is the right honourable Gentleman to get behind such language as that—Mr. Peoples tried all he knew to get police protection," to do a work which he was perfectly entitled to do, "but failed." Then there is a still further illustration of the spirit in which this thing was organised. This paper then describes how, when it was discovered that Mr. Peoples was to hold a quiet meeting in a house, it was at once decided to march down and also hold their meeting there, which they did. Then somebody reported that Father Peoples was climbing over a wall and escaping. I think, seeing that the reverend gentleman was going in fear of his life, that it was no wonder that he attempted to escape by the back way. Now, the right honourable Gentleman can see the sort of language which is used by the organ of this gentleman who is organising this crusade. Now let me direct the attention of the House to what is really being done. It is really very difficult to get people in this country to believe the actual facts of what is taking place in Belfast every Sunday. The "Ulster Echo" and the "Northern Whig" —the "Ulster Echo" is the oldest Protestant paper of Belfast—point out that Sunday after Sunday, going to his church and again returning from his church, twice every Sunday, this reverend gentleman is surrounded by a howling mob, variously estimated at from 1,000 to 10,000 people; that he is subjected to the filthiest language and the most frightful insults, and is obliged to travel the streets of Belfast in the midst of a heavy body of police, in order to obtain protection from a mob which is encouraged by the impunity with which it has for so long been allowed to carry out its outrages. This last Sunday the mob has gone a step further, and the reverend gentleman had to go to his church amid a shower of stones. The "Ulster Echo" of the 13th of March describes a scene where Mr. Peoples was arriving at home; it says that the crowd numbered many thousands of persons who hooted at him when he

  349
  came to his home in Templemore Avenue. "Fortunately no stones were thrown." That was on the 12th of March. On the 19th of March, last Sunday, a further step in advance was taken, and in the "Ulster Echo" it goes on to describe what occurred. It says divine service in several churches of the district was considerably interrupted by the shouts of the rowdies, and that the scene baffled description. That is an extremely mild description to give of the language used, "No damage done." So that on Sunday last the mob actually held the field unrestrained by the police, and such great showers of stones were thrown upon the roof of the church that the churchwarden had to come to the door and say that no afternoon service would be held. This paper goes on to say that a number of the adherents of St. Clement's were hit, whilst one young man was badly beaten. I would call the right honourable Gentleman's attention to the fact that that was the same young man who was struck down in the road a fortnight before, when he had to fly for his life. On Sunday last he was again assaulted, his only crime being that he gave evidence against the men when the Crown refused to prosecute, and the prosecution was taken up by private persons. Not content with assaulting Mr. Peoples and this unfortunate young man who appeared as a witness, they assaulted one of the young women. Now, that is the condition of things which has been allowed to go on in this so-called civilised city without any attempt being made on the part of the Executive Authority to stop it. For two or three weeks I have put Questions to the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in order to be quite sure as to whether what I saw described in the newspapers is correct, and for several weeks past the Chief Secretary has stated in answer to those Questions, that the facts as stated in the Questions were correct. Then I asked whether it was the intention of the Government to put an end to these disturbances. Now the Chief Secretary some time ago gave an answer to that Question which is destined to become somewhat classical; he gave that answer about three weeks ago. He said this was a question upon which there mast be some difference of opinion, and that what was lawful was not always expedient.
  350
  That is the most extraordinary statement that I have ever heard made by a responsible Minister in this House, because what he has to deal with here is an avowed, organised conspiracy, kept up by public meetings, for the purpose of hounding a man through the streets. Every Sunday that he goes to his church he has to go in the midst of a heavy body of police, and we are told by a responsible Minister that he cannot see his way to take action and put a stop to these proceedings; and then he says, "What is always lawful is not always expedient." Now, if in this city that we are now in there was an avowed conspiracy against an honourable Member of this House, and every day that he came to this House he was surrounded by a howling mob of 4,000 people, throwing stones whenever they could find an opportunity, and using filthy language, what would be the opinion of this House? Why, I venture to say that no Minister who was so lax in administration would dare to face the question. I desire to put one or two questions to the right honourable Gentleman in reference to these proceedings. I wish to ask him, first of all, is it, or is it not, a lawful proceeding to hound a man through the streets in the way I have described. If it is not, I wish to know what were the considerations of expediency which influenced the Government of Ireland to abstain from proceeding against those who are breaking the law? And then I want to ask the right honourable Gentleman whether it is true, as I am informed by the Rev. Mr. Peoples himself, that in the month of October last, when he applied for police protection to the Commissioner of Police in Belfast, when he stated that he was in dread of his life, he was told by the Commissioner that so long as he indulged in ritualistic practices in his church the disturbance would continue. If true, that is a most scandalous state of things—that he should abstain from giving that protection to which every citizen is entitled. Is it a fact that about three weeks ago the Commissioner of Police, Mr. Moriarty, called upon the Protestant Bishop of Belfast and requested him to either close St. Clement's Church or to remove Mr. Peoples? I put this in the form of a Question yesterday, and the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland declared that he regarded it as being in the form of a confidential

  351
  conversation. I do not think he ought in this case to treat as confidential the proceedings of the Commissioner of Police when he requested the bishop to close the church or to remove Mr. Peoples. The statement that there was such a conversation has gone abroad, and it has greatly encouraged those who have been engaged in this outrageous conspiracy against this man. I do not think it is a communication which has a right to be considered confidential, and I think I have a right to have an answer. Then I desire to ask the right honourable Gentleman whether it is a fact, as stated by Mr. Peoples himself, that on Sunday last that several of the congregation were kicked and stoned and otherwise disabled by these rowdies, and whether the rector of St. Clement's Church on Sunday sent for police protection in Belfast inside the church, stating that he feared his life would be in danger, and that that protection was refused him?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: What is the question?
  MR. DILLON: These, briefly stated, are the facts of this extraordinary transaction in Belfast. The Chief Secretary a few days ago was very indignant with me for suggesting that the history of this transaction disclosed the fact that there were very different laws administered in Belfast to those which were administered in the South of Ireland. Whatever the Chief Secretary's indignation may be, it is impossible to deny the charge that I have brought. I shall allude only briefly to a case which took place in the West of Ireland—the case of alleged intimidation of Mr. C. Daly in Castlebar. The only intimidation alleged was that a band went out and played the "Dead March in Saul" for Mr. Daly's benefit, and that he heard it in his house. A prosecution was immediately brought, and Mr. Daly was examined, and said he was not intimidated; and in spite of all that, those who were summoned by the police, five young men, were brought up, and, in default of getting bail, were sentenced to a month's imprisonment in the Castlebar gaol. That case, if they were guilty at all, was insignificant; yet, in spite of all the appeals that I have made, the right honourable Gentleman refuses to prosecute or disperse this howling mob, and has conveyed consequently to the leaders of these men who are carry-
  352
  ing on this persecution the impression that they are engaged in a safe transaction, and there is no danger; and, instead of its being a slight matter, it is a very serious one. Now, those are the facts of this case, and I ask the Irish Secretary to state once and for all whether the conduct of these people is legal, and, if it is illegal, whether he will take active steps to put an end to what is a very great scandal?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no desire to extenuate the gravity of the very discreditable scenes which have lately and are still taking place in Belfast, or to deny that what has occurred there has caused, from the beginning, very great anxiety, and is still causing great anxiety. At the same time, I am not prepared to subscribe entirely to the account which the honourable Member for East Mayo has given as accurate; still less am I prepared to admit, as he has alleged in these cases, one law for the north of Ireland, and one law for the south. In order to appreciate the difficulties which we have to take account of in connection with these disturbances, it is first of all necessary to thoroughly apprehend the relations in which Mr. Peoples stands in regard to his own congregation. With regard to the practices which he has introduced into his church, and the character of the services carried on there, I have nothing to say, and I express no opinion on that point. It is a matter that does not concern me as a Member of the Executive Government, but, at the same time, had these positions been reversed, and had Mr. Peoples been a representative of the Low Church opinions, and the crowd which has assaulted him been of a different persuasion, the course taken by the Government in that case would have been exactly the same as it has been in this. Now, Sir, the honourable Gentleman made out one fundamental point; he has told the House that, so far as he was able to ascertain, there was no dispute between Mr. Peoples and his congregation. Sir, the facts of the case are exactly opposite; the Church of St. Clement's was opened on the 1st of October last, and from the very first Sunday upon which the church was dedicated there has been open hostility between Mr. Peoples and the vast majority of his congregation. According to the information which has reached

  353
  me, out of a congregation of 700 persons, exclusive of the choir, only one churchwarden and 20 members of the congregation approve of the services conducted by Mr. Peoples. The rest of the congregation there dissent from the way in which the services are being carried on, and a great many of those created more or less disturbance to indicate their disapproval of the way in which the services were being conducted. When any other clergyman has conducted the service in Mr. Peoples' absence, the congregation has been invariably quiet and attentive and devout, and no disturbance has occurred. The honourable Member for East Mayo evidently believes, and desires to persuade the House, that the trouble that has taken place in Belfast is due to the opposition of the Low Church party to the way in which the services of this church have been conducted by Mr. Peoples, irrespective of the attitude of Mr. Peoples' own congregation. The real fact of the matter is that Mr. Peoples has excited and aroused not only the hostility of the Protestants of Belfast generally, but 95 per cent. of his own congregation. It may be said that these facts do not justify the treatment which he has received. I entirely concur; but one thing is certain, and that is, that in cases of this character, disapproval of a particular course is not always guided by sweet reasonableness, especially in the north of Ireland. All these scenes occur in the north of Ireland, and scenes of this character are more violent in the north than in the south. But anybody who really knows the circumstances of Belfast, and who can appreciate the state of things which I describe, would realise what a difficult situation is the situation in which the Government now stands, and how much it stands in need of careful handling. What are the actual facts inside the church? From the very first time that the church was opened there have been unseemly interruptions whenever Mr. Peoples has been present and has conducted the services. Those disturbances have been more or less serious on different occasions; they consisted of groaning, shouting, scraping of feet, and other demonstrations; and the disturbances have been so serious that on nine occasions since 1st October the church had to be closed, and no service has been held, I understand, by order of the Bishop. On five occasions the police
  354
  have been called in to clear the church. There has been in connection with the disturbance one prosecution, that of a man named Johnston, who was summoned and charged with brawling in the church. It is unfortunate, as the honourable Gentleman has said, that a witness mainly instrumental in connection with the prosecution has been subsequently illtreated, and, as I understand, has now lost his situation. So far as this Government is concerned, they have done their best to investigate this matter, and they are now investigating the case of the persons who have used violence against this witness.
  MR. DILLON: Maltreatment took place last Sunday.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There was one member of the congregation illtreated last Sunday, but I have no information as to what was his name. I quite admit that these occurences are to be regretted, and are most discreditable in every way, and I may point out to the honourable Member how difficult it is for the Government to put down manifestations of feeling which are practically universal. If a witness against a brawler in St. Clement's Church cannot give evidence without being maltreated by his fellow-workmen, it shows how widespread is the hostility in this ease, and how difficult is the task that the Government have to undertake. Outside the church Mr. Peoples has, no doubt, been followed home by a crowd groaning and hooting, and the rowdy element which seems to be always in force in cases like this made itself apparent. Although a few stones were thrown, no personal injury has been noted, except in the case of one person who was stoned. Speaking generally, although there have been a larger number—two or three thousand people—in the crowd, their demeanour has not been such as to justify the police in taking the extreme step of dispersing the crowd with a baton charge. When the police have been called in by the rector or churchwarden to clear the church of disturbers, they have cleared it, and they also expressed their willingness to give evidence in any prosecutions which the churchwardens decided to institute, but the result of one such pro-

  355
  secution has disclosed the fact that the relations between Mr. Peoples and his congregation are not so friendly as the honourable Gentleman suggests to us.
  MR. DILLON: I am sorry to interrupt the right honourable Gentleman, but I am informed that the one churchwarden who prosecuted Johnston has had to leave the city.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not think that is true, and, as I have told the honourable Gentleman, I think it is absolutely preposterous. At any rate, notwithstanding what has occurred, churchwardens have been very unwilling to institute proceedings, and in addition to that, the police have expressed their readiness if the Rector or the Bishop requested them—they have expressed their willingness to exclude from the church persons likely to cause disturbance. Outside the church the police have, and will continue to afford personal protection to Mr. Peoples; in addition to that they have the power to forbid an assembly which is obstructive or calculated to intimidate. And under these most trying circumstances, I consider that the police have acted with extreme forbearance and extreme judgment. In addition to the steps taken, it would not be possible to take the extreme step that has been suggested. It has been suggested that the police should attend in plain clothes for the purpose of formulating a charge with the view of instituting a prosecution for disturbing the service. No steps could be taken of that kind, and any steps which might have been taken in that direction would not have mitigated, but would have been almost bound to aggravate the circumstances with regard to which we have had this statement to-day. What the Government is most anxious to do in religious disturbances of this character is not to take extreme measures; they are very reluctant to take the extreme step of dispersing the crowd by a baton charge.
  MR. DILLON: In Belfast only?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Government are always reluctant, unless there is extreme and urgent necessity. Another course which it
  356
  is suggested we ought to pursue is to make arrests. Arrest, of course, could be executed if it was seen that it was necessary, but the whole object hitherto has been to avoid taking extreme steps. I have told the honourable Gentleman, in answer to a question, that if the demurring crowds become more violent we shall be driven to take these steps, and I believe that the House agrees with me that these are matters in which the utmost forbearance should be exercised, and that such measures as would be likely to lead to such a serious result as would a baton charge should be avoided as long as possible. The honourable Member charges me with having one law for the north and another for the west of Ireland, and as an instance he referred to a case which lately occurred in Mayo, where the police prosecuted for intimidation; but, Sir, does not the honourable Gentleman see that there is all the difference in the world between a religious disturbance of this kind, arising in connection with a congregation and its Rector out of a religious dispute, and a case of a disturbance arising out of the agrarian question?
  MR. DILLON: Why?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In the case of disturbance arising out of the agrarian question everybody would be treated in the same way as with these persons in Mayo. If you wish to judge the Government fairly in this matter, and to examine into the question as to whether they have the same law in the north of Ireland as in the west and south, the cases which bring most knowledge at the present moment are those cases in which the police were ordered to various parts of Ireland when religious disturbances arising out of street preaching were occurring, and intimidation was rife; in those cases, in which the circumstances were exactly the same as here, the instruction to the police, both under the last Government and this, were that the police should afford all possible protection to private individuals, but that they should, so far as possible, and it has been done, maintain absolute neutrality between the parties. Let me take the case of Sligo. Since I have been Chief Secretary, there have been

  357
  serious disturbances in the streets of Sligo, owing to religious differences, and I am surprised, when giving an illustration, the honourable Gentleman confined himself to an agrarian case, instead of taking a case of closer analogy to this. In Sligo, the same course was adopted, and the same forbearance was shown by the police, until at last the disturbance assumed greater proportions than in Belfast. In Sligo, a mob of 10,000 people made an attack upon a street preacher, and a large number of stones were thrown, and the man was in peril of his life. Under those circumstances, it became necessary to disperse the mob by force; and if a similar crisis should occur in Belfast, exactly the same measures would be adopted as in Sligo, no matter what the consequences might be. As to prosecutions, the only prosecutions in connection with the Sligo disturbances were for riot and assaults on the police; but the result of the proceedings was not very satisfactory. What I want to impress upon the House is this: that the method adopted by the Irish Government in the treatment of these disturbances in Belfast is the result of long experience in dealing with difficulties of this kind. It is now traditional with the Irish Government, and has been followed with success by our predecessors in the disturbances which arose in Cork and Sligo in connection with street preaching. The police were there to confer protection, if required, but were instructed to observe a strict neutrality as between the opposing parties. I have now given two cases, in which disturbances have occurred—one where it arose in the case of street preaching, and the other arising out of a congregational dispute, and in all these cases the Government has followed the method which they have pursued in connection with Belfast; and let me once more impress upon the House this point. The Irish Government have a long experience in dealing with these matters. This policy has not been started by us; we have taken this practice from our predecessors, from whom we have inherited it, and it-is, I believe, the best one that we could adopt. The honourable Gentleman referred in his speech to an interview which took place between the Commissioner of Police of Belfast and the Bishop. He asked me a question upon
  358
  this subject the other day, which I declined to answer, as the interview was of an unofficial character, and I adhere to that now, although I have no reason to find fault with the Commissioner for what he said or urged upon that occasion. As my honourable Friend has introduced the name of the Bishop into this, let me express my own opinion that a very grave responsibility rests both upon Mr. Peoples and the Bishop in regard to this matter. The hostility of the congregation of St. Clement's to Mr. Peoples is increasing rather than diminishing, and there is every sign that it will continue to increase. It certainly seems hopeless to expect that anything like a reconciliation can be anticipated between Mr. Peoples and his congregation. If I am in error on that matter, I err in very good company, because I have information today, and I believe there is a statement in "The Times" newspaper to the same effect, that the Diocesan Council had almost unanimously passed a resolution recommending the Bishop to end this dispute by closing the church for 12 months. If Mr. Peoples insists upon remaining where he is, and acting as he is doing, I hope the resolution passed by the Diocesan Council may be adopted. The situation is very serious now, and is likely to become more serious still, but the police have shown the utmost patience and forbearance; but forbearance has its limits, and should the demeanour of the mob become more violent, it will be the duty of the Government to take the strongest measures. Until it is necessary, however, it clearly ought not to be done, because when the police come into conflict with the mob, the probability is that not one riot, but a series of riots will be the result, which in all likelihood will be accompanied by loss of life.
  MR. DILLON: Are you afraid of the mob?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am afraid of the result of a conflict with the mob.
  MR. DILLON: Is that an argument to be used in the South? Does the right honourable Gentleman say that the mob should be encouraged by the police, if they persist in breaking the law?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I can only express the hope that this unfortunate occurrence may be terminated in the only way in which it can be satisfactorily terminated, either by the action of Mr. Peoples, or failing that, by the action of his ecclesiastical superiors.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: In Belfast there is a clergyman who belongs to what is termed the High Church School of thought, and a certain portion of his congregation, including the choir, are in entire sympathy with the reverend gentleman, and we have, therefore, in the City of Belfast the same state of things which exists in this city and in this country. We have a state of religious feeling there which is also apparent in this country, and we have congregations who are in favour of High Church doctrine, and we have another body, not all belonging to the congregation, who are opposed to the doctrine. Now, in this country that state of things is fought out either by Debate in this House or by actions in the courts of law, but in Belfast, I will not say with the sanction of the right honourable Gentleman, but certainly without his earnest and forcible1 opposition, they deal with these disputes of faith and doctrine by an entirely different method. A large body of people, numbering 2,000 or 3,000, meet outside this church, and shout, and groan, and riot, and throw stones, and offer violence, not only to men, but to the women; they penetrate into the church, and upset the service going on there, and the result of all this is that they are given a, fair field and plenty of favour. I have a copy of a, paper here called the "Belfast Protestant." This paper incites the people to go and disturb this congregation and expel Mr. Peoples, so that the first factor that we have is the newspaper; then we have the agitator, Mr. Trew, who makes very inflammatory harangues inciting this mob; and we have the Diocesan Council recommending that the law should be obeyed in principle, but that the lawbreakers should be capitulated to, as I gather from the speech of the right honourable Gentleman. On nine occasions has this church had to be closed, and on five occasions the police have been called into the church, wonder
  360
  if the House really appreciates that this barbarous and savage behaviour is taking place in the loyal and peaceful City of Belfast, and the final result of it all is that the Executive have risen to the height of ordering one prosecution. The result of that is that a man gets two months' imprisonment, and, as a matter of fact, the man is better off than the people who gave evidence against him, because of three persons who appeared against him we find one has been dismissed from his employment, and for no other offence than that he gave evidence against this gentleman who disturbed the congregation. I venture to state that this state of things would not be tolerated in this country for a moment. If this had occurred here the editor would have been in gaol. Mr. Trew would have been in gaol, and the others. I am not sure that the employers who dismissed this man would not be in gaol too. Now, what justification does the right honourable Gentleman give? He draws attention to the case of Sligo, and other cases of a, similar character. Now, the case of Sligo is not analogous to the case of Belfast in any way. In the case of Belfast you have a clergyman inside his own church, addressing people of his own way of thinking. He is interrupted in his service by rioters shouting, and when he goes out of the church he is absolutely assaulted, because, forsooth, he preaches his own doctrine to his own congregation inside his own church. In the case of Sligo you have a number of propagandists who go out into the public highway, and who address not only persons of their own creed, but members of different congregations, and address them in the harshest and strongest language which the Church permits. There is no analogy there. Then the right honourable Gentleman says in the south of Ireland you are dealing with agrarian disputes, but in this case you are dealing with religious disputes. I say that the religious disputes have all occurred in Belfast, and that Belfast is the only city in the three kingdoms where such riots are possible.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There were religious riots in Sligo and Cork.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Does the right honourable Gentleman compare them? I do not think there is any analogy between them. I do not think you can compare the case of a man in his own church, surrounded by a congregation of his own creed, with the case of a man preaching in the public highway, not to persons of his own creed alone, but of all creeds, and addressing them in a most violent and the strongest manner which the Church allows. And then, when the right honourable Gentleman comes to the question of religious riots, are these little miserable street corner squabbles, which are really all that took place, in which a few stones are thrown and a few people are assaulted—I will put it as high as the right honourable Gentleman likes—to be compared with the religious riots which take place in Belfast, and which extend over seven or eight weeks, and in which scores of lives have been sacrificed? I think the right honourable Gentleman ought to pay more attention to what takes place in Belfast than to anything that takes place anywhere else.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I quite admit that honourable Gentlemen have a right to discuss matters upon this Motion, but I would appeal to them to allow us to go by universal consent to what is the main business of this evening, and to permit the Debate by agreement to finish at 12 o'clock to-night. I make that appeal not in my own interests, but in the interests of the House at large.
  MR. WEIR: I wish to do my utmost to respond to the appeal of the right honourable Gentleman, and shall detain the House but a very few moments. I rise with the object of calling attention to various matters of very great importance to a large section of my constituents. One is with regard to the time of year for calling up the Ross-shire Militia for annual training. Perhaps I had better postpone my observations with regard to that matter until there is some Gentleman on the Treasury Bench to reply to me. Meanwhile, as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is on the Bench, I should like to ask him whether he has yet arrived at any decision with regard to the Stornoway
  362
  mail steamer, which has been behind time on 70 occasions out of 78, and the delay on 31 of these occasions exceeded half an hour. Now, the right honourable Gentleman is not responsible for the conveyance of passengers, but he is responsible for the conveyance of Her Majesty's mails, and since a subsidy of £3,000 is given for the mails I think the Government ought to be better served. Then, with regard to the question of dog licences. I would urge upon the right honourable Gentleman the necessity for dealing with this matter. The law is clear and distinct, that a crofter owning sheep or cattle may have a dog for the purpose of tending them, and shall be exempt from paying the dog tax. These Inland Revenue officers are evidently not acquainted with the law. I think the right honourable Gentleman should take care that the law is fairly administered, and if the law is an unsatisfactory one let it be altered. Do not give these young and inexperienced Inland Revenue officers power to say, you shall give to this person or that an exemption from dog tax. They have acted very unjustly in a case brought to my knowledge. There is another matter to which I wish to call the attention of the right honourable Gentleman. The Science and Art Department have notices printed in the corner of their letters stating that all communications to the Department should be written on foolscap. Now, Sir, the great Departments of the State do not ask for anything of the kind; in the Post Office, Customs, Treasury, War Office, and Admiralty there are no restrictions of that description, but it is only the small Departments which make this ridiculous rule, and I do hope that the right honourable Gentleman will give this matter his attention. These small Departments had better go and take some lessons from some of the greater Departments which do not make such absurd rules. I see the Secretary for the War Department now on the Treasury Bench. What I want to know from him is whether any decision has been arrived at by the War Office as to the time of year for training the Ross-shire Militia? The Militia hitherto have been trained in the month of April. The commanding officer has now given instructions that they shall be trained in the month of July. The majority of the

  363
  Ross-shire Militia are fishermen from the Island of Lewis. In July a great number of them are engaged in their ordinary avocation as fishermen, and if they are brought away from their pursuits in order to attend at Fort George the annual training, it will simply mean ruin and disaster to their families, and not only to them, but to the whole of the Island of Lewis, with its population of just upon 30,000. I have had the matter brought under my notice by the Burgh Commissioners of Stornoway, and the committee of the county council has appealed to me to approach the War Office on the subject. I sincerely hope that the honourable Gentleman will be able to give me some satisfactory statement to-day which will satisfy these public bodies and also the Ross-shire Militia. Then I want to ask the Secretary for the Admiralty if he has considered the question of sending a training ship to the western islands of Scotland, in order to tap the splendid material which is to be found there, and give these island boys a, chance of entering Her Majesty's Navy?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): The honourable Member has asked three questions affecting my Department which he tells us are very important, namely, the steamer, the note-paper, and the dog. With regard to the dog, he has complained that a person in whom he is interested has had to pay the ordinary licence for a dog which is kept to tend certain cattle. Well, the surveyor of taxes on the spot, by whom, of course, we must be guided, assures us that this dog is perfectly incapacitated for that work. Then, with regard to the steamer. The honourable Member admits that the interests of the Post Office are in the mails, and not in the passenger service. He has asked me about this steamer, I suppose, very nearly half a dozen questions already this Session, and I have been able to give him an exact account of almost every day and every journey on which this steamer has been late, and the time, almost to a fraction of a second, by which it has been late. But our mails, on the whole, have been carried very satisfactorily. Whether it may be a bad sea-boat for passengers, and whether the
  364
  honourable Member himself may have been somewhat inconvenienced, I do not know, but, at any rate, the mails have been fairly satisfactorily carried. No doubt they have been late occasionally through very rough weather, but just as often by reason of the late arrival of the mail train. Then on the third important question of the note-paper. The honourable Member takes great objection to a Department requesting their correspondents to communicate with them on paper of a particular shape.
  MR. WEIR: On foolscap.
  MR. HANBURY: I do not think that the Treasury commits such an enormity, and my honourable Friend tells me that there are other Departments—the War Office is one—which are free from that vice. I am sorry to say that I have no control in that matter as regards the only Department which the honourable Member has specified, and, therefore, if the honourable Member again wishes to raise this highly important question, perhaps he will refer it to the heads of the Department that can answer it.
  MR. PIRIE: The opportunities for bringing up Scottish questions are so few and far between in this House that that must be my excuse for troubling the House with a question which has been agitated for upwards of two years. I refer to the present state of matters in the Moray Firth. It was hoped that the North Sea Fisheries Conference was going to prove a solution to the question, but the information which I have this morning, from a Reuter's telegram dispatched from Stockholm, leads me to believe that this Conference will be long delayed. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, dealing with this matter in the House at the beginning of this week, informed the House that the Conference was going to meet probably in May. I read now, on the authority of the "Official Gazette" of Stockholm, that the Swedish-Norwegian Government has not yet been able to issue the invitations to the Conference because all the Powers interested have not yet replied to the preliminary questions addressed to them. The Swedish-Norwegian Government hopes, however, to be able to open the Conference in Stockholm next

  365
  year. What I wish to know is, first, granted that the Conference takes place, will it deal with the existing state of affairs in the Moray Firth? I remember that the late Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in July of last year, stated that Her Majesty's Government could not see any likelihood of being able to persuade the North Sea Powers to forego their rights of fishing outside the territorial limit in Scottish waters, and this statement made one still more sceptical that, even if this Conference does meet, it will remedy, or even deal with, the state of affairs about which I am asking for information. But I also wish to know what is to happen until this Conference does take place? Is the existing state of things to continue, or is it not.' We who are interested in this question wore put off last year, driven from pillar to post; we were directed from one Member of the Government to another Member of the Government, and obtained no satisfactory information at all. I am not using too strong a word when I say we were deluded into believing that negotiations were actually taking place, and that probably the Conference would assemble months before the date which is now promised. I do not think that Her Majesty's Government realise the gravity of the situation, and that is really why I have brought it before the House on the present occasion. It is really a question more for the Secretary of State for Scotland than for the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs; and I bring this matter before the House, not as representing the trawling interest—I bring it before the House from the point of view of the public good, of the fishing question as a whole. As regards the view which I hold on the question of opening or closing the Moray Firth, I am of the same opinion that the Lord Advocate expressed to-day. I should be very averse to expressing any definite opinion upon a question which I regard as one of natural history, and I should be prepared to follow a scientific Committee upon this no after. I cannot say what scientific opinion is, but even if it declared that it was advisable, in the fishing interest generally, that the Firth should be closed to trawlers, I am perfectly ready to support that. This much is very clear—that it is not in the interests of one branch of the fishermen that I bring
  366
  this question forward. But my opinion is, Sir, that the present state of affairs is far more brought about by attention being paid to the necessities of electoral representation and the votes of the fishermen than really to the true fishing interests. I am strengthened in that opinion by an admission which was made not very long ago by a Scottish Member, a member of the Scottish Fishery Hoard, when he said that it was really a question of the inhabitants surrounding the Moray Firth taking measures for the Firth to be opened. That statement was disavowed, it is true, by the Government; but I would ask the Lord Advocate, who stated that no direct interest should be represented upon the Scottish Fishery Board, how comes it that a member of this Fishery Board, Mr. Jameson, is, at the same time, secretary of the Edinburgh and Leith Fishery Association? To my mind it is very clear that, in spite of himself, he cannot help being directed by one special interest as regard to his official position as member of the Board, and another by his private interest as secretary of this Fishing Association. However, that is only by the way. But more important, in my mind, even than the fishing interest, is the actual condition of affairs brought about by the present state of the law in the Moray Firth. I say that the present state of affairs brings about falsehood and fraud, and is a direct incentive to violence and breaking the law. There has been case after case brought up, in which fishermen have got themselves into serious trouble, and fined and imprisoned through breaking the law—the law being so unjust that there was every temptation for them to break the law.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member will not be in order in advocating an alteration of the law.
  MR. PIRIE: Then, Sir, I would really ask how soon this state of affairs, which leads to direct antagonism between the foreigners and our own fishermen, bringing about, as I say, violence and the breaking of the law, is to cease? I would also say that the present state of affairs leads directly to fraud, for I have the very best information, Sir, that there are numbers of these trawlers——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member is going now into the present state of the law, not its administration.
  MR. PIRIE: I apologise, Sir; I will merely ask if there is any truth in the statement of the Swedish-Norwegian Government that the Conference will not assemble until next year, and, if that is the case, what in the meantime is going to take place, and when the present state of affairs may be put a stop to?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: In view of the appeal which has been made by the Leader of the House for facilities to get on with the discussion of the London Government Bill, I will abstain from replying, at the present time, to the very unjust attacks which have been made upon a section of my constituents, but I concur in all that the Chief Secretary has said on the subject.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: Sir, the question has been raised whether some temporary arrangement could not be made pending the settlement which we hope to see made by the Conference, and that is the point that I would most strongly urge upon Her Majesty's Government—that they should try to get some temporary arrangement, some modus vivendi, to end this most unsatisfactory state of things which has been referred to by my honourable Friend. I quite agree that the position of affairs is most unsatisfactory, and the fact that my honourable Friend has just drawn attention to, that there seems to be a difficulty in the early meeting of the Conference, very much strengthens the necessity, if possible, for coming to some arrangement whereby to stop the present unsatisfactory state of affairs. I think all the fishermen—and a large number of line fishermen are among my constituents—regard the present state of things as almost intolerable. We all agree that the position is unsatisfactory, and we all agree that it should be put a stop to. But the question is, how it can be put a stop to? The complaint is that whereas foreign trawlers are allowed to go into the Moray Firth, British trawlers are not allowed. The specific complaint
  368
  is of inequality. Well, to my mind, that inequality could be removed, at any rate temporarily, if it is decided to exclude all, to exclude foreigners as well as our own trawlers.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order! The honourable Member is now complaining of the existing state of the law, and contending that it should be altered.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to explain, Sir. I have no proposal about a change in the law. My wish is to urge upon the Government certain measures with regard to the Conference; that is the sole thing that I wish to urge. The present strained state of affairs is owing to the British trawlers being excluded and the foreign trawlers being admitted. I want the Conference and negotiations, because foreign trawlers cannot be excluded by any change in the law, but only by agreement of the Governments under which they live, and I want to point out to the right honourable Gentleman that there are only two ways of making equality between foreign trawlers and British trawlers. The first is by admitting British trawlers, and the second by excluding foreign trawlers. The effect of admitting British trawlers would be to upset the whole existing policy of the Government and the Fishery Board, which we entirely approve. We consider that the Scotch Fishery Board is well acquainted with the needs of the Scotch fishermen. We have confidence in the Fishery Board, and we wish to support them. Therefore we do not wish this policy upset. If British trawlers are admitted into the Moray Firth they will make as clean a sweep of the Moray Firth as they have made of the coasts of Scotland and England. They have cleared away their own fisheries, and they wish to come into the Moray Firth. I say that the matter ultimately will be decided upon the broad grounds of the proper protection of the supply of fish and fair play to all. What I am pressing upon Her Majesty's Government has to do with the existing strained relations to which my honourable Friend referred, and that can best be remedied by an exchange of active communication with

  369
  other Governments, and an agreement that for the time being all trawlers equally shall be excluded from the Moray Firth.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I hope I may be allowed a few words to protest against the monstrous doctrine that the honourable Member who has just sat down preaches, that trawlers destroy fish, and therefore ought to be excluded. If the honourable Member had read a most excellent book dealing with the question of the natural history of fish, "The Resources of the Sea," and also had studied the works of the Biological Institute at Plymouth, he would see that it is absolutely true that the spawn of fish float in the sea; that no trawler, no seine fisherman, can by any possibility harm the spawn of the fishery; and that all these matters are delusions upon which an ignorant Scottish Fishery Board has excluded their own trawlers, and then others more ignorant and stupid than the Scotch Fishery Board come and want the Government to try and exclude the foreign trawlers. All this is founded upon the merest delusion, upon ignorance of the habits of the fish. Sir, I think it is outrageous that day after day Members should come here and put questions suggesting that the trawlers are injuring the supply of fish to the world. The Member for Ross-shire constantly suggests that without any rebuke, and it is allowed to go forth that trawlers are destroying the supply of fish. Everybody who has studied the habits of fish knows—["No"]—I say yes; all those who have scientifically studied the habits of fish are thoroughly well agreed that the trawler does no harm at all.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: The honourable Member must be aware that a Bill is before the House introduced by a trawling Member to prevent the sale of immature fish.
  Bill read a third time and passed.

  LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question. [21st March]—
  "That the Bill be now read a second time.
  And which Amendment was—
  "To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words' no Bill dealing with the Local Government of the Metropolis will be satisfactory which while disturbing the existing system fails to simplify and complete it, and which at the same time renders more difficult the attainment of the unity of London."—(Mr, H. Gladstone.)
  Question again proposed—
  "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTSsaid that he would make no excuse for intervening in the Debate, because Westminster, with the more central and historic portion of which the whole of his Parliamentary life, and a great deal of his non-Parliamentary life, had been most intimately associated, had been singled out for an important and unique position in this Bill. But as a, London Member, he would first ask leave to make a few remarks on the general character of this Measure. It was one more closely connected with the real interests of London than any that had been brought forward in this century. It dealt with a problem which seemed hopelessly complicated and difficult until it was taken up resolutely by the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House, and treated with a mingled simplicity and skill which made half the difficulties disappear and promised a satisfactory, if not a final, solution. He approached the subject in far from a Party spirit. It had always seemed to him a grave discredit, in which both political parties in the State had alike shared, that people who came to England to find the country and the nation which had given to the world the form and spirit of Parliamentary method, its responsibility, and its representative principle—found when they came to London that spirit and that principle almost non-existent throughout the whole ground-floor of self-government in

  371
  London. As a nation, as a people, they boasted that on that principle all their liberties were founded. But in London, the capital of the British Empire and the metropolis of the Anglo-Saxon race, the vitality of that principle had been permitted to sink to its lowest ebb till it was almost extinct at its very base. Parochial government had killed it. They had only to look at the numerical polling for the three classes of elections—the Parliamentary, the County Council and the Vestry—and they would find that the Parliamentary came first, the County Council next, and the Vestry polling was immeasurably behind the other two, and ridiculously out of proportion to the importance of its functions in the life of the citizens. He (the speaker) had not been able to get the statistics. An honourable Friend of his, the Member for Wiltshire (Sir John Dickson-Poynder) had tried to get a Return; but he believed it was true that in the vestry elections an average of between five and 10 per cent. of the electorate voted, and in a vast number of cases there was no contest at all. There was no solidarity of local life; there was a complete stagnation of local interest; there was no real exercise of the franchise. This was the disease. It was the most fatal one that could attack a nation or a community. It had gone on deepening and spreading as new populations had been added to this city, and while it had been growing unseen, under their feet, they had been fighting with shams; they had been trying to apply two nostrums, unification and centralisation, neither of which could have any effect but to increase the disease. Destroy the ancient Corporation of London. Would that increase the vitality of the representative principle in local areas all over London? Centralise still further and add to the strength of the County Council. Would that quicken the life of the electorate with regard to their local authority? No. It would only draw the interest and the sense of responsibility from the local area to the central authority. To restore the representative principle to life in the local
  372
  area, by giving it a new and larger sphere, and a more dignified form in which to act, was one of the great objects, as he believed it would be one of the most far-reaching results, of this Bill. They believed this great object would be enhanced and ultimately secured in London by adding to the strength and dignity of the framework and organisation of its Local Government. They believed that the larger and more dignified form of Local Government which throughout the country—in municipalities infinitely less important than those to be incorporated under this Bill—had secured a healthy development of public interest in local affairs, had given new life to the exercise of the franchise in the electorate, and a greater sense of responsibility to the elected, would, although less complete, succeed in doing the same thing in London. Passing to the question of Greater Westminster, the honourable Member said if this was not the most important, it was certainly the boldest, the most picturesque and the most constructive feature of the Bill. The right honourable Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) who opened this Debate singled out this portion of the Government proposals and poured the vials of his wrath upon it. He read to the House a paragraph of the Westminster Petition, which describes the area in somewhat flowery language, but with a not unnatural pride. And he said he (the speaker) would have an opportunity of expanding this paragraph before the House. He (the speaker) was not responsible for the Petition, he was not going to expand the paragraph; what he was going to do was to show to the House that all the sting was drawn from the right honourable Gentleman's bitterness by an absence of information so extensive and so varied that in order to make it clear to the House he would have to classify it under four heads—political, geographical, historical, and economic. He would endeavour to keep to his own order of argument in support of Greater Westminster, but he thought any reference he might have to make in

  373
  the course of that argument to the right honourable Gentleman's remarks would fall under some one of these four heads. The lines on which the Bill had been drawn had admitted into the treatment of this portion of London historic and sentimental considerations, which were entirely in consonance with practical utility and efficient self-government. The Bill fixed and scheduled certain areas for the incorporation of borough councils, portions of London which already existed as solid areas of Local Government, and formed natural and proper units in the new scheme. The right honourable Gentleman said the areas in the schedule "were arbitrarily selected on no settled plan," and "there was no principle in regard of the areas put in the Bill." But there was a clear and definite principle—namely, that of selecting existing areas of Local Government. With the exception of the area in dispute, Westminster, all the 16 areas scheduled were now solid areas of Local Government. Not in form at the moment, but in principle, the restoration of the City and Liberties of Westminster to the position of a solid area was in close accordance with the theory and practice of the Bill. That re-combination had the most stately and ancient authority. The existence of this area as a famous city was lost in the mists of bygone history. The right honourable Gentleman said that the Government's proposals "showed a ruthless disregard of historical boundaries." He was going to tell him something about historical boundaries. What was the right honourable Gentleman's definition of the word "historical"? He used to know something about history when he and the speaker were at Oxford together. Would 12 centuries do for him? He was afraid he could not go back further than that. At so recent a date, then, as the year 785 a charter of King Off a laid down the boundaries of Greater Westminster; these were confirmed by King Edgar in 951—the boundaries, as far as they could be identified, that were in the Bill
  374
  of 1899. Two centuries later than the date mentioned, in 1174, they had this description from Fitzstephen:—
  "About two miles westward of London, on the banks of the Thames, was a royal palace, 'an incomparable structure, guarded by a wall and bulwark'; and that' between this and the City was a continued suburb, mingled with large and beautiful gardens and orchards belonging to the citizens, who were themselves everywhere known and respected, above all others, for their civil demeanour, their goodly apparel, their table, their discourse.'"
  He would pass over a brief period of 500 years, during which this area remained consolidated under the authority of the Abbot, then of the Bishop, then of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, to the date when two new bonds were created, one of which remained till 14 years ago, and the other was actually in existence now. Since the reign of Edward VI.—for over 350 years—the City and Liberties continued (up to 1885) to be the Parliamentary Borough of Westminster. No one who was familiar with the population of London could have failed to notice that in the desert of local interest, in the absence of all solidarity of local life, there was one tie and one tie only that in some measure supplied its place, and that was the Parliamentary representation of an area. It was at election times that the limits of a borough were studied, the inhabitants got to know each other's faces, and began to act together in two camps—with a common purpose. And in non-election times this bond was maintained, and brought into-play whenever they wanted to give expression to their political views. This bond existed—up to yesterday—for nearly four centuries in the City and Liberties of Westminster; and probably in a stronger form than anywhere else in the country. The right honourable Gentleman scoffed at the suggestion that Westminster had sent distinguished statesmen to this House. He (the speaker) would have thought that he might have spared them the additional sneer at those of recent times, by recalling the names of John Stuart Mill, who

  375
  was Member for Westminster; or more recently that of one whose whole Parliamentary life was connected with Greater Westminster, whose memory was still fresh and grateful to many present as that of one who filled, if not with brilliancy, yet with an uprightness and purity of purpose that well supplied its place, the highest and most responsible offices in the State. And if he might be permitted to speak of the living, he might add that Greater Westminster now sent to this House a statesman whose name would be written in enduring letters in the history of an Empire whose first line of defence was its Navy. But Westminster had never given distinguished statesmen to this House! What events, known only to the right honourable Gentleman, had eclipsed the fame of Charles James Fox, the champion of the rights of Parliament, the "idol of the people," and Member for the City and Liberties of Westminster? The right honourable Gentleman scoffed at the idea of Westminster having played an important part in the history of this country. Why, at election times the eyes of the whole country were upon it! It was the arena of contests whose issues decided the fate of Parties. Had the right honourable Gentleman, who would possibly claim for his Party some share of its former glories, forgotten that Westminster—this Greater Westminster reconstituted by the Bill—was the battle-ground where the People fought against the Court, and Fox defeated the King, and Burdett had many a bitter struggle for popular rights? All this, the intensity within and the attention from without, made the area well recognised, and its limits familiar to the public eye. John Stuart Mill, whom he had already mentioned, when Member for Westminster, proposed to establish metropolitan boroughs, and the first of them was to be the City and Liberties of Westminster—the very area set up in the present Bill. He would now refer to the other historic bond, which was also created more than 300
  376
  years ago, and in one form still existed. The right honourable Gentleman said that Greater Westminster "had no shred of municipal tradition." He was going to tell him something about municipal tradition. In the year 1585, in the 27th of Elizabeth, the Court of Burgesses was established as the local authority of the City and Liberties of Westminster. It was worth while to turn to the title of the Act for a description of the locality—
  "An Act for the Good Government of the City of Westminster and Liberties, the Seat of Royalty, the Receipt of the Nobles and Estate of the Honourable Council, the Sanctuary of all Justices, the Place of Parliament, the Show of all Nobles and of all Ambassadors coming from Foreign Parts."
  The description of the population was hardly so complimentary—
  "The people thereof are greatlie encreased, and being for the most part withowte trade or mysterie are become poore, and many of them gyven whollie to vyce and idleness, lyvinge in contempte of all manner of officers within the said Cyttie for that their power to corrects and reforme them is not so sufficient in Lawe as in that behalfe were meete and requysite."
  The "pleasant suburb" of Fitzstephen had become a populous city; and Seven Dials and the purlieus of St. John's had already come into existence. The City and Liberties of Westminster was taken as an area, for Local Government; it was divided into 12 wards; a burgess and a deputy burgess were chosen for each, and two chief burgesses were chosen every year out of the whole. And this quaint form of Local Government proceeded to exercise its authority over this area, which was to be reconstituted by this Bill. He would not trace its history. It had been gradually shorn of its functions and responsibilities until nothing remained except such as was connected with Parliamentary elections in the three boroughs into which the old Westminster was divided in 1585. In all those three boroughs, i.e., throughout the proposed area, it published the List of Voters, convened the Revision Court, and supplied, in the person of its High Bailiff, the returning officer of each—the equi-

  377
  valent for that purpose of the mayor in municipal boroughs. He thought he had shown sufficiently that the limits of this area were deeply marked in history, had been familiarised to the inhabitants up to a very recent date by a stirring political life, and were used over a very long period for purposes, mutatis mutandis, similar to those contemplated in this Bill. Putting aside history and sentiment, he would give some practical reasons which justified the Government in their treatment of this area. The most convenient way would be to take the objections that had been raised. The right honourable Gentleman attacked the Bill as throwing together rich areas. Westminster a city of the rich! Why, in the proposed area, 60,000 persons, or 30 per cent. of its whole population, lived in one or two-roomed tenements. And there were many slums which had not yet been dealt with, the improvement of which might well attract the earliest efforts of the new civic authority. The right honourable Gentleman stated that each of our great municipalities contained within its boundaries all classes, all sorts and conditions of men; it had its manufacturing, its industrial, and its residential quarters; and that all these conditions were wanting in this new municipality. This statement showed a lack of knowledge which was positively startling in one who professed an acquaintance with the condition of Greater Westminster. Why, within a few yards of this House there were factories and industries employing millions of capital and thousands of workpeople, and it was a matter of notoriety that Westminster did house what the right honourable Gentleman called "all sorts and conditions of men," from the richest to the poorest. The right honourable Gentleman seemed to imagine that Greater Westminster was confined to the Strand, Whitehall, Victoria Street and Piccadilly. He (the speaker) would invite him to step outside those thoroughfares—to Clare Market, to Soho, and to the slum area near Peter Street—and he thought he would find there poverty and misery
  378
  enough to persuade him that since the existing machinery of Local Government had not avoided insanitation and overcrowding, it might well be replaced, and that the Corporation of Greater Westminster could have no task more noble and humane than that of ameliorating the condition of the poor in their midst, by exercising the powers of the laws affecting public health and the housing of the working classes which this Bill would vest in them, and which they were bound to exercise within the borough. The right honourable Gentleman said that there was no community of interest between one part of Westminster and another. Why, at this moment provision was being made at Millbank, in the area of the Westminster Vestry, for re-housing the people displaced at Clare Market, in the area of the Strand District Board. The right honourable Gentleman stated that whilst a great city like Birmingham or Leeds kept its workmen within its boundaries, Westminster got rid of them. Why, at least 40 per cent. of the population of Westminster was a working-class population. The House would remember that a year ago a Bill was brought into this House, the main feature of which was to drive out 6,000 working people resident in Westminster in order that a poor district might be converted into a rich one for the benefit of a speculative enterprise. That Bill was energetically opposed by the Westminster Vestry. Who was it that now accused Westminster of driving out its working people? It was the right honourable Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) who gave his name to that Bill, and spoke and voted in this House in favour of that cruel proposal of expropriation. To pass on to other objections—it was said the area was too unwieldy; but it ranked seventh in the scheduled list in respect of area. It was said the population was too large; but it ranked fifth in population. It was said that the rateable value was too great; but some particular one among the areas must have a greater rateable value than the others. Rateable value alone could not and should not determine what the administrative area should be.

  379
  If one must be first, why not Westminster? Westminster would be first in rateable value, but it would be fourth in the number of rated householders, eighth in the number of houses, and, as he had pointed out, seventh in area and fifth in population. One reason for a Greater Westminster, which certainly should commend itself to the honourable Gentleman opposite, was the saving that would be effected in the administrative expenditure. It stood to reason that when they had five separate authorities, each with a complete staff, doing the same class of work, that they could do that work for far less money through one authority and one staff. From the return of the present expenditure all over the proposed area of Westminster, and that in a neighbouring borough equal in area, houses, and population, but governed by one authority, he found that the administrative expenses of the former were £26,888, and of the latter £15,797. There could be no question that the combination of separate areas into one unit must lead to economy of administration. He had another reason to urge, which, if it applied only to the more central and historic portion of Greater Westminster, should appeal, he thought, to all friends of this Bill. Whatever might be said, whatever must be said, derogatory to the parochial form of government, the Westminster Vestry, the local governing authority of that portion, had made the best of it. The representative principle has been kept alive there, and the vestry—on which, it was true, there were men of high position—was composed largely of men drawn from the people, men who had realised their responsibilities. That body showed its enlightenment by becoming the protagonist of this movement for incorporation in London. They petitioned for a Charter for themselves—they would have petitioned for a Charter for the whole if they could have spoken for the whole. When it was refused they called a Conference of the larger London vestries to advance and urge on the Government
  380
  the reform that was now being made. And the other day, when the Bill was before them which by its operation was bound to extinguish more than a hundred of them—to deprive them of positions of which they are very proud, and to cut short their little public life, in which they have worked so creditably—they sunk all personal considerations, and they gave a majority of five-sixths in favour of the Bill. They knew what they were doing, for when the numbers of the division were announced one called out. "Now bring in the executioner!" Another—he was a discontented Radical—said, "We shan't even smell the turtle soup." But the vote was a final act of loyalty not only to the historic traditions, but to the practical and permanent interests of Westminster. This tribute, which he was glad to pay to the Westminster Vestry, brought him to the last point which he had to notice in the right honourable Gentleman's remarks. The right honourable Gentleman fell into a singular confusion which it did not require a knowledge of history, but an elementary acquaintance with the provisions of the Bill to avoid. He attacked the Westminster Vestry, which had presented a petition in support of the Bill, and he said the Bill "bestowed upon Lord Onslow and his vestry the dignity of a great municipal corporation." The vestry did not belong to Lord Onslow, though Lord Onslow belonged to the vestry. But this Westminster Vestry, of which Lord Onslow was a most valued member, was only one of five vestries (or rather four vestries and one district board) that now formed the local governing bodies in Greater Westminster. And under the Bill this vestry was extinguished; and only 14 of the members of this vestry, only 14 people from the area that is now governed by it, could be on the new borough council. But the right honourable Gentleman said that the Bill "bestowed on Lord Onslow and his vestry the dignity of a great municipal corporation." What did the right honourable Gentleman mean? He had dealt with the right honourable Gentleman's

  381
  criticism on the Westminster scheme. He had met that criticism with indisputable facts. The right honourable gentleman had spoken of a "ruthless disregard of historical boundaries." He (the speaker) had shown him that no area in London possessed boundaries so deeply marked in history as this Greater Westminster. The right honourable Gentleman had said it "had no shred of municipal tradition." He had shown that its municipal traditions were 1,000 years old. The right honourable Gentleman had derided the statesmen it had sent to this House. He had referred him to the leaders of his Party who had represented it. The right honourable Gentleman had asked scornfully what part it had played in the history of the country. He had shown him it was the arena of memorable victories for popular rights. The right honourable Gentleman built up an attack on "the Westminster Vestry" being turned into a corporation on an argument which he (the speaker) had proved had no meaning. And, he trusted he had made these things clear to the House in temperate language. He was one of those who thought that in this House strong language was dangerous unless it was backed by arguments and by knowledge. The right honourable Gentleman called the claim of Westminster to incorporation "grotesque," and the proposal of the Government "preposterous." The words were not his, but the right honourable Gentleman's. But he thanked the right honourable Gentleman for supplying him with adjectives which he thought—although ho left that entirely to the judgment of the House—more accurately applied to a traveller who set out on the adventurous journey of criticism with a wallet empty of information, and a staff of argument that broke as soon as it touched the ground. He would briefly deal with an important objection which had been raised in the course of this Debate, that this Greater Westminster would be too powerful a corporation, that it would "overshadow the County Council," as one Member said, or that it would be able
  382
  to resist the wishes of Parliament, as the Member for South Leeds (Mr. Lawson Walton) apprehended. He noticed that when the honourable Member for Plymouth (Sir E. Clarke), in the course of his brilliant speech, referred to a centralised London municipality becoming a danger to Parliament, the right honourable Gentleman the Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith) resented any such possibility. What then became of the fears of his supporter behind him that Greater Westminster would be able to resist the wishes of Parliament? The honourable Member for South Leeds (Mr. Lawson Walton) stated that Greater Westminster would desire to go on adding to its powers, and would be so strong that Parliament could not resist the demand. The idea of these municipalties resisting Parliament appeared to him (the speaker) impossible. But, as between them and the County Council, their relations were laid down by a separate set of functions that must always be performed by the central body and the local body. There were functions relating to the whole of London which must be performed by the central body, and which could not be performed by any other authority. There were functions which must be performed by a local body. And it seemed to him that the clear line that was drawn between these two classes of functions would automatically preserve the character and the importance of the County Council. He would deal last with the objections which had been raised within the area. For, of course, the House was aware that the vestries comprised in the borough of St. George's, Hanover Square, and the borough of the Strand had objected to the Bill. Naturally, after what he had said, he did not admit the validity of those objections. He had not time to go into the question of alternative combinations for this area, but he could show to the House that if this was not the only combination of these districts that could have been made—and he believed it was the only one—there was no other combination that would not have been met by objections of the same sort, and founded

  383
  on far stronger grounds. There was practically no reasonable alternative to the Government proposal to create Greater Westminster. He was glad that the historic associations on which he had dwelt were to be enshrined and perpetuated in a new form. It had been no mean City, this Westminster. It was teeming with traditions which reminded them of great names and of great events in the growth of England; but still more was the history of Westminster instinct with the spirit of which its very name reminded the world, of that long and irresistible march of popular emancipation leading up to the freest and purest government in the world, based upon the people's franchise, and responsible directly and immediately to the people's will. And what they proposed doing by this Bill was to take that historic area and place within its old-established limits a new form of local government which, he believed, would bring to the community within it, and to what he might call the domestic side of political life, the same sense of responsibility and the same confidence which parliamentary government had given to the nation at large. It had been said that it was not an heroic Bill. He begged leave to differ. It was a Bill which would excite animosities and which would excite animosities and heart-burnings in London—those "embittered controversies" with which the right honourable Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had threatened them—which would last to the next parliamentry election, which would perhaps be in their most crucial stage about that time. Let them not disguise this fact from themselves on that side of the House. It was a brave Bill for a Party to bring in which drew no small portion of its strength from the area to which it applied. But they would have their compensation. Time would vindicate their wisdom and courage. And when all that it disturbed was settled and ordered for the better, the vast population of London would remember a disinterested effort of statesmanship, and would be grateful to
  384
  the Party and the man who gave a new and larger life to the popular aspirations for self-government in the greatest city the world would ever see.
  MR. BURNS: Mr. Speaker, my well-known connection with London government is my excuse for taking part in this Debate, and it is rather appropriate that a Londoner born and bred—not like the honourable Member who has just sat down—and a Westminster apprentice, who learned his trade in the heart of the City of Westminster, should say a few words on the subject now before the House. It is curious that in this connection I should have the honour of representing in this House what was once a possession of the Abbey of Westminster—namely, the parish of Battersea. This I will say on behalf of the parish, that if the Abbots of Westminster were half as pretentious as the Westminster petition and so self-assertive and dogmatic as the Westminster vestry and the honourable Member who represents Westminster in this House, I do not wonder at Battersea giving the Abbots notice to quit, because if I had to choose between the rule of King Harold, the ancient Lord of Battersea, and the kind of representation from Westminster lately, give me the lordship of the King rather than the stilted superiority which hails from Westminster now. I want to deal with the wants of the Bill, and I venture to address myself to it from the point of view of a county councillor who has taken some interest in the matter, and, in so doing, I wish to say that I regard the Bill as not a very big Bill, and, on the face of it, not the bad Bill that some people think; but there are in it suggestions which imply much danger to centralised municipal life unless there are rigorous safeguards, while there is every ground for suspecting that some of the reasons that have induced the framing of the Bill are not fraught with kindly consideration for the London County Council. It is because I believe

  385
  that this Bill is now presented for Second Reading so that the right honourable Gentleman in charge of it may know the views of Members that I venture at perhaps greater length than I otherwise would to make a few suggestions which I trust may be of a practical character, with a view to the improvement of the Bill if it passes Second Reading. We must all admit that the present condition of London government is insufferable and intolerable. We cannot have, as we have now, something like 400 bodies all told, more or less representative, more or less wasteful, more or less over-lapping each other, and more or less infringing on each other's work and authority. We cannot have, as we have at present, such a tremendous drain on the public-spirited energy of the citizens of London as is evidenced by the fact that in all the London governing bodies there are something like 5,000 representatives required to meet the demands of all these local bodies. The result is that we see time wasted, energy dissipated, profusion in cost, confusion in government, and leakage everywhere. This condition of things has become so bad that the Government have thought fit to amend it by giving dignity to local bodies, conferring titles on chairmen, and in other ways to make good government out of the present defective administration. But I think the Government has not made the best attempt. I would have preferred, before local bodies were touched at all, that some of the centralised bodies that are now nominated or indirectly elected should have been still further merged and concentrated. I should have preferred to have seen the City merged into the County Council, or, if you like, the County Council merged into the City, because that would be the leaven that would leaven the lump. I should like to have the Metropolitan Asylums Board reorganised in some such way as would prevent a nominated or an indirectly elected body spending an enormous sum of money without that check and control and those efficient safeguards that are shown in ordinary vestries or in the
  386
  London County Council. I should also like something similar done with the Thames Conservancy, by merging it into the County Council. I should like to see our rivers, water, drainage, bridges, and embankments all in the hands of one municipal authority, with means, power, dignity, and authority, doing for London as a whole what three or four centralised bodies are now only able to do inefficiently. The Government have done none of these things, and this Bill does not tend for metropolitan unity in any sense. It leaves the City alone for reasons which, perhaps, the City will some day find out are not to its permanent advantage. It glorifies Westminster to an extent that Westminster, either in its past or present, does not deserve, and which its history during the last 50 years does not justify. It belittles the County Council; it does not touch the Thames Conservancy; and in some way it breaks up in the most ruthless way the local life and the civic centre of the absorbed areas in a manner not expected from a Conservative Government, which generally is supposed to regard public spirit and civic traditions as being the achievements of a Conservative people and the monopoly of the Conservative Party. Generally speaking, this Bill shows the hand of the municipal amateur with a provincial spirit and a desire to weaken London as against certain large monopolies which welcome division and the breaking up of the unified control of London. In a way, the Bill helps those as against the common interests of London. Had this question been approached in a proper spirit we should have seen the consolidation of smaller areas, to which I am not opposed, into manageable district councils, making the present areas into wards of the larger district councils. I am afraid that will not happen, and cannot happen, if the Privy Council, ignorant of local feeling and not amenable to local sentiment, is allowed to do what this Bill gives it power to do. We want district councils with full power for local work, each autonomous, each in its own area, but subordinate to the

  387
  central authority in matters common to London as a whole. I believe if that had been done and the Poor Law business had been added to the functions of these new district councils, you would have commingled many interests, and have concentrated an appeal to a wider area of public men, with the result that better men would be induced to join in the communal service of London. I find that this Bill has one or two other defects in regard to the areas with which it deals. It takes rateable value, and not population, as a basis of the area. Why you take rateable value I cannot understand. Population should be the basis, the unit of the area.
  AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Population is also taken into account.
  MR. BURNS: Well, it does, and it does not; it whispers it to the ear, but breaks it to the hope. Let us take Westminster, with a population of 200,000 and a rateable value of five millions. And take Chelsea—it has a less population than Stepney and a higher rateable value; but I think that Stepney, with its larger population, deserves more credit for its smaller rateable value than either Westminster or Chelsea for their large rateable values, which is not due to their own industry or energy, but to a mere accident. The great institutions with which these two parishes are blessed have not been achieved from the contributions of the ratepayers of Westminster or Chelsea, but from the Imperial funds, to which the whole nation subscribes. It seems to me that this Bill might have gone somewhat further: it ought to have struck a central rate all over London. It ought to have raised the central rate, which only averages 4s., into 5s., or even 6s. If that had been done, you would have put an end to the cry that you are building up cities of the rich and making parishes of the poor. At the same time, when you are dividing the areas you should have increased the equalisation grant to the poorer districts. The poorer districts would have consented to the new areas if they had known that
  388
  the equalisation grant would be increased, so that the poor districts and the rich districts would bear their burdens equally. This Bill does not touch that question, and in some respects it prevents genuine equalisation being resorted to. For instance, we find Westminster and other West End parishes with an equalisation grant paying 5s. or 5s. 6d. in the £ for rates, whereas if you go to Bow or Bromley they pay from 6s. 8d. to 8s. in the £ for rates. Bow, Bromley, Poplar, and other parts of the East End of London are over-taxed and poverty-stricken mainly because of past neglect and the segregation of London into districts of the rich and parishes of the poor to such an extent as became a public scandal. I trust that some effort will be made by the Government to remove this anomaly. I believe if they inquire into the matter they will see what honourable Members see, that this Bill prevents the equalisation of the rates all over London being readjusted as easily as it might be. I shall be told that this Bill does not touch equalisation. I know it, and that is one of its sins of omission. No Bill for the readjustment of areas ought to be touched until the equalisation of rates is properly treated. If you want to know the reason why, turn up the speech of Mr. Wheeler, a clergyman, at a meeting at the West End, who said that Kensington did not have the handling of its own money to the extent that they would like. You are going to confer dignities upon Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster, and to create 19, or 25, or 30 district councils, with mayors and aldermen and all these new powers. But every power that you give them slackens their interest in their poorer brethren, and prevents the poorer parishes having that grasp on the equalised rate which they now have. Then, Sir, there is not a word in the Bill about the indebtedness of the parishes. Some parishes have no indebtedness at all. One parish in South London has only a debt of £300, while two or three adjoining parishes have a great deal of debt. What the Bill should have done,

  389
  in constituting the areas, was to have consolidated the debts and equalised the payment of the whole of the central charges. In this way much good would be done. A view taken by some honourable Members is that London is not a city; that London has no corporate civic life. What, they ask, does Hampstead know of Poplar or Westminster, of Bow or Bromley? That is a very bad theory to promulgate in the House of Commons, and it ought not to come from honourable Gentlemen on the other side of the House. It is this breaking up into different sections which ought to be regarded as one population that is destroying the belief of the very poor in the capacity of London to cope with their poverty; and it goes far in the way of depriving rich men of that sense of imagination that springs from a high public spirit, which can only be maintained by bearing each others' burdens—the rich and the poor, the poor and the rich. I do protest against this attempt to belittle London as a whole for the glorification of the new district councils. Now, an honourable Member of this House, who is also a member of the London County Council, last night said that this Bill was intended to destroy the apathy that exists in London in regard to local life. But will it kill that apathy by giving the chairman of the vestries the title of mayor, and making some mediocrities into aldermen? Will it make disinterested, public-spirited citizens of them? Not a bit of it, in the event of their not having been public-spirited before these titles were conferred. Disinterested public spirit springs only from a sense of duty to the community, a sentiment which this Bill does not make for. It does not acknowledge local circumstances, and the real local patriotism based upon local traditions; in fact, the Bill will stamp it out in many places. I come now to what I consider the actual defects of the Bill, and I shall deal first with finance. The Bill says that henceforth the London County Council shall practically cease to be the finance authority for the local governing bodies. The honourable Member for Islington—to whom I want thus publicly to bear testimony and appreciation for the way he has devoted his financial knowledge and commercial experience to the service of London—told us he had been a member for 10 years of
  390
  the Finance Committee of the London County Council. That is a warrant that he knows as much about the finance of the London County Council as anybody. He shares the view of every Moderate on the Council that it would be a mistake to take from the London County Council control in finance of the local bodies. I go further and say that it will be a blunder, and if it is so taken away some day we will prove it to be a crime. What are the facts? In ten years the London County Council has granted nearly 500 loans to local bodies, amounting in all to 3½ millions. The money was granted cheaply, promptly, and under conditions which prevented large legal expenditure. There is no charge of extravagance against the London County Council in regard to finance. It has done its work economically, and its probity in administration is admitted. Then, neither the vestries nor the Local Government Board can so adequately secure that the rate of interest on the loans shall be reasonable. We can get money cheaper than any other public body. The banks trust us; they regard our stocks as easily negotiable (the "Roseberys" stand high); they have got used to our system, and I do not see why it should be changed. Let me point out what might happen were it changed. Supposing the manager of a big insurance company came to the Battersea Vestry, which wanted £150,000 in order to build an electric light station, baths, or dust destructors. Supposing that insurance manager wanted to increase the lending branch of his concern—what would be easier than that he should go to the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Vestry, who might have an account at the same bank. That kind of thing and the results that spring from it cannot be safe-guarded against if the local authority has the power in regard to loans which can now be only exercised under the admirable control of the Finance Committee of the London County Council. On that Committee there are five or six bankers—like the honourable Member for London University and the honourable Member for Islington—who put each of these loans to local bodies under thorough criticism and rigid supervision. My advice is, let these loans be conducted as heretofore, and not take them out of the hands of the London

  391
  County Council. My next point is in connection with a question of assessment. It is still to be left to the overseers. We had a very significant statement against that view from the overseers of Islington. If you allow the overseers to continue their assessment and the levying of the rate you will find this kind of thing go on: In some districts the publicans and sinners capture the majority of the overseers, with the result that railways, pumping stations and such like works are made to pay as high as they can, and the publicans and sinners as low as possible. Again, sometimes the teetotallers capture the overseers, who then put the screw on the publicans and sinners as hard as they can. You would stop all that by letting the district council make the assessment through its responsible confirmed-by-Council committee, and prevent the financial jerrymandering that takes place. I come now to the power which is given by the Bill to the district councils to promote Bills. Why should you grant such power to local authorities, who will have far more restricted powers than a corporation under the Borough Funds Act? I do not object to any single municipal entity like a municipal corporation having the power either to promote or oppose Parliamentary Bills. But I cannot see why Battersea or Chelsea or any other district council which is in a different position, which wants some public work carried out, should not go to the London County Council and ask it to insert a clause in its General Powers Bill. This Bill as it stands is going to make for more extravagance in the rates, to lead to needless litigation, to create bad feeling between the local authorities and the central authority, and it will play the game of monopolist water, gas, tramway, and other companies which incidentally want these district councils to promote Bills for their gain. If they can get the local bodies pitted against the London County Council their grasp on London will be as easy in the future as it has been in the past. Then, my second point is about the aldermen. A number of honourable Members seemed to be very defective in their historical reading regarding local government. Aldermen were not in the Bill of 1835. The clause appointing them was only slipped in by
  392
  the House of Lords, not that they believed in aldermen, but to prove the necessity of a Second Chamber. The first scheme for aldermen in the London County Council was to give them a tenure of office of five years. Speaking from my experience of the London. County Council, the title of aldermen alone does not attract the best men to the Council; and, generally speaking, they are not necessary. But when we are told that these aldermen on the new local bodies are to be elected annually in small instalments, and beyond these, co-opted persons, neither aldermen nor councillors, are to be co-opted as both commissioners and library committeemen, it is carrying the principle of non-representative element too far, and I strongly protest against it. The honourable and learned Member for Plymouth last night emphasised the necessity of vestrymen being returned to the London County Council. He said it would tend to destroy Party spirit and bring the central authority into touch with the local authorities. I am not so sure that the honourable and learned Member would have said what he did say had he had actual experience of the local vestries and vestrymen on the council. I doubt whether it would destroy Party spirit, which cannot be objected to if not carried too far. But I will tell you what it would probably do if we substituted the present system for representatives of the vestries on the London County Council. These would have local projects, their local supporters, and their local knowledge would be used, and the best part of their time would be devoted to engineering local improvements through the London County Council. Their presence in the London County Council would make local jobs for local men, and for local favouritism of a kind which I do not wish to see repeated in any form, either on the vestries or on the London County Council. There is another serious blot on the Bill I must refer to—that is the Building Act proposal. After the able speech of the honourable Member for Bodmin, why it is that this ridiculous proposal is to be proceeded with I cannot conceive. Why the administration of the Building Act should be relegated in any particular to these new district councils, if it thinks so fit, by order of

  393
  the Privy Council, I cannot understand. The Building Act is well administered now. No one disputes it. Take up any technical newspaper, such as the "Builder," or the "Engineer," which is just now discussing this part of the Bill, and you find that there is not a single complaint against the London County Council. On the contrary, the largest builders who have contracts in different parts of the City take exception to the Bill in this respect. And for this reason, that one set of regulations may be made by one district council, and another set of regulations by another district council; the different surveyors in the different districts might interpret all these regulations quite differently. If these officers were paid by salary—only possible so long as employed by central council—and not by fees, we should not have had this ridiculous proposal before us. The only authority which ought to deal with the administration of the Building Act is the authority which already deals with fires, explosives, building subsidencies, and erections of all kinds. A good illustration in support of this view occurred the other day in the big fire in New York. I believe the Chief Commissioner of Police, to his credit be it said, is ascertaining the views of the London County Council as to the necessity of strengthening the control over big hotels. What will happen if the district surveyors have the interpretation of the Building Act, especially in Westminster, where there is the largest amount of rateable property, and where you have so many of these very big hotels and flats? Do you mean to tell me that if we had had a proper administration of the Building Act we should have had such a monstrosity as what is known as Hankey's Mansions I If you were to have the administration of the Act in the hands of the local bodies, we should have the jerry-builder and the pottering engineer unduly influencing the local surveyor. Even at present we have great difficulty in dealing with sky signs and advertisements, and if the regulation of these were handed over to the local bodies there would be no regulation of public order in London. There is another point I want to make, and I wish the First Lord of the Treasury to take note of it. I have gone into the question of the expense of elections in London. In 1894 the Guardians'
  394
  elections cost £10,000, the Vestry elections £12,000, the London County Council elections £10,000, and the School Board elections £10,000. In one year, when all these elections took place, over £40,000 was spent, not by the candidates, but by the ratepayers. What the candidates spent was in addition. Now, I believe, if you do not destroy this clause in the Bill making the elections annual you are going to prevent really good men coming forward; because the trials of an election in London for busy men have hindered sensitive and weakly men who were otherwise good candidates from coming forward for the suffrages of their fellow-electors. On the ground of expense and of getting good men, I sincerely trust that we shall have nothing less than triennial elections. As to the question of wards, I think we ought to safeguard the probability of any Party jerrymandering the different areas of London. The London County Council has hitherto administered this provision of the Bill with great impartiality, and there is no reason for taking the power of fixing and arranging the wards from the London County Council and handing it over to the district councils. A suspicion would enter into Party political life if that were done which does not now exist. Another part of the Bill surprises me. The Government is doing everything in its power to prevent diseased meat coming into the country, to stop tuberculosis, to muzzle dogs, and in every way to prevent disease from spreading over the whole country. The Metropolitan Asylums Board is even bringing in a Bill to make influenza an infectious disease. But what is the Government going to do by this Bill? They are going to remove the control of the dairies—with which so much of the health of our children and young people is concerned—the cow-sheds and the slaughter-houses from the London County Council to these new local authorities. Not satisfied with this, they are going to take the lodging-houses away from the London County Council. I never was one of those who thought that the London County Council ought to do everything, or can do everything; but there are certain powers which only a centralised body can properly exercise. Why were the lodging-houses taken from the police? It was because the police had not the experience, could not command the officers, and could not possibly

  395
  know the conditions of the lodging-houses so well as the London County Council could. The Government, there-fore, took the lodging-houses from the police and gave them to the Loudon County Council, and now, when these are being admirably organised and inspected at the smallest possible expense, they are going to be handed over to the local authorities. The effect will be that these places will become what under the perfunctory police they too long were—centres of disease, of crime, and of other abominations, which I need not go into. Under the London County Council the number of these lodging-houses were reduced, the sanitation was improved, and the temptations to crime were removed by the kindly attention of the Committee, composed of all parties, which make personal visits to the houses, and in many cases help the poor tenants from a low condition into decent employment. And then you propose to take over to some extent some part of the administration of the Shop Hours Act. I put it to the Lonourable Member for London University, who deserves every credit for what he has done for shop assistants, though I differ from him in nearly every particular in politics, would he not rather have Mr. Spencer, of the Public Control Committee, and his able and experienced staff looking after the shops of London than a man appointed by vestry, who would devote, not the whole of his time, but only a few hours a day or week to the work? Of course he would. Now I come to the remission of powers. This is a most extraordinary provision. For what do we find? We find that these new municipalities are to have no more power than the district councils now possess. I am not opposed to these district councils having more power, but I say it is not mutual and reciprocal. What is more, when once a majority of these municipalities decide upon certain powers, or the transfer of certain powers from the Council to the district council, there is no revocation on the part of the County Council itself. This probably means that we shall have the majority of the municipal councils with the bulk of the rateable value, but with a minority of population, receiving powers from the Council that would relieve their local rates, to the disadvantage of the poorer
  396
  districts. Then we come to Westminster. Now, Mr. Speaker, I cannot for the life of me see why Westminster should not be cut into two, or even three. I do not share the view that the honourable Member for Westminster has expressed—that its historical traditions are such as to justify its being made a universal grab-all, swallowing up the Strand and three or four other parishes. I most strongly but respectfully protest against the absorption of the larger city of Westminster in the way suggested. I believe the area is too large; I believe it ought to be divided. It is full of hotels, of lords, of flats, of birds of passage, and birds of paradise; but I protest against the human interest being subordinated to mere height of structure, or breadth of street, or greater rateable value. I trust that this particular district may be sub-divided in some way that the House of Commons can suggest. Westminster three centuries ago, did something for its poor, but now it is turning them out into Battersea, Fulham, and Wandsworth, whose working classes have to undertake the burden, of which its pinchbeck nobility are thus relieving themselves.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: What about the Westminster Improvement Bill?
  MR. BURNS: One swallow does not make a summer, and one step in the direction of relief, in which I assisted Westminster, does not cover the eviction of the poor in that part of London. But I go from that to the housing question. And what- does this Bill do? It enables local authorities, under certain conditions, to deal with the housing problem. Let me give an illustration of how the housing problem will probably be dealt with under the Bill. In Islington this week 200 people were "dishoused" for sanitary reasons. The law insisted that the local authority should rehouse at least 102. Islington tried to slip out of its obligation—it did not want to house any at all—and the County Council intervened. This Bill is calculated to weaken the power of the central authority, with the result that what has happened in Islington today will be repeated at Chelsea, Kensington, and Hammersmith to-morrow.

  397
  If you weaken the power of the central authority in the matter of housing the poor you open the door to wholesale evictions, and I believe you will make more squalid the districts that have not the means that the richer parishes have. Now I come to the speech of the honourable and learned Member for Plymouth, who attacked, by way of defending the City, the London County Council. I was rather sorry to hear the speech, because I had really thought that the mania against the County Council, after 10 years, had subsided. I had noted with pleasure that Members on the front Government Bench and Members behind them have, in language that I heartily appreciate, endorsed the public spirit and the energy of the London County Council, and I had hoped that this mania for attacking the Council, either by inference or by direct statement, had disappeared. This, however, is not the case so far as regards the honourable and learned Member for Plymouth. In a crusted, high Tory defence of the City of Loudon and the Metropolitan Board of Works, he made the statement that the Metropolitan Board of Works was one of the best bodies—I think he said the best body—the metropolis ever had, and inferentially the Council, of course, was much worse, and had done little for the improvement of London. Now, Sir, that is the kind of ignorant statement that must not be allowed to go unchallenged. I am not going to say a word about the Metropolitan Board of Works. I will leave them, as has been said, in their dishonoured grave, but I will answer the statement of the honourable and learned Member for Plymouth. In 33 years the Metropolitan Board of Works spent 10 millions in street improvements. In a third of that time the London County Council has spent half that amount of money. What did we do with it? We have not passed a scheme for jobbing away ratepayers' money in the West End. We have not, like the old Board, put all our improvements in view of the front windows of the West End, and neglected the East and South-east. In a third of the time we have done more than them. We have made Blackwall Tunnel, improved Woolwich Ferry, purified the river, provided parks and open spaces, and, what is more, Mr. Speaker, we have
  398
  spent far more money than we should have done in rectifying arrears of neglect, because the Metropolitan Board of Works catered for the West End of London, and neglected the drainage, the fire brigade, and other branches of subordinate administration. Then we have been told by the honourable and learned Member for Plymouth, who seemed very warm in his defence of the City, that the City is the embodiment of all that is public-spirited, while the Council is not. I was rather amused to hear him say, seeing that he sat next to the Member for Bodmin, who knows very much more about the City than most people, that the City was a thriving hive of industry by day—and there are sounds of revelry by night at London's expense—and that it had done everything that a public body could do. Well, Sir, what is the good of the honourable and learned Member for Plymouth taking that view? The City to-day is only a cash nexus kept in a capitalist's safe for a few foreigners to look at. Much of its funds could be better spent. For instance, I find that £17,000 a year is spent either on the Lord Mayor or in connection with the Mayoralty, and £2,600 on committees for services more or less ornamental. Money is frequently wasted. For instance, will anyone contend that £1,551 ought to be spent in presenting the freedom of the City of London, to the honourable Member for Lambeth? All I can say is, that the money is worth it. Such an extravagant waste of money as that ought to be stopped, and if it goes on much longer the City will be a bankrupt concern.
  AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: No, no!
  MR. BURNS: An honourable Member says no. He really does not know the accounts of his own city. Let him look at the accounts in the Library of the House of Commons; let him see the evidence given before the Royal Commission on, London government, and he will find that in 1891–1892 there was a deficit on revenue, and that the deficit had to be made up either by the sale of landed estates or by taking out of capital that which ought to have been got from revenue. My argument is that there ought to be applied to the City that rigorous financial control which is applied to the County Council, and

  399
  which every one of the district councils ought to be subjected to. The City has been left out of the Bill because it is not convenient to the Government for the moment to interfere with it. But why is it not convenient? The right honourable Member for Bodmin knows that a strong Government has only to threaten the City with extinction, and it will at once agree to absorption. When you hear about the generosity of the City, I would venture to remind the House that the money it obtains from trust funds and estates is largely spent in feasting instead of being devoted, as it ought to be, to the further encouragement and development of technical education. The fact is, you can get no complete system of local government in London until the City is dealt with. I would deal with it tenderly; I would deal with it, if you like, reverentially; I would take it to the bosom of Greater London to prevent it falling to pieces and being made what it too frequently is, the rendezvous of the snob and the resort of the bogus company promoter, to the degradation of municipal life in its highest aspects. It is, Mr. Speaker, because London government can never be a complete system without the absorption of the City, and because this Bill does not touch it, that I object to the proposed Measure. It is because the Bill is full of pitfalls, and contains one or two positive traps, that I have taken the trouble to criticise it on Second Reading. I hope the First Lord of the Treasury, who will receive the help of the City to carry the Second Reading, will accept substantial Amendments on the points I have indicated. If he does not, all I can say is, that two or three years hence the defects and blots and blemishes, which will show themselves in a short space of time, will demand that some Government shall deal with the question of London reform in a statesmanlike and comprehensive manner. This Bill does not do it. It is a muddling, meddling Bill in its treatment of the civic life of the metropolis, and has for its object the belittling of the London County Council, and it is because I have had the honour to serve on that body and to assist in its good work that I have made the remarks I have. I commend them to the kindly attention of the right honourable Gentle-
  400
  man in charge of this Bill, and to the practical good sense of the House of Commons.
  SIR J. LUBBOCK: The criticisms of the honourable Gentlemen opposite seem more directed to the Bill as they supposed it would be than to the Measure as it has been actually introduced. A great many of the points are also rather matters for the Committee stage than for debate on the Second Reading. Several references have been made to Lord Salisbury's speech, and a meaning attached to it which I do not believe Lord Salisbury intended to convey, and also to the policy advocated by the Moderates at the last election. When the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Fife says that "the citizens of London decisively and emphatically repudiated the invitation thus given them," he is quite mistaken, for, as a matter of fact, a majority of the votes at the last election was given to the Moderates, and this is only another illustration of the fact so often pointed out, that the present system of municipal and Parliamentary election does not ensure that a majority of the votes secure a majority of the representatives. For my part, I am prepared to give this Bill my hearty support. No doubt there are some clauses which might be amended in Committee. For instance, I am inclined to agree with the honourable Member for East Islington in doubting the expediency of suggesting to the local bodies that they should borrow independently. I think, on the contrary, that it is much better that the finances of London should pass through the London County Council, and that there should be one large London stock. The matter has been hitherto very well conducted by the Finance Committee of the London County Council, and I believe that this is the most economical manner in which the capital required for London can be raised. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Leeds, however, has asked us to reject the Bill at this stage because, in his opinion, it fails to simplify and complete the existing government of the metropolis, and at the same time renders more difficult the attainment of the unity of London. This I understand to

  401
  mean, and indeed it has been so explained by him and by most of the subsequent speakers, that the position of the City is unaffected by the Bill, and my right honourable Friend, as well as the right honourable Member for Fife and other speakers on the opposite side of the House, have dwelt largely on this ground as being the main justificaton of their opposition to the Bill. At the same time, I think I may fairly say that, while they have dealt much in generalities, they have not pointed out in what way the metropolis generally is injuriously affected by the omission of any clauses dealing specially with the City. I wish they had given facts and figures, because then there would have been something to answer, and it is much more difficult to deal with these vague assertions than it would be to discuss any definite' statements. I will, however, ask the House to consider what the facts of the case are, and endeavour to show that the apprehension of honourable Gentlemen opposite is not well grounded. No doubt it is difficult to prove a negative, and the question is complicated. I speak, therefore, with all reserve, and I should be glad to listen with attention to any remark which may be made on the other side of the House. The attacks on the City resolve themselves into four heads— (1) the organisation, (2) duties, (3) property, and (4) prestige. In the first place, it is said that the Lord Mayor is elected in a hole-and-corner manner. That is not, I think, at all a fair description of what actually happens. In the first place, he has to be elected an alderman by his own ward, he is then elected the second time by Livery, who are 8,000 in number, and then the third time by the aldermen. The Lord Mayor goes, therefore, through three elections, and it is all done in the most public manner possible. But, after all, that is a matter which only affects the City, and the City does not complain. I am not connected with the Corporation, but I may point out that this demand for change does not come from those connected with the City, but from honourable Gentlemen representing distant communities. I now come to the question of the duties performed by the City, and it was laid down as an axiom by the Commis-
  402
  sion presided over by my right honourable Friend the Member for Bodmin that no duties which could be equally well performed by the local bodies should be thrown on the London County Council. What, then, are the duties now performed by the City and not by the other local bodies? There are some which do not come within the purview of this Bill. First, there is the question of police. In the City we manage our own police, and we do it at considerable expense to ourselves. Then there is the question of markets. There are certain markets which are managed by the Corporation, and I presume there is no objection to that. At any rate, they have not been alluded to in the Debate. Then, again, there is the question of bridges. There are four—London, Southwark, Blackfriars, and the Tower—which were built and are managed by the City, and I cannot see that the rest of the metropolis is in any way affected or injured by that fact. Next, I come to the management of the Port of London. The rest of the metropolis has not shown—indeed, they have not alleged—that they are in any way damaged by the fact that the Port of London is managed by the City. The bankers and merchants of the City, who are those principally interested, have expressed no desire whatever that the management of the Port should be transferred from the City to the London County Council—indeed this could hardly be done, as the jurisdiction extends far beyond the County Council boundaries, and I therefore put these three questions out of consideration. Coming to those matters which are in other parts of the metropolis managed by the London County Council, they are as follows: The verification of weights and measures, the appointment of coroner, the supervision of dangerous structures, the licensing of sky signs, the management of lunatics, although for the most part they have nothing to do with the City, but are poor persons who have wandered there and whose proper domicile cannot be found. Now, can anybody say that the rest of the metropolis are in any way damaged by the fact that these matters are managed by the City for itself? The importance of the matter has been, I submit, enormously overrated. To show how trifling the matter is from a pecuniary point of view, I may mention that the whole cost

  403
  of the functions which are performed by the City for itself and which are elsewhere performed by the London County Council is, as I am informed (excepting the bridges, which are provided for by a special fund), only from £10,000 to £15,000 a year. But look at the other side of the account. Because the City is specially situated, it is called on for very large special contributions. The City not only maintains its own schools, but having about a hundred children in the Board schools it contributes to the School Board rate no less than £217,000. It has scarcely any poor, but it contributes to the Metropolitan Poor Fund £116,000. And lastly, under the Equalisation of Rates Bill, it pays £100,000 to the general expenses of the metropolis. Now these payments are made on the ground that it is treated differently from the rest of the metropolis, and while on the one hand if it is thrown into the general area it may have to pay some £30,000 or £40,000 more—on the other band, these extra payments will have to be reconsidered. If, therefore, the City is included in the metropolis in the same way as the other parts, the rest of the metropolis will, it seems to me, be a loser. We come, then, to the property of the City. Sometimes we are told that the City is really bankrupt, and at others that it is spending enormous sums of money for the good of the City alone. It has been said by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for East Fife that the City is "luxuriating in its enormous wealth" —that it
  "reserves for the benefit of one square mile immense funds which ought to be administered for the advantage of London as a whole."
  But we have not been given, as we ought to be if such accusations are to be made, facts and figures to justify these statements. Why not? Because none can be given. What are the facts? The property of the City brings in a net income of something under £150,000 a year. How is it spent? The police cost £30,000 a year; secondary education and museums, £25,000; charity and pensions, £23,000; administration of justice, £25,000; Port of London, £7,000; open spaces, £3,000, and Parlimentary expenses, £3,000; making together over £120,000. This leaves but £30,000 for the civic government of the City, for the Lord Mayor's Court, for the expenses of the Mansion House and Guildhall, and
  404
  for a variety of smaller purposes. We have heard a great deal about the hospitality of the City. Are we to understand that this House really wishes that hospitality to cease? I do not think that would be the wish either of this House or of the country at large. It is only fair to remember that a large part of the expense is borne by the Lord Mayor himself out of his private purse. If there is any real grievance I am sure the City would willingly meet the County Council to discuss and adjust matters in which it can be shown that the latter body are at a pecuniary disadvantage. Let me also say, in answer to the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Fife, that it would be impossible to combine the functions of Lord Mayor and of Chairman of the London County Council. The right honourable Gentleman has not been Chairman of the London County Council. I have, and I am satisfied that it would be impossible for any man to fulfil the duties of the two positions. Lastly, I come to this question of prestige. Nobody appreciates more than I do the power of Parliament, but there are some few things which even that cannot create. The prestige of the City of London was not created by Act of Parliament, and cannot be transferred by a clause in a Bill. It has grown up gradually in a thousand years. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for East Fife paid an eloquent tribute to the great part which the City of London has played in the history of our country, and the manner in which it has struggled and fought to secure and maintain our rights and liberties. I have endeavoured to show that the attacks made on the City are due to ignorance of the real state of the case. Yet honourable Gentlemen opposite, including the right honourable Member for West Leeds, the right honourable Member for East Fife, and the honourable Member for Haddington, none of whom are specially collected with the City, speak of its "stolid indifference," of its being "untouched in its splendid isolation, and dead to the impulses which stir the heart of the metropolis," etc. I venture, in reply, to say that there is no part of this great metropolis in which there is more civic life, and more pride in our great City. The Bill is condemned as a measure to frustrate the legitimate aspirations of London, "to

  405
  save the City" and surround it by a "Pretorian Guard," and all because the City will continue to manage certain markets, to paint and repair four bridges, to supervise the safety of buildings in its own area, to verify weights and measures, and to elude sky signs. On these trifling grounds we are seriously asked to reject the Bill, which, however, I doubt not the House will pass by an overwhelming majority, and which I believe will be for the advantage of this great metropolis.
  SIR S. MONTAGU: I consider it my duty to say a few words on this Bill. We have heard to-night a great deal about Westminster, and I therefore hope that the House will allow me to say a few plain words with regard to Whitechapel. I see no advantage in this Bill to a constituency like mine, and I feel sure that if the Government were to take the opinion of the electors of this great city as a whole, and to refer to them this question of dividing or uniting London, a large majority would vote for union. I have taken great interest and been somewhat active in the last elections for the London County Council, and there was nothing more in the forefront than this question. I do not believe there has since been any change of opinion in regard to it, and, in the event of another election taking place, I am confident that the same decision would be arrived at. I have recently conferred with some of my leading constituents, some whose political opinions are opposed to my own, and they are unanimous in condemning the Bill, and in the expression of a desire that they should be let alone. During the last fourteen years they have managed their own local affairs, and they see nothing in the Bill to compensate them for the proposed disturbance. I have had some experience not only of Westminster but also of the City and East End of London. I have lived for nearly 20 years in Westminster, and I have passed 51 years in the City, while I have represented the East End in four Parliaments. I know the difference in the social position of these districts, and when we come to compare the two great and rich portions of the metropolis with the congested and poor district I represent, we see a marked
  406
  contrast. Westminster is proud of having within its boundaries Royal Palaces and Art Galleries, and for that reason it claims in a memorial, which was sent to me as a rate-payer, to extend its boundaries eastwards. Whitechapel, although poor, is proud, and has also ancient Royal Palaces in its boundaries. In place of having the Liberties of Westminster, they have the Liberties of the Tower, and in this connection they used to receive visitors from Westminster in the Tower who did not always go back. If Westminster, the great and powerful Westminster, has a right to extend its boundaries eastward then Whitechapel has a right to extend its boundaries westward. But if it did that it might swallow up the City. Now, I should prefer that the City should swallow up Whitechapel, and it was on that ground that I venture to make this appeal to the Government that they should, even now, agree, for three reasons, that the City ought to extend its boundaries. I say that, as a counterpoise to Westminster with its large area, the City of London should extend eastwards and take in Whitechapel, Limehouse, St. George's, Mile End, and Stepney. These places are not scheduled, and it would be easy for the City of London to absorb them. I have worked for half a century in the City of London and I know the difference between the poor districts and the others. Go into a street the one side of which is the City and the other Whitechapel, and you can see the difference without crossing the road, owing to the management, the good management, of the City. It am not ungrateful to those who govern the City for the admirable way in which that one square mile is managed, but that is the very reason why it should not be limited to a square mile but should be extended, and if they would adopt so unselfish a course as to absorb the poor districts they would take a very great step towards the equalisation of the rates. The rich people of the City would pay a little more, the poor of Whitechapel a little less. The right honourable Baronet says there is a difference between the statements as regards rates on properties; in one case the tenants pay the rates, and in the other case the landlords pay them. Both statements are true. There

  407
  are districts where there are plenty of houses where the neighbourhood is going down where the landlord pays the rates, because the tenant bargains for a reduction of the rent. But in White-chapel the tenant pays the rates, and he pays them by means of very high rents. The rack renting going on in Whitechapel is absolutely lamentable. We have a committee, and we have a lawyer, to protect the tenants from the extortions of the landlord, and we know that there is no district elsewhere, excepting, perhaps, Belgravia, where you can get less value for a £100 rent than in Whitechapel. This is an opportunity for the great City of London to absorb the poorer districts, those poorer neighbours who adjoin them, and they could lighten the burdens and gladden the hearts of the poor people who are being crushed with a weight they cannot bear. I am quite certain that the rich ratepayers of London, the large ratepayers of the City, would have no objection to the extension of the City. The large ratepayers of the City are, as we know, the bankers and great merchants, and I am perfectly sure that they would be only too glad to see equalisation of rates between the City and Whitechapel and St. George's. There are some people in the City who might object, but the great blot in, this Bill is that it leaves the City alone; the great blot on the City itself is that a great number of citizens desire to be left alone, and I shall work as hard as I can so that the City shall absorb these districts, and until I get some assurance from the Government that something will be done in that direction I shall certainly vote against the Bill.
  On the return of Mr. SPEAKER after the usual interval—
  COLONEL HUGHES: Sir, I desire to address the House on this London Government Bill because I have been engaged, as part of my occupation, by three London local authorities for nearly 40 years, which has given me a very intimate knowledge on the subject of municipilisation. Honourable Members will know that
  408
  I very seldom speak in this House, but when there is a subject before the House which is within my own knowledge I think it may be of some advantage that an expert on London Government should be able to correct some of the inaccuracies which those with less knowledge have unconsciously been responsible for. With regard to the Housing of the Working Classes Act, I would refer first of all to an error which has been made with regard to that by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for East Fife, who assumed that some power was to be transferred from the County Council. That Act was passed by the President of the Board of Trade in 1890, and full advantage of its clauses has not yet been taken. That Bill is composed of three parts. The first part provides for the eradication of slums and the building up of new houses at the expense of the county. The second part provides for the eradication of slums and the building up of new houses at the expense partly of the county and partly of the district. The third part is with regard to the purchase or erection of new houses, additional houses. The third part of the Act has never been put into force by the London County Council yet, they have confined their operations to the powers conferred by parts one and two. They only built new houses where they were compelled to do so in consequence of the number of people dispossessed by the clearing away of insanitary property. Localities where rents were high have frequently applied to the County Council to put this part of the Act in operation, and it is obvious to anyone where rents are high it is on account of the scarcity of houses and the great number of tenants who desire to take them, and if the County Council had put into operation part three and built municipal houses where congestion was greatest they would have done a good work to the locality, and not only would they have done that, but they would have equalised, by economic laws, the burden of the rates. The County Council have had a weapon in their hands for the last ten years which would have tended to equalise the burden of rates and to have cheapened rents in districts

  409
  which are at the present moment overcrowded. They have entirely neglected their opportunity, they have been asked now to allow concurrent powers to local authorities. It is not a transference of powers that has been arrived at, but concurrent powers to these municipal bodies, and though objection has been made to it by honourable Members, it is a most singular thing that that has been agreed to by the London County Council itself. It has most solemnly consented to this concurrent power. It is in the list of things which they have consented to. It is really with the consent and concurrence of the County Council, and honourable Gentlemen should know that perfectly well. The County Council have agreed to the transfer of the powers contained in the first part of the second schedule of this Bill, and they have also agreed, after conferences with the authorities, to transfer all the powers in part two of the second schedule except two items; therefore the outcry with regard to the transference of powers is a false one. I know now that at the present moment different branches of what is called the London Reform Union are preaching all over London the injury that will be the outcome of the transference of these powers by the London County Council, yet both parts 1 and 2 have been agreed by the County Council except two items. The cry is only taken up by those who oppose the Bill and has no foundation in fact. The promotion of Bills by the municipal boroughs is said to be another disastrous proposition. The new boroughs will be able to promote Bills, and it is said that it will be most disastrous; but that again has been consented to by the London County Council. With regard to the by-laws also it is said they should not be transferred; there again the County Council have consented not to transfer, but that the borough councils shall have power to make by-laws in their own districts so long as they do not conflict with those of the County Council. The County Council can go on making by-laws and the munipalities must conform to them, but the municipalities can also make their own district by-laws. The honourable Member for the Elland Division of Yorkshire complained that the registration and
  410
  inspection of dairies was to be transferred, and he made a great point of the fact that this was a matter which affected the lives of thousands of people, and at first sight it seemed to be a very important matter; and if I had not known what I do know I should have thought that he had made a very great point. But under the Public Health Act of 1891, also passed in this House by the President of the Board of Trade, the dairies, after they had been once licensed and inspected were practically, so far as disease and the sale of milk was concerned, under the control of the local authority, and an outbreak of disease that occurred the other day was dealt with by the local authority, who had the responsible power. The main duty at the time of the outbreak is vested in the local authority, but there is a want of harmony between the two bodies. The proposal in the Bill, I find, is one of the things to which the London County Council has consented. The London County Council, after transferring its power, still retains a power to act in case of default. The same honourable Gentleman having said how-very well the County Council had acted with regard to the Queen's Jubilee in the regulation of balconies, honourable Gentlemen may think from his remarks that that power was also going to be transferred to the local authorities, but it is no such thing; that remains in the hands of the County Council. What the local authorities are going to have is the power transferred to them regulating wooden structures, so the whole of that criticism is entirely without foundation. It is a very serious thing when we come to the House to discuss a Measure like this to find so many statements made by honourable Gentlemen which have absolutely no foundation whatever. Now, a good deal of conflict with regard to this Measure has ranged round the City of London; it is a sort of fort or centre position which one side wants to capture and which the other side feels it very necessary to defend. One side wants to set the County Council over the City, and says that London is common to all, and the City opposes that. The City paid for Epping Forest and has the best right to keep it. The strong idea is the idea of levelling down, and honourable Members on the Opposition side of the House would like to make

  411
  the Corporation of the City of London no more than a vestry or a district council. We, on the other hand, would like to level up, and make all these new municipalities as much like the City Corporation as possible; and it is perfectly true that if that is done they will be stronger. I can tell the House that these municipalities when they are formed will be as jealous of their honour and dignity as the City of London itself, so that they will in a sense be a protection to the City of London. Another point is as to borrowing money from the County Council. Now, I think that that is a power that ought not to be disturbed. But will it be disturbed? After this Bill has passed, you can borrow money from the County Council just as you can now. It does not seem to be generally known that the vestries now are not bound to go to the County Council. I know many of them do not. Some go to the Insurance Offices, as they have done in the past. Even within the last fortnight I have completed a loan for a municipality from the Public Works Loan Commissioners at a less rate of interest than that which is charged by the County Council. Are we not to have competition in this matter, and go to the best and the cheapest market for our money? The County Council, we all know, manages its financial affairs exceedingly well, but surely that is no reason why municipalities should go there and pay a greater percentage for their money than they have to pay for it elsewhere. Therefore, they ought to be allowed to go into the open market and get their money at the cheapest price for themselves. Anyone knows, and that is another point, that the consent of the County Council is not sufficient in order to obtain all the loans from them. You have also to get the consent of the Local Government Board to some loans. At the present moment we always go to them for sanction for works under the Public Health (London) Act of 1891, and there may be one reason why we should go to the Local Government Board in the future for all loans, and that is that they never grant a loan without holding a local inquiry. The council hold no local inquiry, so
  412
  that if to-morrow a large sum of money is borrowed by the local authority the council receive the application, and I do not remember an instance of their refusing a loan; while the Local Government Board insist upon an inquiry in every case, and let a dissentient minority or any other ratepayer be heard before the representative of the Local Government Board, whose report is sent to the Local Government Board to decide on the evidence that that officer presents to them. Now, considering how rapidly and how easily and how injuriously debts may be accumulated in different localities, is it an unreasonable thing to have this sanction given by the Local Government Board rather than to have to go to two different authorities for different purposes—the Local Government Board and the County Council? Let it be one or the other. For my part, I would rather have the Local Government Board and a public inquiry in order to prevent large accumulations of local debts. The honourable Member in charge of the Bill has been invited by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for East Fife to add to the Bill various powers and duties. One honourable Member-suggests a further equalisation of rates. The honourable Member for St. George's desires that School Board summonses and vaccination summonses should be heard by the new councils, and so you go on. Those who advise that new things should be put into the Bill must know perfectly well that they would be overloading the ship, and that it would sink. I really can only think, if we were to adopt such advice, that would be the effect of it. Then, an honourable Member suggested that the duties of Poor Law Guardians should be transferred. To start a brand new institution, probably with new officers, and certainly with a large number of duties, and to transfer the Poor Law Guardians' duties on to it at one moment—why, the whole thing would become discredited, and we should say they did not do their work properly. I hope the House will not add anything to the Bill, save on some minor points; all these other things which are suggested are merely invitations to us to wreck the Bill. Reference has been made to tenification. It has been charged against

  413
  our Party that we are in favour of tenification. That was never so; the idea was that of a gentleman named Mr. Brooke Hitchings, in the City, but it never had any hold on public favour. Those who understand this question know very well that 10 monstrous constituencies would never work. Nothing less than 30 would be sufficient to satisfy local aspirations within the gigantic boundaries of this vast metropolis. I had myself circulated a scheme for about 40 municipalities. That was called forty-fication. I believe all these words are really corrupt words, but, if I may say so, I think it will end in thirtyfication. Now, it is very important that local patriotism should be encouraged, and it can exist in small places as well as in large places: I hope those in charge of the Bill will have a little more regard for what I call the local patriotism than they appear to have at this moment. I understand the friends of the Bill said to themselves, "Well, now, we will put into this Bill a certain number of municipalities, about which there cannot be the slightest doubt, but with regard to those upon which there may be arguments, we will refer those arguments to a local inquiry, so that every person shall be heard." I cannot imagine anything fairer than to have a local inquiry. Still, I think there are a few instances where a local inquiry is not necessary, because the facts are sufficiently well known, and might be acknowledged. That would, of course, take away some of the opposition, because those who are not in the first schedule naturally feel a little doubt as to what their position may be, and, therefore, are not enthusiastic supporters of the Measure. To give an instance. In part of my old borough is the parish called Plumstead, five square miles of land. The bulk of it is building land. The population when I first knew it was about 1,100 and is now about 62,000, and it will be 100,000 in not many years. Its possibilities are something enormous. You can build tens of thousands of houses on the vacant land. I think I should in that case give a municipality to a large area where the population was so rapidly increasing; that if you joined it to another place you would only have to separate it later on, because of its growth. That, Sir, is a question in which I have great interest, and I hope it will
  414
  be seen to at the proper time. Now, with regard to Shoreditch. I sympathise with Shoreditch. I think it ought to be a separate municipality. I can only imagine it has been left out of the schedule because they thought of adding another parish or place to Shoreditch. It cannot have been left out for the reason that Shoreditch is not large or populous enough to be a separate municipality. The same thing in regard to Stoke Newington. Stoke Newington with South Hornsey would make a very respectable municipality; and, whenever you separate a locality which has been working for several years on its own account, and has gathered together a body of local feeling—when it feels that it can govern itself, and its so doing has been sanctioned by Act of Parliament, it wants a very strong case, in my opinion, to take away from that locality the position which Parliament itself has given to it some years before. I have the greatest sympathy, therefore, with all those districts that have achieved their individuality, and I think to put them back again with other people from whom they have been separated would be a misfortune to the locality, and would lessen that local patriotism which it is desired to encourage. I remember, when this parish of Plumstead used to be united with others, that we had to drive four miles to the place of meeting, and more than half the time was taken up in discussing the affairs of other parishes with which we had no concern. It is desirable that we should have separate governments, from all points of view in such cases. I would suggest that if, in any cases not in the first schedule, the localities themselves can all agree as to division, they might even now be, put in the first schedule of the Bill; for what is the use of holding an inquiry where all the parties are agreed, and it does no harm to anybody in the world to let them have their wish? At Deptford all parties are thoroughly agreed, and also at Greenwich, Woolwich and Lee. They might settle the boundaries themselves, and bring their agreement forward. Why should we try to force people into positions they do not want to be in? I trust that local feeling will have a good deal more attention in Parliament and from the Committee of Inquiry than it has had hitherto. Mr. Speaker, there

  415
  is talk about the municipal unit. They say we intend to destroy it. I deny that it exists. The unity of London could never exist. In that philosophical, theoretical speech delivered by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Bodmin he has traced how it might have happened, how the City of London might have grown gradually over the whole of London. I beg to tell him and this House that it might have grown ever so much, but that Woolwich, which I represent, is nearly as ancient as the City of London. We were a dockyard town in the reign of Henry VIII. Then take Greenwich. These are towns—they are not municipalities; and nothing in the way of the growth of the City of London could have formed them into one municipality with it. I should like to say, also, that the county of London, in my opinion, can never be one municipality, because it is a mass of different towns. They have grown together, I admit, by the spaces between the towns having been filled up by houses; but that does not make the unit nor destroy the local interest that has existed for all these hundreds of years. Now, with regard to the existing districts. It may be observed, in passing, that ever since Sir Benjamin Hall's Act of 1855 these vestries and district boards have had the government of their localities, and I think, taking all together, they have not done at all badly. I agree to praise those people who with limited powers have done so well. The Metropolitan Board of Works, with only a halfpenny fire brigade rate, did a vast amount of good. It is now said, But see how much better the County Council does! That is because the limit of the halfpenny has been taken off. Of course, you can do better when the limit is taken off than when you are restricted in the amount at your command. I had the honour to be a Member of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and I am proud to say so. Although there have been slight defects, there have been slight defects also in its successors. There always will be slight defects. It will be remembered that the honourable Member for Battersea said, "Look at the Woolwich Ferry!"—taking credit for the Woolwich Ferry, which was finished by the Metropolitan Board of Works and opened early in the first year of
  416
  Lord Rosebery's chairmanship of the London County Council. Lord Rosebery admitted that it was not the County Council's work. You forget all that for Party purposes, and try and take all the credit to the County Council for the things they have not done, and to charge this Bill with doing things which it does not do There is, however, a clause in this Bill which, to my mind, reads very curiously. I think it means that you may add members to the committees of the new bodies from outside bodies. If it is the intention to put members on the committees for any purpose it means this, that a majority in power on a borough council can put the whole of the defeated candidates at the election on their side on every committee of the borough council. How would that work? The power would be in the hands of the majority, and those that had got in with a majority would invite the defeated candidates of their own side, and say, "Well, never mind, although you have been defeated, you shall come on to the different committees of the borough council." It cannot mean that. I think it means, in regard to things like libraries, that members may be brought in from outside. Surely it can never mean that representatives of the people are to be mixed up with non-representative people on any committee. The clause wants clearly drafting, and we should have a, fair understanding as to what it does mean. With regard to overseers, that is also a moot point. At the present moment, under various Acts of Parliament, existing local authorities have the powers of overseers, vested in the present bodies. There are a dozen or fifteen of the great local authorities of London who do the overseers' business in their vestries. Do you think it likely that they will give that up without a struggle? Certainly not. I think there should be a uniform system. In some places there are overseers, in some places they are overseers themselves. I think it would be very much better that the elected of the ratepayers should do the whole work of the overseers rather than have a separate body dominated by them to do the work, with very little power. And I think that if a municipal corporation has the making of the rate, it has an incentive to economy in spending

  417
  it, while if they get the money merely by issuing a precept, and have no trouble with regard to collecting it, they are not likely to be so careful of the amount of the rate as they would be if they had to make the rate, and had the ignominy of a large rate instead of the credit of a small rate. The more, therefore, you leave to the borough council in the way of responsibility for rates, the better it would be. The Bill also says the borough council shall appoint the officers. What a position the overseers would be in, having officers appointed for them, over whom they had no control. It appears to me that the overseers would occupy the position of being mere rate collectors. It is a most undignified position that the Bill puts the overseers in, and I think it would be very much better that the whole responsibility should be in the hands of the borough council. The same remark applies to assessing. It is proposed in the Bill that there should be an assessment committee appointed by the borough council, but in certain cases where the Poor Law unions areas are not coterminous with those of the borough council, the assessment committee of the union is to come in, so that you are to have assessment committees in different parts of London from two separate bodies—in some cases elected by the guardians, and others by the borough council. If the object is uniformity of arrangement all over London, I should like that uniformity to be secured by there being some central authority, or the county council, if you like, so that the different parishes may be rated on the same system. Uniformity of assessment is a great thing, and so is uniformity of assessment committees, and I think, therefore, that the assessment committees had better in every case be appointed by the borough council rather than in some cases by the guardians and in other cases by the borough council. The most important point, however, I have left to the last. It is the question of the audit. I could cite lots of cases of difference between the Government auditor and the elected auditor. I remember a case at Camberwell, where there was a large expenditure on a boundary dinner, something like £150. The Local Government Board's auditor disallowed one-half of it as excessive. He thought he had done his duty. They did not appeal to the Local Government
  418
  Board to have the charge remitted. They simply put the disallowed part into the general account, which was audited by their own auditors—that is to say, the elected auditors—who passed it, so that they got the £75 which had been disallowed by the Local Government Board's auditor. I could multiply in stances by scores. It seems to me that the Local Government auditor is a better auditor than any elected by the ratepayers. Now, if an auditor elected by the ratepayers disallows a charge, you have to go to the Queen's Bench Division. But with regard to the Local Government Board, you can go to them, and if it is the first time, and a small thing, they would probably say, "We will remit it this time, but do not do it again." I do not think it is a safe thing to put the audit of these accounts into the hands of any but professional auditors. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Leeds brought in a Bill, and passed it, about building societies; that the audit must be by a professional auditor. Here is a case where the borough council will be handling the money of the public, and yet their expenditure is not to be audited by a professional auditor—or not necessarily by a professional auditor. You have done one good thing by saying that the general rate shall be included with the poor rate, and shall be audited by the Local Government Board. You should now go a little further, and say that the expenditure of the borough council shall also be audited by a Local Government Board auditor. I believe this clause was put into the Bill because it was the wish of the Islington Conference that elected auditors should be continued. The Member for East Islington was, I think, at that Conference, and I have no doubt he would now be in favour of a public auditor. Certain vestries might desire to keep the auditors elected by the ratepayers, but those who- want their accounts in proper order would never fear—in fact, ought to court—investigation by a competent officer. Then there is section 14, which orders the Commissioners to in quire and make such an order as will prevent any injustice. I should like all these Provisional Orders, as they are called, to be brought to Parliament. I rather think that all Local Government Provisional Orders must come to Parliament. Provisional Orders

  419
  by the Privy Council may or may not come before Parliament, but I would like the whole to come before Parliament, so that we may see whether justice has been done. The smaller matters are of little importance. I shall heartily vote for the Second Reading of the Bill. I think it will be a great improvement upon the existing method of government, and I shall support it uninfluenced by small questions of detail, which can be amended in Committee, such as by whom the sewers rate may be deducted from rent, who is to elect the parish churchwarden, whether a lady may be a mayor, and, I suppose, whether her husband may be lady mayoress—all these things are of no matter at all. I have heard so many errors quoted, so many mistakes made, even by learned Gentlemen, that I have been rather surprised. Still, I have no doubt that with the help of the Local Government Board and of the Members for London, we shall settle all these details in Committee, and amend the Bill, and shall be able at last to say that London is governed in a satisfactory manner.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Sir, the honourable and gallant Gentleman opposite, who passed a glowing eulogy upon the Bill upon the express ground that it saved the City of London, has in the latter part of his speech delivered as damaging a criticism upon many of the provisions of this Bill as I have heard in the whole course of the Debate. The honourable and gallant Gentleman has, as we all know, a remarkable knowledge of the details of London government. He has displayed that knowledge in the speech that he has just delivered to the House, and certainly his knowledge has brought into stronger relief the great ignorance of London government, and the details in connection with London government, displayed by the authors of this Bill. Sir, the honourable and gallant Gentleman has also illustrated the great disadvantage under which we are discussing this Bill. As I have observed since I have been a Member of the House, according to the traditions of the House one of the uses of a Second Reading Debate is to enlighten the House, to give the Government an opportunity of making clear what is obscure, and of removing any misunderstanding which the mere reading of the
  420
  print of the Bill may cause to arise in Members' minds. But, Sir, upon this occasion we have received absolutely no assistance whatever of that kind from the Front Bench opposite. It was a remarkable thing that during the first night of the Debate, after the First Lord's speech, not a single Member rose from the Treasury Bench, and up to this moment we have heard only one speech—a very short one from the Solicitor-General; an interesting speech, but it helped us very little, and I am sure the Solicitor-General will excuse me if I say that he gave us absolutely no information with regard to this Bill. The Ministerial Bench had a short time before been strenuously pressed by one of their own supporters, the honourable Member for Dulwich, to give information of the kind to which I am now referring, and the legitimate curiosity of that honourable Gentleman was certainly not satisfied by the speech of the Solicitor-General, interesting as it was. Now, this disadvantage is illustrated by one of the points to which the honourable and gallant Member called attention. He says that the Bill cannot possibly mean what the Bill most clearly and unmistakably says—I mean with regard to giving power to the borough council to elect upon any of its committees members from outside. The honourable and gallant Gentleman says the Bill cannot mean that. Will the House pardon me if I read the words of the Bill—
  "Any Committee appointed by the borough council for the purpose of the Libraries Acts, 1892 and 1893, or of any of their other powers or duties, may consist partly of persons not members of the council."
  Those are the words, and nothing could be plainer than that, and yet the supporters of the Government say that those words cannot mean what they appear to do. In this respect we ought to have had the advantage of further information and a larger number of speeches from the Ministerial Benches. Now, any person having a practical acquaintance with London government who takes up a copy of this Bill which we are considering must be at once struck by its extreme shortness, as contrasted with the great complexity of the subject matter. I remember, a few months ago, when the Duke of Devonshire received a deputation on this subject, he seemed

  421
  positively astounded at the extreme difficulty and complexity of redistributing or readjusting affairs between the central and local authorities. And yet problem, which the Duke of Devonshire described as one of the most difficult and complicated of questions, professes to be solved in this short Bill of 28 clauses. Now, how is it done? There is an appearance of simplicity about this Bill which is absolutely delusive. The authors of the Bill have, if I may say so, not fairly faced the essential difficulties of the situation, and they have shelved every real difficulty by referring it to some unknown commission in the first place, in the second place to the Local Government Board, and in the third place to the Privy Council. This, I think I may say without any exaggeration, is the most flagrant instance which has occurred in our time of this House handing over to an external authority what the Government ought to propose, and what this House ought to decide. It may be said that the conditions of modern life are such, and our social organisation is so complex that this House is absolutely compelled to adopt the expedient of what I may call "sub-legislation" —that is, handing over certain powers of legislation to an external body. But I have often heard honourable Members holding large and liberal views on both sides of the House, without distinction of Party, express distrust of this expedient of sub-legislation, and indicate a desire to confine it within the narrowest possible limits, and stipulate that when recourse to it is inevitable this House shall, at all events, lay down the principles, and leave to the external authority only the duty of working out these principles in detail. Now, I apply those observations to the case of this Bill. The learned Solicitor-General the other night spoke about the analogy of boundaries. We are familiar, of course, with Boundary Bills, and so far I will make this admission to the Solicitor-General: that as far as the 16 areas scheduled in the Bill are concerned, they come within the purposes of a Boundary Bill; but so far as the one-third of London outside the scheduled areas is concerned, such a Boundary Bill, I venture to say, has never been submitted to this House. We are handing over one-third of this great metropolis to a certain number of gen-
  422
  tlemen of whom we know nothing, at all events, to do with one-third of the metropolis what they please, subject to certain limitations which are really no limitations at all. And actually the Commissioners are not absolutely bound by those limitations, for they may disregard them if they choose to present a special Report. We have laid down no principle to guide these Commissioners, and they can abstract no-principle from the schedule of the Bill. Suppose they desire to take rateable value as their guide. Are they to model their new areas upon Westminster's rateable value of £5,000,000, or are they to form your new areas upon the model of Fulham, with something under £650,000 rateable value? Or, if they take population as their guide, are they to follow the example of Islington, with a population of 350,000, or the example of Hampstead, with only 75,000? If size is to be their guide, are they to take the example of Wandsworth, with an acreage of 9,000, or are they to take the model of Chelsea with an acreage of 800? In all respects the Commissioners can derive no guidance whatever from anything in the Bill. We are handing one-third of London to these Commissioners, and we are laying down no principles for their guidance. That is, so far as I know, absolutely unprecedented in any legislation which has received the imprimatur of this House. I desire, in the next place, to refer to the way in which it is proposed to deal with the London Building Act—that is to say, to entrust to the Privy Council, first the duty of distributing the powers under that Act between the central authority and the local authority, and then not only to distribute the power, but actually the Privy Council has power to modify the Act itself. Can any learned Gentleman point out to me a single precedent in Parliamentary legislation for such a course as that? I happen to know something about the London Building Act, for I was a member of the London County Council when it was passed and when it was framed, and I was also a member of the Committee under the chairmanship of that devoted and able chairman, Dr. Long-staff, who is not a Progressive but a Moderate, and after that Bill had been most carefully prepared we were months engaged upon it at Spring Gardens. It

  423
  came down to this House, and it under went the most careful scrutiny of a Committee of this House, before which all interests were represented. That Bill has become an Act of Parliament, and now this House is asked to hand over that Act of Parliament, so carefully prepared and so carefully considered by Members of this House, to the tender mercies of the Privy Council. Do honourable Gentlemen understand, if I may ask them, what this Building Act really is? May I point out two aspects of it? It deals with the London streets, and with what I may call the metropolitan aspect of London streets—with the building line, and matters of that kind. May I give an illustration drawn from my experience on the London County Council, because actual experience is worth a great deal of generalisation? From my experience, again and again, in the case of such roads as the Euston Road, and also High Street, Kensington, the local vestry has strongly supported applications to build over the forecourts of the houses, but the London County Council has sternly set its face against it, and so has preserved our streets in their natural and proper width. It is obvious, from the fact that such applications have received the support of the local vestries, that if you hand this part of the London Building Act over to them you may expect a great change in the appearance of our streets, and, at all events, uniformity in matters of this kind will be absolutely gone. There are also provisions which are designed to prevent the re-erection of slums upon cleared areas. What was found practically by those who are concerned in the administration at Spring Gardens was this: When an area had been cleared it very often happened that new buildings were erected with such a total absence of air-space, and became so crowded, that in a very few years they became slum property again. That part of the London Building Act was the fruit and outgrowth of actual experience, and was intended to stop the abuses which were going on. It was framed by the London County Council and considered by Parliament, when the interests concerned—of owners and builders—were fully represented before the Committee and also in conference with us, and naturally they were professionally represented before the Committee of this House, when
  424
  every consideration was paid to them. And this carefully-considered provision against a gross and scandalous system of building is going to be handed over to the Privy Council to do what they please with regard to it. I say that that, as far as I know, is unprecedented, and I hope it will receive from the Government re-consideration. Now, I spoke a moment ago about areas. I should like, if I might, just to allude, upon the question of areas, to the speech of the honourable Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley, who is interested in Poplar, and who is not satisfied with the inclusion of Poplar, which is scheduled in the Bill; but he desires that the whole of the Tower Hamlets should form the area of a borough council under this Bill. The honourable and gallant Gentleman opposite who spoke a moment ago said that he and his Party were not in favour of tenification, but certainly the Member for Bow and Bromley is in favour of tenification, because the population of the Tower Hamlets is about one-tenth of the population of the whole of London, and he desires that the whole of the Tower Hamlets should form one area, and that should be a sort of model for the areas of the other boroughs in London. I cannot understand what advantage it would be to Poplar to extend its boundaries and take in the whole of the Tower Hamlets—I cannot see what element there is in the Tower Hamlets outside Poplar which Poplar itself does not possess. No earthly object can be served by adding one poverty-stricken district to another. It always seems to me with regard to areas that large areas for Local Government in London became impossible from the time when, for good or ill, single-member constituencies for Parliament were established, because, say what you will, it is the area of Parliamentary representation which forms the basis of combinations. It is within the area of Parliamentary representation that men learn to work together, and I think that the most effective area for Local Government in London should follow in every case the area of a single-meber constituency, or, at all events, a combination of these constituencies. The tendency, of course, was confirmed by the Local Government Act of 1888, when you adopted precisely the same areas for county government. In the next place

  425
  I want to say a few words about the finance of this Bill, but before I come directly to the finance, there is one subject upon which I should like to say a word which certainly may well introduce us to the financial part of this subject—I mean the proposal to give to these borough councils the power to oppose and promote Bills in Parliament. It does seem to me that to set up some 30 authorities in London, with power to promote Bills of their own and to oppose the Bills of the London County Council, or of their neighbours, opens a prospect which, from the ratepayers' point of view, is absolutely appalling. This suggestion seems to me to have arisen from what is a characteristic feature, if I may say so, of this Bill. I mean the assumption that there is absolutely identity between a metropolitan borough and a provincial borough. We know there is no such thing, for they are totally different, owing to the fact that in the metropolitan borough some one-third of the rates are left to be dealt with by an external authority which does not exist in provincial towns. But I contend that this particular clause—as the representative of a poor district—would press very hard upon the poorer districts of London. What is it that you are proposing to do? You are proposing to encourage what is practically litigation. How can Bethnal Green compete upon equal terms with Westminster in litigation? In Westminster a penny in the £—I mean the New Westminster—produces £20,000, and a penny in the £ in my constituency would produce something like £1,800. I say there is no equality in this. With regard to authorities, it is the same as with individuals. In matters of litigation the advantage is always on the side of the party who has the deepest purse. With regard to the question of finance, I should like to say a word about the transfer of powers regarded from a financial point of view. Transfer of powers comes under two heads. Certain powers are given under the Act to the local authorities to be exercised concurrently with the London County Council. As regards these powers, there is no provision in the Bill for any contribution to the local authority out of the common purse. The London County Council is not to make any contribution in regard
  426
  to the transfer of these powers to the local authority, although concurrent jurisdiction may be handed over to them. Among these powers are the powers under Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, and some honourable Gentlemen opposite have been very triumphant in pointing out to to us that these are powers tinder Part III. not powers under Part I. I am quite aware that they are powers under Part I., and it is to a largo extent because they are powers under Part III. that I consider the matter of such importance, because I believe that in future Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act is going to play a large part in providing more decent accommodation for the labouring classes in London. The question is really not who is to do the work. The honourable Gentleman opposite pointed out triumphantly, and I believe correctly, that the London County Council had consented to the local authority having concurrent power tinder Part III. The point is not who is to do the work, but what area the cost of the work is to fall upon, and there is no provision in this Bill for any contribution from the central authority. I do say this—that the provision of decent accommodation for the labouring classes in this metropolis is a common obligation upon the whole of London, and ought to be a common charge. These poor are not the poor of Rotherhithe, or Bermondsey, or Bethnal Green, but they are the poor of London, and what I fear in this part of the Bill is that it will permit a sectional treatment of the housing question. Westminster and the rest will probably be glad to compound by making some provision for the poor in their own borders, while they will leave to districts like Bethnal Green and Poplar—which are unable to bear it—the burden of providing for their own poor. That brings me to the question of inequalities of rates throughout London. A very valuable Return has just been presented to Parliament, and what does it show? It shows that while rates in Westminster are 5s. 1d. in the £, and in St. George's, Hanover Square, 5s. 9d., they are over 8s. in the £ in Rotherhithe. The effect of this Bill will be undoubtedly to disturb the rates, and surely the opportunity ought to be seized to adjust these gross inequalities in this Bill. The specially

  427
  favoured localities are amalgamated and are intrenched in an impregnable position The lightest ratted districts in London—St. James', Westminster, and St. George's, Hanover Square—are joined together to make a city of the rich. The honourable Gentleman the Member for Westminster earlier in the evening objected to the term "city of the rich" being applied to Westminster or to the New Westminster. I say it is a perfectly true description. I know that Westminster has some of the worst slums in London. Lazarus is generally found not very far from Dives. But what is the only test of a rich district? It is the relation between population and rateable value in a district. Now, I find that Westminster has only a population of under 200,000, whilst its rateable value is £5,000,000. I say we are perfectly justified in terming it a city of the rich. Remember it was from these districts of St. James', Westminster, and from St. George's, Hanover Square, that the chief opposition came to the Equalisation of Rates Act, 1894, and can it be supposed that the opposition to any further extension of the principle will be diminished now that you are giving them fresh strength by uniting them? The effect of this Act will be to disturb rates, as I said a moment ago, and it will disturb rates very materially. Unfortunately, though the rates in some districts will be increased they will not be increased with reference to any principle, nor will they have any material effect in further equalising the rates for the whole of London. Let me point out that if this New Westminster is established the ratepayer in St. James', Westminster, will pay higher rates than he pays now, but that increase ought to enure for the benefit of places like Bermondsey and Betlmal Green, and the poorest districts of London. But this Bill will do nothing of the kind, for although the ratepayer in Westminster will pay more, the benefit will not go to Bermondsey, Poplar, or Bethnal Green, but it will go to the benefit of the ratepayer in St. George's, Hanover Square, who has no right whatever to be relieved, because at present the rates which he pays are considerably below the average for the whole of London. I say that here you are missing a great opportunity for extending the principle of equalisation. Honourable Gentlemen
  428
  opposite have pointed with quite a triumphant air to this sub-clause in the Bill which enacts, "That nothing in this Act shall affect the Equalisation of Rates Act, 1894." That, I think, is a blot upon the Bill, for a Measure of this kind ought to affect the Equalisation of Rates Act of 1894. You ought to seize this opportunity to extend the principle of that Act, and I shall certainly in Committee give honourable Gentlemen opposite who have boasted so much that they do not desire, in any way, to interfere with the principle of equalisation an opportunity of showing their bona fides by moving an Amendment that the sixpence now payable under the Equalisation of Rates Act be increased to one shilling. In conclusion, I may add that honourable Gentlemen opposite seem very anxious that there shall be no division upon this Bill. I shall, however, give my vote very cordially for the Amendment, and for this reason among others, that I fear a good deal what may happen in Committee upon this Bill. I dare say that some concessions may be made to us, for some have been indicated. It has been suggested by the honourable Member for Chelsea, who the other night threw out a concession even to myself, for he suggested that the constituency which I have the honour to represent should be included in the first schedule of the Bill. Well, it has an excellent claim to be included in the schedule, and, I dare say, will be included in the Bill, and I have no doubt that concessions of this kind may be made in Committee. On the other hand, I notice the noble Lord the Member for South Kensington stated the other night that he desired to reconstitute the London County Council on the model of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and I noticed also that the Leader of the House, who rose to interrupt the noble Lord, gave an answer which was far from discouraging. But still more disquieting was the speech made last night by the honourable and learned Member for Plymouth. It did seem to me, as I listened to that speech made by the honourable and learned Gentleman, that it confirmed the worst suspicions which had been entertained upon this side of the House with regard to the character and the nature of the Bill. I shall not dwell upon the eulogium which the honourable and

  429
  learned Gentleman pronounced upon the Metropolitan Board of Works, because I think that eulogium was a little belated, especially when we remember that the glory of the greatest work which they did—the Thames Embankment—is very materially tarnished by the discovery that its foundation is so rotten that the maintenance of a decent roadway is absolutely impossible. But what specially struck me in the speech of the honourable and learned Gentleman was his ideal of London Government. Now, what was his ideal? It was the setting up of a number of independent boroughs in London which should send representatives to a Committee at Spring Gardens to deal with, main drainage and a few other such matters. The significance of that speech lies in this, that it coincides in a very remarlsable degree with the suggestions made in the letter of Lord Onslow as to the future development of these borough councils, and it also differs not very widely from what was called the suicidal policy enunciated in Lord Salisbury's famous speech. For these reasons I shall cordially give my vote for the Amendment.
  MR. THORNTON: There is one argument I have not heard during the Debate on this most important Bill, and as it is one which appeals strongly to the neighbourhood which I have the honour to represent in this House. I propose to say a few words on it. It is this. The Government may, or may not, be right—and some honourable Gentlemen opposite say they are not— in endeavouring to improve the Local Government of London by bringing about municipalities within the London area. I can assure this House—and I wish the honourable Member for Battersea was present to hear what I say, because he is well aware of the fact—that the frightfully inadequate attention paid by the voters to the local elections forms a crying evil, which it is the duty of this House to deal with, if it has any desire to place Local Government in London on a proper basis. Actually the maximum number of voters at vestry elections in that part of South West London I am acquainted with represents 29 per
  430
  cent. of the electors. I have heard of a minimum of 23 per cent., and the average is 25 per cent., and I do not think anyone will say that 25 per cent. is a satisfactory average, when you have to deal with bodies that are spending the money of the ratepayers. It is with this disability and with this need that the Conservative and Unionist Party is mainly desirous to deal, and that they are dealing with it in this Bill on lines which are needful on behalf of London and its populous suburbs I do not think that anything which has hitherto transpired in this Debate can lead anyone to deny. I would just like to say one word on the subject of the assumed hostility of those who sit upon this side of the House to the London County Council, which, if true, is indeed unreasonable on the part of those who created that institution. Not only do I repudiate participation in such prejudice, but I desire to render the task of the London County Council easier to fulfil, the co-operation of the localities being now given in a half-hearted fashion. I would not have claimed to say one single word in a Debate of this importance had I not had a long London experience. Not only have I lived all my life in London, but the first thing I recollect of my boyhood days is that my father was a special constable in 1848, and, when he went down to Regent's Park to do his duty, I remember well the anxiety caused in our household by a thunderstorm which broke out in the middle of the day, and I know that someone remarked that my father was in the middle of a battle and we might never see him again. I quote this simply to show that from the very first moment I can recollect I have had an interest in London—an interest which has led me from time to time to attempt to do my duty to those among whom I have lived. In 1892 I was elected Member for one of the largest boroughs in London, and, by attendance here, I have faithfully endeavoured to do my duty, not only to my own constituency, but to the nation at large. I therefore think I have some right to express an opinion on this Bill. I was very glad to hear the honourable Member for

  431
  Battersea—I wish he was in his place, as I do not like to talk to a man in his absence—make a very important statement. He has carefully examined this Bill, and he admits that in it there is no direct attack upon the equalisation of rates. I think that that is a most important announcement. He tells us that there may be some silent covert attack in the future, and in that way he endorses the statement which has been circulated by my friend Mr. Dickinson, who informs us that when two-thirds of the powers of the London County Council are taken away there will be a drain on the funds which will indirectly affect the equalisation of rates, and that there will be a sum of probably one million sterling less to be divided, and that, therefore, the poorer districts will suffer. But the honourable Member for Battersea did not carry his arguments so far as that, and, if I understand the matter aright, even if it should prove to be the case, it would not be very difficult to increase the sixpence in the pound now chargeable on the whole rateable value of London, in order to make up any deficiency. But I do not believe that any such contingency will arise. I am very sorry that the question of the City of London has again been brought forward in this Debate. During the last few months I have observed a very much better state of feeling existing between the London County Council and the City—a feeling which would have been perfectly impossible when I first came into politics. It was recently my happy lot to be invited to hospitalities at the Guildhall, and to see under the mahogany there the feet of many persons differing in politics in friendly relations, which would have been impossible in other circumstances. I believe that points to a better state of things, which in time will bear good fruit. The threat that the City of London is to be swallowed up by the London County Council is very much calculated to arouse that feeling in the suburbs of London, which, at the last election, moved large numbers of voters to join the Unionist Party, and I say that with some knowledge of the circumstances I am not prepared to say that something
  432
  might not be urged on behalf of the Commission which reported in 1894; but this I do suggest, that if there was a subject which was unpopular amongst the people of London, it was what they thought to be the unfair attack made on the City of London. The honourable Member for Battersea told us he did not mind whether the City of London was swallowed up by the London County Council, or whether the County Council was swallowed up by the City of London. But it will be remembered that during the Debate the honourable Member for Stepney told us that the great power of the Chairman of the County Council was to be found in its simplicity, and in the fact that he was undecorated; yet, if the policy of the honourable Member for Battersea is to be carried out, and the London County Council is to be merged in the City of London, then the uncrowned King of Spring Gardens will run the risk of having a coronet put upon his head. Personally, I do not think that that would be a calamity, but I do deprecate any revival of this controversy at the present moment. I honestly believe that, from a historical point of view, the action of the Government has been right in starting municipalities in London. Can you believe it possible that men such as Chief Justice Paterson, Mr. Labouchere (an uncle of the distinguished Member of the present House), and Sir George Cornwall Lewis, gave the advice in 185i that London should be governed by municipalities without long consideration, such as made any official announcement from these distinguished persons a weighty one. In view of that fact, surely there is something in the idea, although the Government did not take it up at that time—for we were then in a stale of war, and, I am afraid, our domestic affairs were not properly considered. I cannot go the length of my honourable and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth when he eulogises so strongly the late Board of Works, because, although I think that body did good work, it might, in my opinion, have done better had it had a popular origin. Had these municipalities been created then, I believe that London

  433
  government would have been in a better condition than it is now. I therefore make an earnest appeal to honourable Members who differ from me in this matter. It is impossible for us to put aside all our preconceived ideas, but honourable Members have it in their power to modify the provisions of this Bill, and, on the other hand, to let us know they have a strong sympathy with us in our desire to see London properly governed. We cannot believe that a population which according to an authoritative computation will in the year 1930 become eleven millions can be adequately governed from one centre. Before I sit down I wish to dwell for a few minutes upon a matter which is purely provincial. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Leeds, in his very interesting speech, referred to an area in which a large number of my constituents are interested—the area of the Wandsworth District Board. Now, I take this opportunity of thanking the Government for having placed that area within the schedule of the Bill, and I am prepared to defend their action in doing so on the ground that the institution in question has done good work in the past, and is ready and able to do good work in the future. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Leeds spoke of "unwieldy Wandsworth" with its area of 10,000 acres, and compared it with Chelsea with its area of only 74 acres. In the first place, may I point out that the right honourable Gentleman was mistaken in speaking of 10,000 acres? I believe the absolute figures are 9,250 acres, and in this large area we have no fewer than four commons—Streatham, Wandsworth, Tooting, and half of Clapham, while within the area is a portion of Richmond Park. These spaces represent a very considerable acreage, and if you deduct them from the gross area of 9,250 acres you bring it down to 7,500 acres at the very most—a total not as much in advance of all the London boroughs as the right honourable Member for Leeds believed, Lewisham having 6,543 acres, and Lee 7,000 acres. As to population, the scheduled boroughs of Islington, Camber-
  434
  well, Lambeth, and St. Pancras all have larger populations, and on these grounds I maintain that my right honourable Friend the Member for Leeds was not right in contending that in this area was contained a population out of all proportion to the other bodies in London. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Bodmin also attacked the inclusion of Wandsworth in the schedule, but he spoke as if the Parliamentary borough of Wandsworth was alone concerned, and to demonstrate his oversight I may quote a resolution passed by the vestry of Clapham protesting against any division of Wandsworth as calculated to lead to the greatest inconvenience and to render useless arrangements which have been made with great care for the government of the district, and which have worked so satisfactorily in the past. The Wandsworth District Board dates from 1854, and although in 1887, in the capacity of churchwarden, I gave my signature favouring the separation of Battersea from the division, I now believe that if you make further division you will do a great deal of harm to a system of government which has worked both efficiently and economically. I hope the House will forgive me for having taken up its time, although I do not think I have done so unduly. I hold that when a Bill of this kind is brought forward, one has an imperial duty to perform, and I do appeal to the young men of this great metropolis—and in this appeal I am sure my honourable Friend the Member for Battersea, who has worked so well with me in the past, will join—to bestir themselves and take a more active interest in the government of London. My honourable Friend the Member for Battersea knows how I have from the first desired to see the public mind turned on local affairs. I think it is a crying evil that in matters concerning our localities the tendency is to let things go by the board, and I believe that any Measure which will do something to make the people of this great metropolis take more interest in local affairs is well worth supporting, and should be earnestly backed up by us all.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is not my intention to thrust myself long upon the attention of the House, and for this reason, that I am sure the House is anxious, and I certainly have myself considerable anxiety, to hear from the Leader of the House what the probable course of the Government in regard to the Bill will be. We have a considerable advantage from the fact that the right honourable Gentleman is himself in charge of the Bill, although I may make the observation that it is somewhat singular that, having in the Government the President of the Local Government Board, we have not had the advantage of his exposition of a Measure which falls distinctly within the province of his Department, and to the best of my observation he has not even attended the House much during the course of the Debate. On previous occasions the right honourable Gentleman opposite, now the President of the Board of Trade, and my right honourable Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, took charge of the large Bills which dealt with subjects relating to their Departments, but now it is the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House. I have said it is an advantage for us to have the Bill in his hands, not only on personal grounds, but also because in his position he is better able to yield at once to those appeals which he will abundantly receive from all parts of the House. At the same time, we cannot dismiss from our recollection the important occasion on which the right honourable Gentleman took charge of a big Government Bill, when from first to last not a single Amendment was received upon it, and that not because the Bill was alleged to be so perfect as not to require amendment, but because there was a set and deliberate intention and purpose from the first to allow no Amendment to be adopted. We hope for better things with regard to this Measure. This is a Bill, as we have often been told in the course of the Debate, and as anyone can see by a most cursory inspection of it, bristling with details, and those details, whatever may have been the attitude taken up by the speakers in the Debate, have been
  436
  largely the subject of criticism on both sides. Even, I was going to say, its most enthusiastic supporter, but as I have not heard any very enthusiastic support given to it, I will put it in a negative form, and say even the least lukewarm supporter has always found some important point upon which he asked for some concession and alteration on the part of the Government. I may refer, on the other side, to my right honourable Friend the Member for Fife, who did not certainly show much favour to the Measure in the course of his speech, but yet at the end invited the right honourable Gentleman to show a spirit of concession and consideration, in the hope that the Bill—badly as we think of it at this stage and in its present condition—may be an eirenicon settling all difficulties in regard to this great question of London Government. As to my right honourable Friend the Member for Bodmin, he invited us to put aside all Party prejudice and feeling, and with sentiments of the most complete impartiality to approach the consideration of the Bill. My right honourable Friend thinks that a very small number of Members taken from both sides of the House would be able to settle this great question in a satisfactory way. My right honourable Friend is always anxious to find an impartial person. I observe that the impartial person is usually practically interpreted by himself to be someone that he himself agrees with—not, as I have found from long experience of him, that it is at all expedient to be too noisy in your demonstration of agreement with my right honourable Friend, because that usually provokes in him a tendency to go in the opposite direction. He proposes a sort of round table on this subject—or shall I rather say a long table?—at the end of which my right honourable Friend himself will sit and act as umpire and arbitrator to settle all points in dispute. Well, I may say I am so far disposed to meet my right honourable Friend, and to respond to his appeal, that I will, at all events, disclaim, in the most earnest manner, on my own part, and on the part of those with whom I act, any partisanship in this question, or any disposition whatever to act as

  437
  partisans of the London County Council as such, or to display or entertain any jealousy of the Corporation of the City as such. There has been a good deal of personal prejudice or bias exhibited in the course of the speeches delivered on the Bill. I observe that the supporters of the Bill have, with one accord, repudiated the idea that it is, or in any respect covers or conceals, an attack on the London County Council. I also observe, at the same time, that whenever any allusion is made to the shortcomings of the London County Council they are loudly cheered by those Gentlemen opposite who disclaim any hostility to it. On the other hand, in one or two notable cases, and especially in that of the honourable and learned Member for Plymouth, there has been a very strong line taken. The honourable and learned Member for Plymouth is an open and defiant advocate of the position of the City of London. He said last night that when the old Corporation was surrounded by other corporations of great influence and authority—and this throws a little light upon what is the intention—that those subsidiary bodies, which we are told are really of so little consequence in the polemics of the matter—that when the old Corporation is surrounded by these other corporations associated with it in the work of municipal government, it will be strengthened against attack. This is the main reason why the honourable and learned Gentleman is an ardent supporter of this Bill.
  SIR E. CLARKE: Not the main reason.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Well, it is a considerable reason. I am not disposed to join in any attack whatever upon the City of London. I complain of its position. I desire to see its traditions, and its dignity, and, if the honourable and learned Gentleman will allow me to add, its virtues, utilised more largely for the benefit of the whole of the metropolis. It is in that sense that I complain of its present position. But it is not quite consistent with the follest recognition of the public spirit of those who conduct its affairs. We all know that in recent years there has been
  438
  a great change in the view taken, or at any rate, in the attitude assumed, by what I may broadly call the City—including not only the Corporation of the City, but those great and wealthy city companies which form so large a part of the social organisation of the City. We have seen a very great change in their views, for they have apparently been much more alive than formerly to the duties which are naturally required of them. We admire all that they have done in the interests of education, in the interests of health, and the general welfare, not only of the City but of the whole metropolis. And, therefore, on that account I will ask the House to dismiss the idea that there is any narrow jealousy or prejudice either against the City Corporation or the City in general. Turning, on the other hand, to the London County Council, it is a body of great importance and dignity, recently created for the discharge of large and most essential duties in the interests of this great community. I believe that the universal feeling is that it has discharged those duties with intelligence, with enterprise, with energy, and with honesty. I am told it is divided into sections which call themselves Progressives and Moderates—I know nothing of that at all except from the outside. I am told that both sections alike are combined in desiring to uphold its authority. But I have arrived at the conclusion,— not only from an examination of the details of the Bill, but from such a survey as I can give to the whole subject of London administration, in which the County Council plays so large a part—that the Bill as it stands materially invalidates the position of the London County Council, and that is one of the principal reasons why, in its present form, I am opposed to the Bill. It seems to me clearly that this Bill represents a retrograde move. Apart from the actual mistakes which it may be thought to make in dealing both with areas and with powers, it is because it turns the finger-post in the wrong direction that I am constrained to oppose it. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to go over the ground of its details. They have been elaborately discussed with

  439
  great ability and with great energy by many honourable Members on both sides of the House. We are all in favour of giving better definitions and increased powers to local bodies, particularly to the smaller local bodies. The honourable and learned Member for Plymouth asked how we could expect the government of London and the administration of London affairs to be carried on without those smaller local bodies. But he need not address that question to us, because we are in favour of strengthening, in every reasonable way, those local bodies, and of giving large powers to them. In fact, if I were in search of language which expressed my opinions upon this subject, I could not find anything better than the words used by the right honourable Gentleman opposite, the President of the Board of Trade, when he was speaking upon his Measure in 1888. He said—
  "We do not put this forward as a complete settlement of the great problem of London government. We have our own proposals to make, and I hope we shall be able at some future time to make them. They are on the lines, not of creating separate municipalities throughout London, but of amalgamating within certain defined areas in London the existing vestries and local boards, and of constructing a County Council having in the various areas in the county large district councils with large and important administrative functions."
  That is precisely the view we take of what is required, and it is because this Bill seems to us not to fulfil those conditions that we decline to support it. The right honourable Gentleman drew a contrast between municipalities and district councils. It may be said that there is very little in a word, but, at all events, we are sure of this—that the word "borough" as applied to these smaller bodies is an absolute and entire misnomer. That cannot be a municipal borough which is not a borough, and which has not municipal powers, and is not under the provisions of the Municipal Act, and which has really nothing essentialy municipal about it. Therefore we inquire why is it that this word "borough" has been introduced, unless it is the thin end of the wedge, or the cloven hoof, or whatever other form there may be of implying an element of future
  440
  intentional mischief? Unless it is that, I do not quite understand why it has been introduced at all. There is, indeed, one reason which has been alleged; and it is worth considering. It is said that it will elevate the tone of these smaller councils and enlist the best class of men. What do we mean by the best class of men? If we mean the sort of man who would be attracted by a name or a title, then he is not the best sort of man, but he is the very man to be avoided. We do not want to attract the rich or those in a high social position. What we do want to attract, and what is essential, is that you should enlist men of intelligence and public spirit, and if you desire to attract men in that sense you will do it not by the honours you confer upon them but by the work which you give them to do. Now, Mr. Speaker, what I conceive to be wanting in this Bill is the growth of public spirit and of the sense of citizenship; therefore, what we ought to do is to enlist intelligent people into the public service, and to enlist public interest in their operations. What do we find under the old régime? Take the vestries which at present exist, their mode of election, and their general character. How many men are there in this House who have taken part in the election of a London vestry? We all of us live in London, but do any of us know where our vestry is elected, or when the election takes place. Do we take any part in it? There may be here and there one, but the mass of the ordinary people take no interest in the matter whatever, and I believe that, in some cases, where the electorate may extend to thousands, the election has been conducted with half-a-dozen voters. Then the honourable and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth has disclosed himself to us as a special admirer and almost a worshipper of the late Metropolitan Board of Works. He shed a tear—he did more—he laid a laurel wreath on the tomb of that departed body, oblivious, apparently, of the fact that it was his own old Leader in this House who practically did them to death. This Metropolitan Board of Works was appointed in an indirect way, without much

  441
  knowledge by the public. The honourable and learned Gentleman is proud of himself because he once knew, as I understood him, a member of that Board. He had got further in his inquiries than most of us were able to get. That was the sort of body that we had controlling the affairs of London until the right honourable Gentleman opposite introduced his Bill which created the London County Council. Why, Sir, the right honourable Gentleman, beyond all other men, deserves the gratitude, and in fact the thanks of the community of London for the great change—the great revolution—which that legislation of his created in the whole of the metropolis. It did exactly what was wanted; it excited interest and roused a civic spirit; it created, in fact, a new civic atmosphere. This was to proceed, surety, on the true lines of democratic development. Get public opinion behind it, get the public interested in your system of government, and blemishes in your system of government will not so much matter, for they can be cured; but the best system in the world, if it has not the public interested in it, is bound to decay and fail. Compare the present system with the vestries and the Metropolitan Board of Works, for which the honourable and learned Gentleman sighs. We have an election every three years, and we see Cabinet Ministers taking an interest in that election, and attending meetings and making speeches; and, although the result may not be altogether always a satisfactory one for the expenditure of so much energy, still the Cabinet Ministers who make speeches can always fall back upon the usual consolation: "How much worse the result might have been if the speeches had not been made!" Therefore, what I wish to say is that the County Council election has become an approximation of a Parliamentary election, and a great stride has been taken in the direction of evoking and directing public interest to the local affairs of London. Now, I venture to say that there was no such interest before. People now know that there is such a thing as a County Council; they are interested in it, and it looks after some, at least, of their affairs.
  442
  And let the House observe that this matter of London government is no small matter. I rather think that a good many Members will be surprised to know what the amount of the total expenditure of all the public bodies in the metropolis is. The annual expenditure, which represents the amount of local taxation, is about £13,000,000 sterling, of which £6,500,000 is under the control of the county authorities, and £3,500,000 under the parish authorities. This is a very large budget, and a very important sum of money, and surely this Bill deals with a very important question, even taking that view of it alone. Is not this a strong argument for concentration and unity when there is such a Budget to deal with? If the ordinary voter had the oversight of this large expenditure would he not thoroughly appreciate his position? In the circumstances, what is it that this Bill does? I see that at a meeting held on this subject a day or two ago a speaker dealt with this point in a somewhat dramatic way. He said that the intention of the Bill was expressed in the very first words of its first clause, which says—
  "The whole of the administrative county of London, exclusive of the City of London, shall be divided."
  It is division and not combination and concentration that the Bill seeks. In the great municipal boroughs throughout the country there is unity. They are treated as a single entity, which they really are. In such a city as Liverpool, or such a city as Glasgow, the rate is levied all over the whole locality. All the public duties are discharged by one authority, of course with assistant authorities in the districts under them. The most essential public services are dealt with in this way. Take the question of cleaning the streets or of lighting. Lighting is an expensive item in the budget of a local authority. Where is lighting most required? Surely, it is most required in the narrow streets and the lanes and alleys of the poorest parts of the City, but they cannot discharge the duties of lighting and cleaning so well in those parts of London as they are accomplished in the West of

  443
  London, because they are so poor. And then, we have to ask who are these poor, and who are the inhabitants of the poorer districts? They are the compliment of the richer districts. It is not a case of two separate communities, the one rich and the other poor, having accidentally come into communication. The poor are there because the rich are there, and it is rather hard, surely, that they should be stinted in those very necessary public services while the rich, for whose benefit, or, at any rate, in consequence of whose existence, they are there, have got those services better performed. And, moreover, your new independent areas which are rich will push over their borders into the poorer areas these necessary duties. I am astonished at my boldness in attributing this fallacy to so acute a mind as that of the honourable and learned Member for Plymouth, but when he spoke last night he said that we must reckon up in the City the day population as well as the night population. But what does the City do for that day population? If it is to be counted in the City, and if we are making contrast between the City and other parts of the metropolis, I ask what does it do for them? They go away after their business is done, and they go into those poorer districts where they have to have municipal services performed for them not at the cost of the City, but at the cost of the localities in which they live. This Bill, therefore, indicates to me distinctly a backward step, and the ordinary man who has had a fair conception of the advantages of having a large body like the London County Council looking after his interests will not understand why it is that having created that important body eleven years ago, in 1888, you now proceed to a certain extent, apparently, not only to strip it of certain powers, but to set up in competition with it and in rivalry with it, certain other bodies, the necessity for which may not be so plain. Therefore, the indirect effect of such a proposal as this seems to me to go much further than the question of the actual powers. The honourable and learned Member for Plymouth denies, I
  444
  understood him to say, that we should not be able to find any other case where there exists a municipality with municipalities under it. But if that is true it is the condemnation of this Bill. If that is so, why do you create municipalities under the municipality which you at present have? Local bodies in the capacity of administrative bodies are healthy and necessary, but in the capacity of municipal bodies they are wrong in theory, and they tend to confuse the mind and the action of the public in regard to the proper order of government. That is the view I take of what this Bill does. But now I wish to say a word or two—and they will be a very few words—upon what the Bill seems to me to leave undone which might have been done. You might give the local councils importance and strength by handing over to them the Poor Law powers, and by making them the overseers. There has been a strong appeal made from many quarters to the Government to attempt first the one and then the other of these proposals, and if these additional duties of that kind and of a different order are given to the district councils, that is the very best way of attracting and calling out and interesting and finding work for the intelligent and public-minded men who must abound in London. That is so far with regard to the smaller local authorities. But what are we to say with regard to the higher authorities? Is nothing to be done for them? Are they in an entirely satisfactory condition, and in sound relation to each other? Is there no room for the reorganisation of the higher functions of the metropolis? Now, there are four great metropolitan authorities. There is the City of London, the London County Council, the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and the School Board. As to the City, can it really be that the City—I will not say be allowed—can it contemplate the policy of wrapping its cloak around it, and sitting apart from all the great work that is being done in the metropolis? It cannot, and it does not seek to do that.
  SIR E. CLARKE: It does its work.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It does a great deal of work. What does it do? It controls the markets, but that is not done for the City alone. It is done for the whole of the metropolis, and it is a very large work. The cost of the administration of the markets is about £80,000, and the dues are about £110,000. These dues are paid by the consumers of the metropolis day and night. Then the City is the port sanitary authority. That means that it is charged with keeping out of the metropolis infectious diseases arriving by sea. What happens when a doubtful case arrives in the river? The City, this port sanitary authority, has to follow the man who is supposed to be a source of danger to his abode in the metropolis. They have to follow him up—it may be to Whitechapel or to Fulham, and in doing so they have to act in co-operation with the officers of the County Council, so that that is a matter which enters the sphere of the County Council itself. Then we are reminded of what the City has done for the public benefit in securing Epping Forest and other places, but they were secured not for the City, but for the whole metropolis, and the expense of it is paid by means of certain corn duties which fall upon the whole metropolis. I need hardly refer to the extinct wine and coal dues through which large improvements were carried out with so much success. Why do I quote all these cases? To show that the City itself is already largely responsible for the larger affairs of all London, that it cannot set itself up if it wished, and it does not wish, and draw its cloak around it. It has already a large share in the control of affairs in the metropolis, and why then should it be afraid to accept the legitimate results of circumstances and events, and to be ready to take part in the administrative hierarchy of London? I come now to the Asylums Board. That Board has now come to be a great central authority, dealing with cases of infectious diseases all over the metropolis. Now, this is essentially a function of the central metropolitan authorities; it ought to be in the hands of some authority directly responsible. I will not say anything of the School Board, for its functions are well known, but all
  446
  these bodies overlap in areas, and if they all work amicably together—and I do not suppose that they do not—there is still reason to regret that they are left absolutely untouched by the powers supposed to be given in this Bill. Now, I fall back on the Member for Bodmin, who is always in favour of negotiations. Why should it not be possible for these great authorities to meet together and consult and see whether by any adjustment there might not be a scheme submitted for Parliamentary sanction placing the whole of this gigantic business, the conduct of the affairs of the metropolis, on a more satisfactory footing and preventing those contradictions and overlappings which at present exist? This would be a real reform, a real simplification and unification. Of such a scheme as that the City necessarily is the germ, but the City will be stifled if it is surrounded by these new municipalities which are the creation of this Bill. I see as possible, under this Bill, the same result as the honourable and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth foresees, and because, differing from him, I think that that result would be utterly mischievous and disastrous, I cannot give my vote in favour of this Bill as it at present stands.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Mr. Speaker, I think the House will feel with me that I rise under some difficulties after a Debate which has gone on for three nights upon an Amendment moved from the Front Bench opposite, which has for its object the rejection of this Bill. I have listened to that Debate with unremitting attention, and with, I hope, some profit, but without being able to collect from it the slightest reason why any honourable Gentleman, and least of all the right honourable Gentleman who has just sat down, means to vote against the Measure which the Government has proposed. I have heard objections to details, I have heard objections to omissions, but neither from the right honourable Gentleman nor from any of those who sit on the Bench near him, nor from any of those who sit behind him, have I heard any adequate reason why the House should be put to the trouble of a division upon the

  447
  Second Reading of this Measure. I am aware that most of the speakers on the other side, including the right honourable Gentleman who has just sat down, have expressed the darkest suspicion of the motives of the Government. They have seen concealed—very adequately concealed, I may say—behind the provisions of this Bill some sinister intentions which they have been unable to bring to light. But while they strongly object to the physician, they have really brought forward no valid objections to the prescription which that physician recommends. They have supposed that we designed this Bill with a sinister object, but when pinned to the provisions of the Bill and asked how those sinister objects were to be realised by the Measure, their propositions were reduced to the improving platitudes of the right honourable Gentleman who has just sat down, or the irrelevant criticism of detail which many of the honourable Gentlemen opposite have so largely indulged in. Let me say at once that I do not consider that it is any reason for disapproving of the Measure that it does not do everything that somebody supposes it might do if that somebody had had the responsibility of concocting the Measure himself. No Measure is complete; no Measure can cover the whole conceivable ground of any social or political problem. You may always, even with the smallest amount of ingenuity, say that there is this question undealt with or that question unsolved. If we were not to bring in and pass in this House any Bill until we have in that Bill contrived to compress the solution of all the problems which might be suggested, why, then the labours of this House would be very much smaller than they are now, and we might postpone indefinitely the task of dealing by legislation with any of the social questions which meet us, and which we have to solve. No sin of omission, if sin it be, is a reason for voting against the Bill unless the provisions of that Bill are of a kind which prevents that omission being rectified by subsequent legislation. I lay that down as an absolute and universal principle, especially under the modern conditions of legislation. It is quite impossible that any Bill can cover the
  448
  whole possible field of legislation. It may be required, and it ought to be required, of a Government introducing such Bills that the legislation they propose should not render future legislation on the same lines, or even on different lines, absolutely impossible. But the fact that a Bill is not a complete Bill is not only not a sufficient reason for voting against it, but it is no reason at all. If it had been a reason it would have been a reason as valid against every legislative proposal ever proposed by any Government, as it is against the Bill of which I have the honour of being in charge. I put it to the House whether the sins of omission charged against this Bill are of a kind which should prevent even honourable Gentlemen opposite legislating upon lines dear to their hearts. The charges of omission which I have heard alleged are that we do not deal in this Measure with the question of assessment, that we do not deal with the question of Poor Law, and that we do not deal with the City of London. I will not ask whether they desire to see assessment dealt with in this Bill, though, if I had to argue it, I should say that this question is under the consideration of a Royal Commission, and it is not ripe to be treated. But assuming that it is ripe for treatment in the opinion of honourable Members opposite, is there anything in the Bill to prevent it from being treated by subsequent legislation? There is absolutely nothing. It is not pretended by the opponents of the Bill that assessment may not be treated by some more enterprising Government which is going to succeed it. Surely, I may say the same of the Poor Law? We have been reproached because we have given these new bodies too much power, partly because we have given them too little power. The powers which, in the opinion of honourable Members opposite, we ought to give them, are powers of dealing with the question of the Poor Law. I am far from saying that in my judgment the question of the Poor Law does not remain one which ought to be dealt with in connection with the great municipal authorities. Probably some day it will have to be dealt with, but why in this Bill we should initiate for

  449
  London, and London alone, to the exclusion of the rest of the country, a scheme for combining municipal government with Poor Law administration, no speaker on the other side has ventured for a moment to suggest. It is a great and important question, but when it comes to be dealt with, it will not have to be dealt with as a question concerning London alone; it will be a question in which the whole country will be alike interested, and every municipality outside London will have as much interest in the solution that will have to be proposed as the municipalities which we intend to create by the present Bill. There only remains the question of the City of London. Of the three great omissions charged against us by honourable Members, it is true that we have not dealt with the City of London in the Bill. It is also true that in my judgment the City of London ought not to be dealt with by this or any similar Bill to be hereafter introduced. But, putting that question for the moment aside, there is nothing in this Bill which, if it pleases honourable Members when they come into power, will prevent them from dealing with the City of London as they think fit, The late Home Secretary told us in a somewhat mixed architectural metaphor that we are buttressing the City of London by a ring of subordinate municipalities. I do not see that we are affecting the City of London at all by this Bill. We are certainly not precluding future Parliaments from dealing with the City of London, if they should be unwise enough to attempt the task, without touching the organisation we propose to establish. All they will have to do, if they wish to do it, is to give to the area now goverened by the City of London municipality the same organisation we propose to give to Chelsea, Kensington, Poplar, and other municipalities, and to transfer to the London County Council all the attributes which now attach to the City. If that is what they wish, that is not prevented by this Bill. If they think it worth while, if they think they can do it, if they think they have behind them an adequate force of public opinion, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent them doing so; and, therefore, the charge brought against us in respect of the City of Lon-
  450
  don is a charge of omission, not of commission, which does not supply an adequate reason for any honourable Gentleman raising an objection to the Second Reading of the Measure which we are bringing before the House. I feel, however, that I have no right to leave this question of the City exactly where the observations I have made leave it. I feel bound on an occasion like this to express my own opinions on the subject. It is true that the present Bill does not prevent any Government from dealing with the City of London according to the doctrinaire schemes of honourable Members opposite; but it is true that we on this side of the House strongly dissent from any such treatment, and feel ourselves bound to express our dissent. I understand that what honourable Members opposite desire is to transfer from the City of London to the County Council all the traditional ceremonial functions which the City of London has hitherto monopolised. Well, they can do it. If they wish to see Lord Welby go from Westminster to the City in a gilt coach and six—is it six?—if they wish the chairman of the London County Council henceforth to be styled Mayor, to have the congenial task of proposing the health of Her Majesty's Ministers, that, of course, can be done by legislation. But does any Gentleman suppose that by this violent transfer of decorative privileges from one body to the other there will be transferred from the City of London to the London County Council the historic honours which the City of London has always possessed? My right honourable Friend the Member for Bodmin, in a very interesting speech which he made on the second night of this Debate, put forward to the House an historical hypothesis. He asked us what would have happened if the City of London, following the examples of other municipal corporations, had gradually extended its borders as Liverpool, as Manchester, as Leeds, as Glasgow, and as other great cities in this country have extended their borders, and had gradualy embraced all the circumjacent population and brought them under the sway of the Mayor and Corporation of London. And he laid down the proposition that if that natural expansion had taken place we should be

  451
  far better situated as regards London municipal government than we are now. Well, I confess, though I do not wish to contest with my right honourable Friend the discussion of these hypothetical problems, I do not agree with him, because if he could conceive a single corporation developing from the square mile of which the City originally consisted, and of which it now consists, and gradually embracing the 100 square miles which now constitute the metropolitan area, then it seems to me that we should have been face to face with a single corporation governing a single area, but having to deal with an area entirely beyond its powers. The world has shown no example as yet of a single corporation dealing with 100 square miles of territory in a municipal manner.
  MR. COURTNEY: My right honourable Friend has omitted a part of my hypothesis. I said that in the process there would be established subordinate municipalities which would take away from the central body the immediate local affairs.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes, I had forgotten that statement of my right honourable Friend, I admit. He evidently supposes that the London. Municipal Council would have been like the certain astronomical body of which astronomers tell us, which, in the course of its revolutions, spins off subordinate planets which continue to revolve round it. Well, men of science show that there are mechanical reasons why that should happen in the sphere of celestial astronomy, but I do not know by what process any municipality has ever yet been found deliberately and willingly to delegate to these subordinate bodies the powers which my right honourable Friend admitted it is absolutely necessary to delegate in order that so large an area should be properly governed.
  MR. COURTNEY: I gave the reasons yesterday, and I illustrated it from the history of the City itself, which has created a Commission of Sewers under itself in order to take over these very functions.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: My right honourable Friend knows as well, or better, than I do that the Commission of Sewers was a central authority dealing with a whole area. The real question is whether, if this historical evolution had occurred, the City of London would have evolved separate municipalities in Westminster, Chelsea, Poplar, and elsewhere, such as he and I, I believe, equally desire to see assisting in the work of the government of London. Now, I do not believe that there is any power that would have done that, but whether it would have done it or not, at all events I agree with my right honourable Friend that if that process of historical evolution had really taken place the central authority for London would then by natural process have combined all that the Corporation of London now possesses and also all that the London County Council possesses. But what folly it is to suppose that as that process of historical evolution did not occur, we can now violently and suddenly replace it by an Act of Parliament which should confer upon the 100 square miles the privileges hitherto exercised by the single square mile of the City of London. My right honourable Friend is as well aware as I am that there may be processes of expansion which are not processes of development. An explosion, I take it, is a process of expansion, but even my right honourable Friend would hardly describe it as a process of development. An explosion expands a body, but the body expanded is destroyed in the process; and depend upon it, if you choose to take this great historic corporation, coeval with the constitution of Great Britain, and bound up with all its traditions, and attempt now, after all these centuries, suddenly to expand it by a process of explosion, until it covers the whole area of London government, then you will, in that process of expansion, absolutely destroy it. I do not say that it is impossible that the process of slow development might not have been successful. I do not analyse the reasons that prevented that from happening, but historic causes, whatever they have been, have operated century after century from time immemorial, from time to which the memory of man

  453
  goeth not back, and the City of London, which still retains a position absolutely unique, not only in the industrial organisation of Great Britain, but in the industrial organisation of the world, is confined, for good or for evil, to that square mile on the bank of the Thames; and the idea that you can now, at this period of time, alter that area and retain its spirit, seems to me wholly chimerical.
  AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Why not?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I hear an honourable Gentleman ask, Why not? It is the easiest thing in the world to pass an Act of Parliament — if you have the time for it; and there is no difficulty in the honourable Gentleman who asked me, or his friends, if they have the chance, handing over to the London County Council all the attributes—so far as law makes attributes—from the City to the Council. But there are some things not in the power of Parliament to do, and one of the things which is not in the power of Parliament, and which is not in the power of any human organisation, is suddenly, in the twinkling of an eye, to hand over to an entirely different body, animated by a different spirit, and dealing with a different population, the different traditions and attributes which a long period of years has given us in connection with the City of London. I frankly admit—and I have been betrayed into dwelling on this subsidiary point longer than I intended—that, in my opinion, the functions of the City of London in connection either with great national or international charities, and other matters of the kind, are far better carried out by the City of London, as at present constituted, than they ever could be, by the London County Council. However, I must hurry on from the sins of omission—the three sins of omission—with which I have dealt—the sin of omission from the Bill of provisions in regard to the Poor Law, the sin of omission in regard to assessments, and the sin of omission in regard to the City of London. I pass from these sins of omission to the sins of commission which are alleged against
  454
  the Bill, which are, after all, the only sins relevant to the Second Reading of this Bill. The sins of omission may be all that honourable Gentlemen opposite suppose them to be, but yet they may not be reasons for refusing to give the Bill a Second Reading. But when you come to the sins of commission, I admit that the case is different, and I should now like to proceed to examine those sins of commission which have been charged against the Measure which I am in charge of. Let me say first that, so far as I am able to judge, the sins of commission are entirely sins in matters of detail. I have not heard from a single Member criticism which strikes at the principle of the Bill, although I have heard a great many attacks upon the motives of the Bill. I have been told that there is some dark and sinister object behind the Measure, and I have been told that the Prime Minister made a speech which casts a lurid light over the intentions of the Government. I have heard all this, but I really do not see what they have got to do with the Second Reading of the Measure. After all, you do not judge a Bill by the pretensions of its promoters, because if you happen to belong to the Opposition you always assume that those motives are bad, and it is a very proper supposition. But if you vote against the Second Reading of a Bill it should be because the provisions of the Bill are bad, and so bad that they cannot be altered in Committee to meet the real circumstances of the case. Has that contention ever been urged by a single responsible Gentleman on the other side? I have heard various criticisms on very important particulars of the Bill, and I will briefly allude to one or two, for I think that most of them are in relation to matters that should be discussed in Committee, and not now, and therefore my allusions will be short. Now, the first question which I have upon my notes is finance. This has been criticised by the honourable Member for Battersea, and my honourable Friend behind me, the Member for Islington, has also criticised the Measure. I am not going to discuss the details of the clause in the Bill

  455
  which alters the present financial situation in London, but I am prepared to defend the principle underlying those details. It is perfectly true that at present the borrowing powers of the various London districts, as exercised through the London County Council, is done well and is done cheaply; and for my part, I look forward to that process of borrowing through the London County Council being the normal and natural process of operation for all time. I quite agree with the honourable Gentleman who said that if the London County Council and the local authorities agreed about a loan, it is far better that the loan should be negotiated through the County Council, and should become part of the consolidated debt of the great London area than that separate districts should borrow for themselves. We all agree about that, and if that principle is not carried out in the Bill, I am perfectly willing to carry out modifications which will carry it out. But what the House should be most cautious about doing is to prevent these new municipalities borrowing, in case of necessity, for themselves. I perfectly admit that, during the 13 years which the London County Council has been in existence, there has been no friction between it and the vestries about borrowing money. The system has worked perfectly, and I believe that in 99 cases out of 100—nay, in 999 cases out of 1,000, if you prefer it—that system is the best, cheapest, and most convenient both for the County Council and for the borough. But we have had only 11 years' experience of the present system. We are now legislating for an indefinite future, and supposing you have an apathetic County Council, and an active municipality anxious, let us say, to build lodging-houses for the working classes within its area, and the County Council, for some reason or other, object. Let us suppose that the County Council has objected to that process, or has had a quarrel with that particular municipality about something else. Is that an impossible hypothesis? An intolerable one, I admit, but an im-
  456
  possible one, certainly not. I think it is clearly our duty, under the circumstances, to leave the possibility of borrowing to the local authority on its own account, and on its own security and property to carry out the great municipal object which it has in view. That is, substantially, the principle underlying the clause in the Bill to which objection has been taken; and although I do not adhere strictly to the details of that clause, I think the principle I have laid down is one which the House will be very rash indeed if it abandons hastily. Now, I come to the question of the equalisation of rates. I confess that, on this subject of the equalisation of rates, I think honourable Gentlemen opposite have endeavoured to create a prejudice against the Bill which was not quite creditable to their sense of fairness in Debate. They have told us that this Bill, though in its terms it declines to interfere with the equalisation of rates, nevertheless, in some indirect and occult manner, is going to have the result of preventing the rich parts of London contributing anything to the poor parts of London; and we are told also that the Bill itself creates cities of the rich as against cities of the poor. That charge has become a commonplace in the speeches of honourable Gentlemen opposite, but what justification is there for it? The charge is creating cities of the rich against cities of the poor. Well, we have created, as a matter of fact, by the Bill 15 municipalities, and of this number 13 have been approved by the London County Council. That is not denied by anyone. There remains two which the County Council does not approve of, and those two are Wandsworth and Westminster. But, from the point of view of cities of the rich, what has anybody to say against Wandsworth or Westminster? Supposing you cut Wandsworth into two, would the two be less cities of the rich than the one is now? If you cut Westminster into two, as is recommended by the honourable Gentleman opposite, the late Home Secretary, would those dual Westminsters be less cities of the rich than

  457
  the single Westminster? Not a bit. Not only is that not true, but the contrary is the case, and by constituting a Westminster out of these existing divisions you abolish cities of the rich rather than create them. What becomes of this charge of creating cities of the rich? Why the London County Council themselves have endorsed the decision of the Government as regards 13 out of 15 of these divisions, and as regards the other two the objection raised by the County Council is not that by creating them you make cities of the rich, but that so far from producing that result it is perfectly evident that you rather attenuate the contrary. Then we are told that, though you are not creating cities of the rich, you are, at all events, interfering indirectly, by some occult traditional method with the process of the equalisation of rates. Now, what justification is there for that? Certainly we on this side of the House have no prejudice against the equalisation of rates. Three Measures, and three Measures alone, have been passed through this House for the equalisation of rates in the metropolis, and of these three Measures two have been passed by Gentlemen sitting on this side of the House. But apart from this historic justification of our attitude, what are the actual facts with regard to the 15 municipalities we create? I have had the figures taken out, and the result is worthy of the consideration of the House. Of the 15 municipalities we propose to create by Schedule I six, and six only, are areas which lose by the equalisation of rates. The remaining nine gain by the equalisation of rates; so that, putting the rest of London altogether aside, and assuming that the question of equalisation of rates was to be threatened in these cities we propose to create, there will still be a majority of municipalities which would gain by the equalisation of rates, and a minority, a relatively small minority, which would lose by that process. What becomes, then, of the charge made by the honourable Gentlemen opposite that the equalisation of rates is likely to be interfered with, either by the ar-
  458
  rangement—the geographical arrangement—we have made in the schedule, or in anything that is likely to be done by the provisions of this Bill? I will now deal very shortly with the only other question of detail which has been raised, and that is the question of Westminster. That is the only question of detail which remains. The right honourable Gentleman the late Home Secretary told us that we are committing a historic grand larceny, an expression to which I can attach no very definite meaning, in applying the term Westminster to the area which has been described in these Debates as the Greater Westminster. The right honourable Gentleman cannot have considered the history of Westminster well, because the Westminster created by this Bill is the historic Westminster, and if a grand larceny has been committed, it has not been committed by us in giving this name to Greater Westminster——
  MR. ASQUITH: A petty larceny.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: If a petty larceny has been committed, it has not been committed by us in giving this name to Greater Westminster, but a petty larceny has been committed by the existing Westminster in arrogating to itself a title which, for historic reasons, belongs to a larger area and to a larger Westminster. I need not comment on the history of the right honourable Gentleman who moved the rejection of this Bill, and who seemed to think that the only title which we claimed for Westminster was that it was the site of the various public buildings in which the work of this country is carried on. But the historic Westminster depends on a very different title. It was the historic seat of the Government of this country when fields separated Westminster from London, and when judges travelling from one to the other breakfasted at the village of Charing Cross. Westminster in later ages and under far different conditions was one of the three or four great constituencies of this country in pre-Reform Bill days to which everybody looked for the ex-

  459
  pression of the democratic opinion of the country, and Westminster ever since the Restoration down to the Reform Bill, the Westminster whose electoral verdict was looked at with an interest far more than local, but with a national and almost international interest, is not the Westminster which now exists, but the historic Westminster which it is our desire to restore. I presume that at a later stage of our discussion I shall have to defend more in detail in Committee the determination the Government have come to to provide for a Greater Westminster. I have sufficiently indicated on the present occasion the historic grounds which, in my judgment at all events, justify the decision at which we have arrived. And this, Sir, concludes my discussion of the details that have been raised upon the Second Reading of this Bill—details which, I think, were more fitted for discussion, and which ought to have been raised, in Committee, but which as they were raised by speaker after speaker with weight and authority on the opposite side, I thought it would have been considered discourteous on my part to pass by. It remains, therefore, for me only to reply to the general accusation brought by the right honourable Gentleman the late Home Secretary against the whole framework of the Bill. He tells us that these new municipalities are municipalities only in name, and that they are shams and impostures. I cannot follow the right honourable Gentleman in that conclusion, for he himself made a speech in 1894 which seems to absolutely contradict that view. I should never quote against the right honourable Gentleman, or any other Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench, a speech made so far back as 1894 if it were not that the right honourable Gentleman himself told us last night that he adhered to that speech in every particular and in every letter. That is a sufficient reason for regarding that speech as still representing the views of the Bench on which the right honourable Gentleman is such a conspicuous ornament. What
  460
  did the right honourable Gentleman say on that occasion? He said, among other things, that these subordinate localities were to have "that large, common, corporate life which brings with it dignity and responsibility." Now, I put it to the right honourable Gentleman, and to the House, whether an urban district which has a "large, common, and corporate life" is not, according to the best usages of the English language, and to every other language with corresponding terms, described, and properly described, as a municipality? I do not know any language, ancient or modern, in which an urban district having a "large, common, corporate life" is not properly described as a municipality. It is perfectly true that in a particular Act passed in the year 1835 a special legal definition of a municipality was given, or municipal corporation, but that we are precluded by that Act from using the word municipality in strict conformity with the traditions of the English language appears to me to be perfectly absurd, and a view which the House is not bound for one moment to consider. Then, said the right honourable Gentleman, you have aldermen and mayors, and why have aldermen and mayors? I do not say that aldermen and mayors are an absolutely essential element in living corporate life, but I do say that aldermen and mayors add dignity to corporate life, and are associated with all the past traditions of corporate life. And here, again, I quote from the right honourable Gentleman's speech. He said in 1894, which he confirmed in his speech yesterday, "We proposed"—that is, he and his friends proposed—"to give them the stimulus of more attractive titles." Well, in the name of wonder, where is he going to get the more attractive titles if he is not going to call them aldermen and mayors? Is he going to borrow from ecclesiastical organisations some of their titles? Is he going to borrow from the Freemasons? I am not a Freemason, and so I am not quite sure that I know what their titles

  461
  are, but I know that they are names of great dignity? Is he going to borrow from the Primrose League? Are we going to have Knight Harbingers, and Dame Presidents? Is he going to reject all these modern titles which, I am sure, on reflection, he would reject? Where is he going to find these more attractive titles which he spoke of in 1894, and believes in in 1899, with which he would like to adorn these new assemblies, which are neither to be known by aldermen, mayors, or lord mayors? If the right honourable Gentleman in Committee will find his more attractive titles than mayors and aldermen for the new corporations, I promise him on behalf of the Government that his suggestion shall have the most impartial consideration. After all, when I have to advise the House as to the way in which they should divide upon the Second Reading of this Bill, I am brought back to the plain and simple truth that there are only two ways of dealing with this problem of London government. You may deal with it, as the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Monmouth proposed to deal with it in 1884, by having a central organisation—call it a county council, or what you will—and having another local authority, a mere delegation, and nothing more, from the central authority. That scheme was brought forward by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Monmouth in 1884 as Home Secretary. But it has never been pressed forward; it has never been revived. And then honourable Gentlemen opposite, and those who have authority with them, have thrown in their lot with the only alternative, which is to have independent local authorities, and to give them all possible dignities. Now, may I read some observations of Lord Rosebery, who, although he has thrown off all the labours and responsibilities of a Party Leader, still must carry weight on this question, as being, if I remember rightly, first chairman of the London
  462
  County Council. Now, Lord Rosebery spoke as follows in 1895—
  "Although we believe that London should be one, we believe that unity will best be obtained, will best be strengthened, by maintaining local spirit, by encouraging local spirit, by developing local spirit. We desire to see London a unity, but not London a unit."
  He went on to say—
  "We must rise through local attachment to the larger conception of local patriotism."
  What a commentary, I might say, incidentally, upon the London County Council proposal that Chelsea, Islington, and Westminster should describe themselves as the Westminster district, the Chelsea district, and the Islington district of London. Lord Rosebery further said—
  "Therefore, it is not we who wish to unify and magnify London, who wish to dwarf the Chelseas, the Lambeths, and the Clerkenwells, because we recognise the only sure and strong and healthy basis for London lies in the strength, the healthiness, and the might of these Chelseas, Lambeths, and Clerkenwells."
  Sir, the plan of Lord Rosebery is the plan of the Government; and the plan of the Government is the plan of Lord Rosebery. It was not Lord Rosebery's invention. It is not our invention. It is the plan to which all rational and reasonable reformers of London government have been inclined for many a long year; a plan amply confirmed by the Commission presided over by my right honourable Friend the Member for Bodmin, which has been quoted against us, but which is one of the strongest authorities on our side. I can only suppose that the objection to the scheme, thus in its main outline described by Lord Rosebery and others, is animated by some spirit of strange jealousy on the part of the London County Council. I think that sort of jealousy, like almost all sorts of jealousy, is wholly without foundation, and has led astray those who are its victims. The right honourable Gentlemen opposite appear to have inverted in their political views the principles which ought to regulate municipal and national life. When they are dealing with Home Rule,

  463
  then, indeed, they belittle the central authorities; they are in favour of pro- vincial Parliaments with authority equal within its sphere to the Imperial Parliament. In London and in municipal affairs they reverse the process. Where centralisation is desirable there they will have nothing but devolution, and where independent local spirit is to be evoked there they will have nothing but centralisation. A more singular inversion of sound political principles I am sure I have seldom met with in my experience. May I ask honourable Gentlemen opposite once more why it is they mean to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill? The right honourable Gentleman the Member for East Fife, in his closing words the other night, said that this Measure was an eirenicon in its framework and in its essential provisions.
  MR. ASQUITH: I said it might be transformed in Committee.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes, it might be transformed in Committee, but it was the eirenicon of conciliation and a charter of local liberty. The honourable Member for Battersea told us tonight that the existing government of London was insufferable and intolerable.
  MR. BURNS: Hear, hear!
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I put these two propositions together, and I ask the House how a Party which holds them can vote against the Second Reading of this Bill? It is alleged by the honourable Member for Battersea that the evils of London
  government are insufferable and intolerable, and require instant remedy; they cannot wait. It is admitted by the right honourable Member for East Fife that this Bill, with Committee modifications, is capable of providing such a remedy. Yet a Party which holds these two propositions is, I understand, within the next five minutes going to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. I am not the keeper of their consciences, and I know not how their action is going to be justified. But, at all events, our course is clear. We hold with the honourable Member for Battersea that the present condition of London government is intolerable and impossible. We hold with the honourable Member for East Fife that this Bill does afford a basis by which these evils can be cured. And, Sir, I hope that we on this side, at all events, hold more than that. I hope that we are of opinion that this Measure, imperfect, it may be, here and there in details, is yet an honest and conscientious endeavour to carry out a policy which, until the present Debate, I had thought was a policy common to both sides, but which, at all events, is a policy common to almost every London reformer who speaks with authority on the subject; and, holding that view, I am sure we shall carry the Second Reading by a large and triumphant majority.
  Question put—
  "That the words proposed to be left cut stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: —Ayes 245; Noes 118.—(Division List No. 70.)

  AYES.

  Arnold, Alfred

  Balfour, Rt Hn G. W. (Leeds)

  Beckett, Earnest William

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Banbury, Fredk George

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John

  Barry, Rt Hn A. H. Smith (Hnts

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor)

  Bethell, Commander

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen B.

  Biddulph, Michael

  Balcarres, Lord

  Beach, Sir M. H. (Bristol)

  Bigwood, James

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (M'nc'r)

  Beach, W. W. B. (Hants)

  Bill, Charles

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Bond, Edward

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Mount, William George

  Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Gretton, John

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)'

  Bowles, Capt H. F. (Mid'sex)

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Newark, Viscount

  Brassey, Albert

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Newdigate, Francis Alex.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord George

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Brown, Alexander, H,

  Hanbury, Rt Hn Robert Wm.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Butcher, John George

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Carlisle, William Walter

  Heath, James

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

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

  Helder, Augustus

  Penn, John

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Percy, Earl

  Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

  Hill, Sir E. Stock (Bristol)

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampst'd.)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. (Birm.)

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Pilkington, Richard

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r)

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Houston, R. P.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

  Howard, Joseph

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Cochrane, Hn Thos. H. A. E.

  Howell, William Tudor

  Purvis, Robert

  Coddington, Sir William

  Hozier, Hn J. H. Cecil

  Pym, C. Guy

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Rankin, Sir James

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hughes, Colonel Edwin

  Rasch, Major Fredk. Carne

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Colston, C. E. H. Athole

  Jackson, Rt Hn Wm. Lawies

  Richardson, Sir T. (Harltep'l)

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref 'd.

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Robertson, Herbt. (Hackney)

  Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Roche, Hon. J. (East Kerry)

  Cornwallis, F. Stanley, W.

  Kennaway, Rt Hn Sir J. H.

  Round, James

  Courtney, Rt Hn Leonard H.

  Kenyon, James

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Keswick, William

  Sassoon, Sir Edw. Albert

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Knowies, Lees

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Lafone, Alfred

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

  Sharpe, Wm. Edw. T.

  Curzon, Viscount

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire).

  Dalbiac, Colonel P. Hugh

  Lees, Sir E. (Birkenhead)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Leighton, Stanley

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

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Denny, Colonel

  Loder, Gerald Walter E.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Strauss, Arthur

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Long, Rt Hn W. (Liverpool)

  Strutt, Hon. C. Hedley

  Dorington, Sir J. Edward

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf 'd Univ

  Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Lowles, John

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Valentia, Viscount

  Dyke, Rt, Hn. Sir W. Hart

  Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

  Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

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

  Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir. J. (Man.)

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

  Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

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

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

  Fitzgerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L)

  Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Whitmore, Chas. Algernon

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Mellor, Col. (Lancashire)

  Williams, J. Powell-(Birm.)

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Forster, Henry William

  Meysey,-Thompson, Sir H. M.

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

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

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

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Fry, Lewis

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Garfit, William

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D 'Arcy

  Graft, William

  Monk, Charles James

  Young, Com. (Berks, E.)

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Montagu, Hn. J. S. (Hants)

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

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

  Godson, Sir A. Frederick

  More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Morgan, Hn. E. (Monm'th'sh)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Gorst, Rt Hn Sir J. Eldon

  Morrison, Walter

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  466

  467

  NOES.

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

  Harwood, George

  Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. H.

  Hazell Walter

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Bainbridge, Emerson

  Hedderwick, T. C. H.

  Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

  Baker, Sir John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Holden, Sir Angus

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Bayley, T. (Derbyshire)

  Horniman, Fredk. John

  Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Billson, Alfred

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U.

  Robson, W. Snowdon

  Birrell, Augustine

  Kilbride, Denis

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Blake, Edward

  Lambert, George

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Bolton, Thomas Boiling

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

  Shaw, T. (Hawick, B.)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Leng, Sir John

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Lloyd-George, David

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Burns, John

  Logan, John William

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Burt, Thomas

  Lough, Thomas

  Souttar, Robinson

  Buxton, Sydney Chas.

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Spicer, Albert

  Caldwell, James

  MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Queen's C

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  M'Arthur, W (Cornwall)

  Steadman, William C.

  Campbell-Bannermann, Sir H.

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Cawley, Frederick

  M'Ewan, William

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Crilly, Daniel

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Chas.

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dillon, John

  M'Leod, John

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Maddison, Fred.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Douglas, Chas. M. Lanark)

  Maden, John Henry

  Ure, Alexander

  Duckworth, James

  Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

  Wallace, Robt. (Edinburgh)

  Ellis, John Edw. (Notts.)

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Fenwick, Charles

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Flynn, Jas. Christopher

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  Moss, Samuel

  Wilson Fredk. W. (Norfolk)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Moulton, John Fletcher

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

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd)

  Gold, Charles

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Woods, Samuel

  Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

  Pease, Sir J. W. (Durham)

  Grey, Sir Edw. (Berwick)

  Philipps, John Wynford

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Thomas Ellis and Mr. Causton.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Price, Robert John

  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday, 10th April.

BUSINESS DEFERRED.
  SUPPLY.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  TANCRED'S CHARITIES SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  INFECTIOUS DISEASES (NOTIFICATION) ACT (1889) EXTENSION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

  PARISH COUNCILLORS (TENURE OF OFFICE) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Twelve of the clock.