Commons Sitting of 2 June 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH.)
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Bill [Lords]; Barrow-in-Furness Corporation Bill [Lords]; Bristol Corporation Bill [Lords]; Bourne-mouth Corporation (Tramways) Bill [Lords]; Filey Improvement Bill [Lords]; Great Western Railway Bill [Lords]; Holywood Tramways Bill [Lords]; North Wales Electric Power Bill [Lords]; Portmadoe, Beddgelert, and South Snow-don Railway Bill [Lords]; Preston Corporation Water Bill [Lords]; St. Mary Woolnoth Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

NAVAL WORKS (PORTSMOUTH BARRACKS SITE) BILL (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 17th day of May, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Naval Works (Portsmouth Barracks Site) Bill.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the
614
First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill.
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Privats Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—Education Board Provisional Order (Swansea) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 15) Bill; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.
Chippenham Gas Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Paisley District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
Saddleworth and Springhead Tramways (Abandonment) Bill. Petition for additional Provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Commons Regulation (Oxshott) Provisional Order Bill. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table. Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Land Drainage Provisional Order (Owston and West Butterwick, in county of Lincoln (Parts of Lindsey) Bill. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table. Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6)Bill. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table. Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table. Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table. Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table. Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas) Bill. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table. Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
London County Council (Money) Bill; New River Company Bill [Lords], Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table.
Chesterfield Gas and Water Board Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Commons Regulation (Merrow) Provisional Order Bill. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order con firmed]; Report to He upon the Table. Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Linlithgow; and Kingussie; to lie upon the Table.
  HOUSE-LETTING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Falkirk, against; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Blythswood; Falkirk (four); Gosport (two); Kelnley; Halton Lea Gate; St. John's Wood;; Deal (two); Halifax; Maidenhead; Islington; Bromley Bywell; Stockport (two); Liverpool; Allendale; Hareholm; Newchurch in Rossendale; Harper Towy; Sarisbury Green; Norland; Pendleton (two); Twyford; Sheepbridge; Tilehurst; Spencer's Wood; Brimpton; Reading; Todmorden; Sheffield; Hamilton; Cardiff (sixteen); Penarth; Saffron Walden; Snitterfield; Tunstall (two); Chesterton; Camborne; Western Knowle;, Urmston; Burghead (two); Stafford Hellah; Aberfeldy; Bracknell (two): Berks; St. Helens (five); Launceston; Bathpool; Lanhargy; Coad's Green;. Lewannick; Rilla Mill; Hereford; Padfield; Solihull; Tranent; Three Mile Cross; Essex; Finglesham; Tilmanstone;, Eastry; Dore; Bolton (three); Colwall Gateshead (two); Ascot; Maidenhead, (two); Brighton, Hove, and Haywards Heath; Newton Abbot; Torquay (five); Brixham; Burslem; North Staffordshire Pottery Towns; Brighton; Williton; Watton at Stone; Midgley; Westmoreland; Stockwell; Wood Green; Bollington; Heanor; Ilkestone; Loscoe; Mapperley; Johnstone; Newton Heath; Adlington; Brockley; Monsall; Manchester (two); Walmer; Reading;. Gunnersbury; Chesham; Westmoor; Whitefort; Newcastle-on-Tyne; Paignton; Dronfield; Stockton-on-Tees; Cathays; Batley; East Linton; Platt Bridge; Newbury (two); Hebden Bridge;. Southampton; Colcar; Buckhurst Hill; Denmead; Ashington; Hawick; Cheddington; Aberystwith; Worthing; Bridgwater (three); Ammanford; Broomfield; Wells-next-the-Sea; Colne; Stopsley; Galashiels (three); Roxburgh; Llanelly (eight); Llwynhendy; National Unitarian Association; Einsbury Park; Shepherd's Bush; Bedminster; Bristol (nine); Burry Port; Kidwelly; Sandbach; Rhydlewis; Shoreham; Parkhead; Broadstone; Glasbury; Northwich; Davenham; Whitegate; Southport; Runcorn Heath; Brandon; Whitchurch; Upholland; Gorton West Gorton;

  617
  Ashton-under-Lyne; Burnley (four); Haslingden; Porthleven; Truro; Rid-dings; North East Lancashire; Upper Parkstone; Hull; Walkden and Little Hulton; Gainsborough; Mount Sorrel; Longholmes; Edinburgh; Taibach; Swanage; Manselton; Loughor; Rochester; Plymouth; Chelmsford; East Hanningfield; Yorkshire; Clayton; Brentwood; Chignal and Mashbury; Blozwich; Brandon; and Kingswood; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Hawick; and Chelmsford; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (TAXATION AND PURCHASE OF LAND) BILL.
  Petition from St. Pancras, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  METRIC WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
  Petition from Kidderminster, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  RE-VACCINATION BILL.
  Petition from Wandsworth, against; to lie upon the Table.
  RE-VACCINATION BILL.
  Petition from Chester, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOPS HOURS BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADES UNIONS AND TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  Petition from Bristol, against; to lie upon the Table.
  TUBERCULOSIS (ANIMALS) COMPENSATION BILL.
  Petition from Huddersfield, against; to lie upon the Table.
  VALUATION BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Auckland; Fareham; Atcham; Newent; Brackley; Northwich; and Strood; to lie upon the Table.
  VALUATION BILL.
  Petition from Hackney, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  MINES AND QUARRIES.
  Copy presented; of General Report and Statistics for the year 1903, Part I. (District Statistics) Statistics of the Persons employed, Output, and Accidents at Mines and Quarries in the United Kingdom, arranged according to the Inspection districts [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EXPLOSIVES.
  Copy presented; of Twenty-eighth Annual Report of His Majesty's Inspectors of Explosives, being for the year 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Return presented; relative thereto [Address 1st June; Mr. Cochrane]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 191.]
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented; of Colonial Report, No. 416 (Leeward Islands), Annual Report for 1902–3 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  The New River Company and the London Water Act.
  COLONEL BOWLES: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that an appeal in regard to the award in the case of the New River Company is pending in the House of Lords, he will consider the advisability of postponing the appointed day under the London Water Act until after the award has been made.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have received an application from the company asking that the appointed day may be deferred in their case, and I am in communication with the company and the Metropolitan Water Board on the subject.

  Telegraphists' Duties in Armagh Post Office.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether telegraphists in the Armagh Post Office, after performing an eight hours duty on split or divided attendances, are compelled to return to the office to perform one hour's extra duty daily; and whether, in view of the hardship to the men by reason of the frequent attendances at the office, he will investigate the circumstances.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I will make inquiry and communicate with the hon. Member.

  Draft Scheme for Whitstable Charities.
  MR. SLACK: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to a draft scheme for the Whitstable charities, in the county of Kent, in which the income provided for the payment of teachers* salaries is diverted to the maintenance of the buildings of the Whitstable and Seasalter national school; and, if so, whether, having regard to Section 13 of the Education Act, 1902, he will withhold his approval from this scheme.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The draft scheme for the Whitstable Charities has been prepared by the Charity Commission, and, so far as the educational part of the endowment is concerned, will be referred, if it has not already been referred, to the local education authority. Until I am informed further in the matter, and particularly as to the views of the local education authority, I can express no opinion upon this scheme.

  Hostilities in the Country between the Niger and Cross Rivers.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state by whose authority, and for what reason, Major Trenchard attacked the natives of the Opopo country and burned six villages; whether three columns of men have been sent to pacify the country lying between the Niger and Cross Rivers; and what is the object to be attained by the sacrifice
  620
  of human life and the expenditure involved.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) In the absence of any mention of dates, it is to be inferred that the Question refers to a patrol, conducted by Major Trenchard, with 211 native troops, between the 4th of March and the 11th of April last. The "Opopo country" cannot be traced, but a district called the "Ohoho" district was visited by Major Trenchard in connection with the patrol in the Ibibio district which, as stated in my answer to the Question put by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean Division of Gloucestershire on the 3rd of March, † had been sanctioned by my predecessor. The country traversed is a very wild one. The object was to take away the war guns and arms of precision in the hands of the natives, to open the district to trade, and to bring it under Government control, the natives having refused to give up criminals, and any attempt to arrest an offender being immediately met by armed resistance. The casualties on the side of the Protectorate troops were nil, and appear to have been very small on the side of the opposing natives. It was found necessary to burn a number of villages, but the huts destroyed on these occasions are not of a permanent character, and are quickly reconstructed. The districts traversed by Major Trenchard and the Ibibio patrol already referred to lie between the Cross River and the Niger, and it is to be presumed that the operations mentioned in the concluding portion of the Question are identical with these two patrols. In any case, I have no reason to believe that any active operations are at present in progress between the two rivers.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Conscription—Decision of the Government.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Government will make any proposals
  † See (4) Debates cxxxi., 58

  621
  to this House based upon the recommendation of the majority of the Royal Commission on the Militia and Volunteers in favour of a system of conscription.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. AEKOLD-FOKSTER): No, Sir, the Government does not intend to make any proposals to the House in favour of a system of conscription.
  *MR. C. R. SPENCER: Will nothing follow from the Report of this Commission?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, Sir; I hope that a great deal will follow from this Report.

  3rd North Staffordshire Regiment— William Vernon's Case
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that William Vernon, of the 3rd North Staffordshire Regiment, although absent from duty under a certificate signed Crosthwaite, Captain, was subsequently arrested under an order signed by the same officer, on the ground that he was an absentee; and seeing that, on Vernon appearing before the stipendiary magistrate at Hanley, Staffordshire, on the 30th May, the military authorities were net represented, and that the magistrate, in ordering the man's release, expressed his strong condemnation of the action of the War Office, will he state under what circumstances the order for arrest was issued.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No report of this case has reached the War Office. Doubtless if any error has been made, the matter will, on investigation by the general officer commanding the district concerned, be properly dealt with. I must point out to the hon. Member that he is mistaken in supposing that the action taken was initiated by the War Office.
  MR. WEIR: I will repeat the Question a week hence.

  Canada and Imperial Defence.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether at any time during the last three years a suggestion has been made to the Canadian Government, or any members thereof, by His Majesty's Government, or any member of same, with the view of obtaining a contribution toward the maintenance of the Army and Navy; and, if so, whether he will state if the suggestion was favourably received.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): The question of the relations of the self-governing Colonies, including Canada, to the Imperial Army and Navy was discussed at the Colonial Conference of 1902, and the views expressed by the Canadian Ministers will tie found on pages 73 and 74 of the Parliamentary Paper relating to that Conference. There is no record of any other communication within the period named.

  Imperial Council of Defence.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been directed to the speech of Lord Milner at Johannesburg on 28th May; whether Lord Milner's statement that all the Colonies ought to contribute towards the maintenance of the Navy was due to instructions received from His Majesty's Government; whether his advocacy of Imperialism and of the establishment of an Imperial Council received the sanction of His Majesty's Government; and, if so, when is it suggested to carry into effect the proposal to establish an Imperial Council.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I have seen the account given in the newspapers of the speech referred to. Lord Milner was simply expressing his personal views, and has received no instructions from His Majesty's Government on the subject. The question of establishing an Imperial Council has not reached the stage at which it would be possible to say when such a proposal could be carried into effect.

  Naval Mines.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have made any representations to the Russian Government, if so, with what result, on the question of naval mines outside the territorial limits in the seat of war in the Far East; and whether, in view of the increased range of modern projectiles. His Majesty's Government are prepared to recognise any extension of the three-mile limit.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,: No representations of the character indicated in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's Question have been made to either of the belligerent Powers, but the subject is engaging the attention of His Majesty's Government. The answer to the second paragraph of the Question is in the negative.

  The Post Office Wages Committee.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General when the Report of Sir Edward Bradford's Committee will be issued to Members of the House.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,: I am not able at present to fix a date for laying the Report of Sir Edward Bradford's Committee on the Table.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: Cannot the noble Lord name an approximate date?
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir, I cannot say even approximately, and I hope the hon. Member will be satisfied with the assurance I have already given that there shall be a discussion in this House on the Report, which will be laid at least a fortnight before the debate takes place.
  MR. BAYLEY: Is there any reason why the Report cannot be laid at once?
  LORD STANLEY: I do not think all the evidence is printed, and I do not propose to lay it until I am in a position
  624
  to make a statement, as I hope to be able, with respect to the course we intend to pursue in regard to it.

  Vaccination Notices.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state whether any vaccination officers throughout the country, besides the vaccination officer at Brighton, print their own notices on the forms prepared by the Local Government Board for distribution to the parents of new-born infants; and, if so, will he state the number; and, with a view to secure uniformity on the subject, will the Local Government Board so prepare the information on the forms as to obviate further additions being made by vaccination officers.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,): A few instances have come under my observation in which additions have been made to the form of notice referred to. I cannot say in how many cases this has been done, but no such additions should be made without the consent of the Department. I will take note of the suggestion of the hon. Member, so that when the Vaccination Order which prescribes the form is revised, the question may be considered whether any addition to the form is desirable.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Has any notice been taken of the conduct of these officials in printing these improper notices? Have they been reprimanded?
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: I do not know we have power to do more than call the attention of the board of guardians whose servants they are to the matter.

  Ejectments on Earl Fitzwilliam's Estate.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware (1) that a number of ejectment processes at the instance of Earl Fitzwilliam were recently heard at the Tiuahely Petty Sessions; (2) can he say how many decrees were granted by the Court, and for how many years rent due;

  625
  (3) can he state how many of the tenants decreed had refused to accept the land-lord's terms of sale; (4) and how many, of the tenants, on receipt of ejectment notices, consented to purchase their holdings at the landlord's price.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FDR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): I am inquiring as to the number of ejectment processes heard, the number of decrees granted, and the amount of arrears due in each case, and will communicate the information to the hon. Member when received. But I am unable to give any information on the other matters mentioned which do not come under official cognisance.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire how many tenants have been served with ejectment notices because they have refused to accept the landlord's terms, and how many will be ejected in consequence?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have no official cognisance of the matter.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Will the Estates Commissioners inquire into the facts before sanctioning the sale?
  MR. WYNDHAM: They have very general powers, and it is no part of my duty to direct them in the matter.

  Kilbride Camp Canteen Licence.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to statements made by Mr. Fletcher Moore, D.L., when presiding at Blessington Petty Sessions on the 16th of May, to the effect that the Blessington magistrates had on the 4th of April refused to grant a licence to the canteen at the Kilbride Camp, county Wicklow, on grounds considered by the magistrates to be adequate and reasonable; and that subsequently the order for the licence was signed and granted by two magistrates, namely, Sir Henry Cochrane, who resides in Bray, a long way outside the Blessington district, and by Mr. James Shanks, who is not a
  626
  magistrate for the county Wicklow; and, if so, will he say what action does he intend to take in the matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: My attention has been directed to this case, the facts of which are accurately stated. The question of the jurisdiction of one of the two justices named to grant a canteen licence in a county for which he is not a magistrate is under consideration, and I would ask the hon. Member to postpone the Question for a few days to enable me to make further inquiries.

  Ardglass Herring Fishery Inquiry.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to: ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the result of the inquiry held last year at Ardglass, county Down, with reference to the close season for herring fishing, and also the result of the inquiry held several years previously.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The application for a by-law was withdrawn in the course of the inquiry at Ardglass last year and no by-law was made. No similar inquiry was previously held in this locality.

  Establishment by Local Authorities of Motor Services in Ireland.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if the Government would be prepared to introduce a short Bill during the present session authorising local authorities in Ireland to levy a rate not exceeding a penny in the pound for the establishment of motor or traction services for passengers or goods, respectively, and authorising joint action between two or more such local authorities.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Local authorities in Ireland have power to levy rates for the purpose of putting roads and bridges into a fit condition to carry motor traffic. But no local authorities have expressed a desire to be invested with rating powers for the purpose mentioned in the Question, and in the absence of representations from local bodies seeking such powers it would be premature to consider the subject of legislation. I may add that a

  627
  suggestion has been made by the Galway County Council that the share of the county in the unissued balances of the Exchequer Contribution should be placed at the disposal of the council in relief of the proposed expenditure on such roads within the county as may be utilised in connection with the Iveagh-Pirrie Motor traction scheme. I am disposed to favourably entertain this suggestion and am considering the method by which effect may best be given to it.

  Kilcoo Postal Arrangements.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Postmaster - General whether he is aware of the delay in delivering letters at Kilcoo, county Down, owing to the fact that all letters are required to pass through the Newry office; and whether steps will be taken to secure that letters passing through Castlewellan for Kilcoo will be placed in a special bag, and thus obviate the day's delay in forwarding them to Newry.
  LORD STANLEY: I am not aware that there has been any delay in the delivery of letters at Kilcoo, county Down, but I will have inquiry made in the matter and acquaint the hon. Member with the result.

  Galway Docks.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Board of Works have recently interfered with arrangements made by the Galway Harbour Board in connection with the better lighting of the docks; and, if so, will he state what is the object of this interference on the part of the Board of Works.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): The intervention of the Beard of Works is with the object of carrying out their duties and securing their rights as mortgagees and receivers: of the revenues of the harbour.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-; Lieutenant of Ireland at whose request I was an inspector recently sent by the Board of Works to examine into the
  628
  suitability and sufficiency of the lighting: of the docks; by whom will the expenses of this official's visit be borne, whether he examined the lights at night;, and what is the nature of the report which he has made to the Beard of Works.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The inspection of Galway harbour was made on behalf of the Board of Works as mortgagees and receivers of the revenues of the harbour. The inspector is paid by the Board. His report has not yet been, received.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: Has there been any official examination of the lights, at night?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: lam unable to say, as we have not yet received the report.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Out of what fund will the money be provided?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The fund which the Board of Works administers.

  Dredger for Galway Harbour.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when the second dredger promised in connection with certain harbours in Ireland will be available: and if then the application long since made by the Harbour Board of Galway for the use of a dredger for the docka will be entertained.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The first part of the Question refers to a suggestion made by me that the charge for the-provision of a dredger might properly be placed on the Development Grant Estimate. If provision for the charge is made in the Estimate the application of the Galway Harbour Board would be taken into consideration.

  Blocking Notices.
  MR. MALCOLM: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of taking steps to amend the Standing Orders governing Motions for the adjournment of the House in order to avoid the necessity for blocking

  629
  Notices, and to restore greater freedom of debate to the House of Commons.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In my judgment the Rule to which my hon. friend objects is undoubtedly capable of abuse, and has, no doubt, from time to time been abused. But I do not think that a simple abrogation of the Rule would do. No man who has considered the subject has come to that conclusion; nor have I ever had suggested to me any Amendment which seemed to me at once to protect the rights of the House and to carry out the intention of the Rule to which objection is raised.
  MR. MALCOLM: On occasions when the Government move the adjournment of the House for the holidays, would my right hon. friend use his influence to have blocking Notices removed?
  ME. A. J. BALFOUR: I could not give any pledge on that subject. It has always seemed to me that possibly it might be a convenient course for the House to lay down some Rule such as that which the House adopted in regard to Votes on Account. It would be understood that the debate on the Motion for the holiday adjournment at Easter and Whitsuntide should last only for a specific period—that is, for the Afternoon Sitting—that it should not be liable to Amendment or division, and that during the hours from Question time to half-past seven no Notice should be allowed to exclude any subject from debate. But I think that in that case some notice should be given of the subjects which are to be raised. I only suggest this as the sort of Amendment which might be adopted. I could not give a pledge on the subject.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right bon. Gentleman says that he can give no pledge, but will he address his mind to the subject and give the House an opportunity of discussing the matter? The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the state of things now is really beyond endurance, and that there is a strong feeling in all quarters of the House upon it.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Perhaps the; Prime Minister has seen two Notices on the Blue Paper of to-day, which to my mind are abuses of the Rule. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will accord an opportunity to the House to discuss a Motion which I propose to put down, to the effect that the rule and practice of the House prohibiting a discussion of a matter previously appointed for the consideration of the House or as to which Notice of Motion has previously been given shall not apply to a Motion for an adjournment for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My hon. friend will at once see that he refers to an entirely different subject from that of the limitations put upon discussions on Motions for the adjournment for the holidays, which, I think, is the more important of the two. With regard to giving time for a discussion on the subject, the House is aware-that there is a great deal of business before it; and I am certainly not in a position to add to the pledge which I nave already given in regard to affording an opportunity to discuss the subject. I may add, however, that if we are happy in our progress with the discussion o; Bills now before the House I do not sea why we should not find time.

  The Aliens Bill.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I ask the Prime Minister a Question in regard to the intimation which he made a day or two ago as to the business to- morrow? The third subject which he named, I think, was the reference of the Aliens Bill to a Committee upstairs. I think he ought to be aware that there is a very strong feeling on the matter, and that, therefore, it hardly comes within the field of non-contentious measures of which he spoke. Can he not postpone it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With regard to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman, I hardly think that the reference to a. Committee upstairs of a Bill, the Second Reading of which was passed by as enormous majority, can be described as

  631
  a controversial matter within the meaning of the statement which I made to the House. What was that statement? It was broadly that I was anxious during the first week after the holidays to put as little strain as I could upon the time of hon. Members. I was abused incidentally before the holidays for making them so long. [An HON. MEMBER: Not abused.] Well, gently criticised; and I do think that to say that on the Friday after we meet we are not to discuss the reference of a Bill to a Committee upstairs is pressing my benevolent intentions towards the House at large rather further than is perhaps quite fair.

  The Finance Bill.
  MR. LOUGH: Is there any prospect of the Finance Bill being taken next week?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir, I do not think it will be taken next week.

  Army Medical Vote.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: Can the Prime Minister give the House an assurance of an early opportunity to discuss the Army Medical Vote in view of the great interest taken in this question, and the possible effect of delay on the supply of suitable candidates?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No doubt more time will have to be devoted to, the Army Estimates, but several days have already been occupied with them,; and I cannot at the present time give any promise as to when the consideration of them will be resumed.

ANGLO-FRENCH CONVENTION [EXPENSES].
Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any sums payable by way of indemnity pursuant to any Act of the present session for approving and carrying into effect a Convention between His Majesty and the President of the French Republic, and any expenses to be incurred in carrying the said Convention into effect (King's Recommendation signified), to-morrow.—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
ALIENS [EXPENSES].
Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the salaries and remuneration of any persons employed, and of any expenses incurred under any Act of the present session, to make provision with respect to the Immigration of Aliens, and other matters incidental thereto (King's Recommendation signified), to-morrow.—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
NEW BILL.
  POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
  "To enable His Majesty's Postmaster-General to acquire lands in London, Southgate, Blackpool, Leeds, and Newcastle-upon-Tyne for the public service; and for other purposes," presented by Lord Stanley; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 219.]

SUPPLY [11TH ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

SUPPLY [11TH ALLOTTED DAY].
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1904–1905.

    CLASS II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £142,089, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board."
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid he wished to know what had been done in regard to regulations affecting the speed of motor-cars on main roads. Under the Motor Cars Act of last session large discretionary powers were placed in the hands of the Local Government Board to settle what was to be done as regarded regulating the speed of motors on roads, and as to setting up notices warning travellers and

    633
    the public of the danger of travelling beyond a certain pace. So far as he was aware, the Local Government Board had taken very little action in the matter at all, and all that had been done had been on the line of suggesting to the various local authorities that they should do nothing in the matter, but should rather rely on the section of the Act throwing the responsibility on the drivers to see that they did not run any undue risks. He regretted that the Local Government Board had not given attention to applications from local authorities for power to enforce regulations. Indeed, in one case there had been a refusal to allow any regulations to be put in force. He wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there were very narrow roads, especially in the West of England—roads with many winding turnings in them, where motorcar traffic was not merely a nuisance but was really dangerous. He believed that if there were some general regulations restricting the speed to ten miles an hour, motor-cars would prefer not to use those narrow roads, but would rather make a detour over main roads, and thus the general convenience of the public would be consulted. Then again, a recommendation of the County Councils Association in regard to notices to motor-car drivers was certainly worthy of more consideration than it had received. It had been suggested that the warning notices might be suspended from the lamp-posts, but the Local Government Board had prohibited anything of the kind being done. He thought it very desirable that the Local Government Board should set up one standard for these notices so that they might be easily recognised by car drivers who were dashing about all over the country. The effect of the attitude taken up by the Local Government Board had been to induce local authorities to believe that it was not worth their while to take the trouble to make any recommendations in regard to regulations.
    Then there was the question of the cost of putting up the notices. One county council had estimated that each such warning would cost about £2, and that the total cost of placing danger boards within its limits would amount to something like £8,000. Was not that a
    634
    burden which should fall on the Imperial Exchequer? The right hon. Gentleman might say that that was not a matter with which he had to deal, and that it was the fault of the House if, when the Bill was under consideration, steps were not taken to throw this burden upon the Imperial Exchequer. As to that he would say nothing, but he would urge the desirability of having one standard for these notices. He had made inquiry of the Cyclists' Touring Club, and they had informed him that the cost of the iron discs which they were in the habit of distributing about the country was only 3s. 6d., and that the cost of the posts to which they were attached ranged from 5s. to 10s. Well, that would give a maximum outlay of 13s. 6d. for each signal as against £2 which had been estimated by a certain county council. But even that 13s. 6d. would not be required if the right hon. Gentleman would consent to allow the discs to be slung from the lamp-posts. There was one other point to which he would like to draw attention, and that was the damage done to the roads by traction engines travelling along the roads at ten or twelve miles an hour. These engines not only caused great obstruction in I narrow lanes, but they cut up the roads in a most terrible fashion. A Departmental Committee had been appointed to go into the question, and he could not help thinking that it was a mistake that the Rural District Councils Association, which was very much interested in the matter, seeing that the rural district councils had to contribute very largely towards the expense of making and maintaining the roads used by these heavy motors, was not granted special representation upon that Committee. He hoped, however, that, as the outcome of the deliberations of the Committee, some regulations would be laid down in regard to this traffic, for it was not infrequently the case that these engines cut a rut something like nine or ten inches in depth in the road. He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, in conclusion, whether he had issued any regulations in regard to a speed limit for these traction engines, and he begged, in order that he might get a reply, to move the reduction of the salary of the President of the Local Government Board by £100.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries and Wages) be i educed by £100."—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
    MR. CATHCART WASONsaid the whole crux and essence of the Bill passed last year, and of the arrangement by which that Bill received the almost unanimous consent of hon. Gentlemen of that House, was that the local authorities should be practically the masters of the situation. That point was thoroughly and fully brought out in the course of the debates, and the right hon. Gentleman almost gave a pledge that his Department would not interfere in an unjustifiable manner in reference to the control of the local authorities. For himself, he would not for a moment have pressed for a speed limit of twenty miles an hour provided the local authorities had been left alone to regulate the traffic. But matters had not been very much improved by the passing of the Bill of last year, because the local authorities had been set at brought; they had been, he would not say snubbed exactly, but their recommendations had not been treated with any respect whatever. Cases had been brought before the Department in which motor-cars must of necessity have been travelling at a speed far beyond that to which they were entitled to go by law, but the right hon. Gentleman in reply to a Question put to him in the House simply told them that he could do nothing in the matter. The whole of his attitude had been discouraging to the local authorities and had encouraged the owners and drivers of the cars to think they were promoting a British industry by careering over the roads, highways, and by-ways at the speed of express trains. The other day he was nearly run over in London within a quarter of a mile of that House, and only last Sunday a motor-car went through the village near which he resided at a speed of something like forty miles an hour. That was a serious matter, for children, dogs, sheep, and chickens had to be hustled out of the road to make room for rich men who for purposes of selfish pleasure were rendering themselves a nuisance to the whole community. It was perfectly true that the cars were under magnificent
    636
    control and could be stopped nearly dead when travelling at a speed even of something like thirty miles an hour, but what had to be borne in mind was the condition of the man who was in charge of the car. It was not always the case that he was equal to an emergency. He remembered a case in his own county where a man driving a horse met a motor - car and asked that it should be stopped. It was not stopped, and his horse became very restive, with the result that in the excitement of the moment he; used his whip, the end of which touched a lady, and there was a most tremendous-row over the affair. He confessed that, personally, he was somewhat nervous, about these motor-cars and the way they careered over the country. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman must recognise the assistance he obtained from Members on the Opposition side of the House in getting the Bill carried last year, and that assistance showed that they were not actuated by any spirit of hostility towards him. They simply asked that the roads should be used for the purposes for which they were originally constructed, and not for the pleasure of a few rich men who desired to travel about, the country at express rates of speed.
    MR. NUSSEYasked who was responsible for regulating the traffic in London. It was very noticeable that motor-cars travelled at a terrific speed in populous parts of the Metropolis and also in the Parks. He did not hear of anyone being pulled up, and he, therefore, hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would tell them who was responsible for the regulation of the traffic, and in how many cases there had been prosecutions of motor-car drivers in the past year for exceeding the speed at which they were entitled to travel.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOAKD (Mr. WALTER LONG,)said it was true that under the Act of last year large discretionary powers with regard to fixing the speed of motor-cars on roads were placed in the hands of the Local Government Board; but it was incorrect to say that he had entirely neglected the applications of local authorities for further I powers, or that he had absolutely de-

    637
    clined to consider applications to old local inquiries. On the contrary, what he had done had been to hold local inquiries, when applications had been made, and to ascertain from his inspectors what the local requirements were. He had intimated to these local authorities that, while he was quite prepared to exercise the powers invested in him to impose a special limit in particular places where, owing to the nature of the road or the amount of the traffic, there seemed to be special danger, he was not prepared to impose the ten miles limit over the whole area Of course, in some towns where the streets, as a rule, were narrow, it a night be necessary to enforce the ten miles limit in a wider area than he would otherwise have been disposed to contemplate. He had been assured that the Act was working very satisfactorily, and that it had very materially reduced dangerous driving throughout the country. Now that the police could take the number of a car and thereby identify the owner and the driver it was no longer necessary to lay traps, a practice which nobody favoured. That was the great reform that had been carried out by the Act. After all it was rather early to judge the effects of the Act. With regard to the cost of danger boards, he was as anxious as anybody that there should be no unnecessary addition to the rates. He would inquire into the matter, and if le could in any way reduce the cost he should be very glad to do so. He was not aware that any application for permission to attach them to lamp-posts had been refused but he would inquire further into that point, although it must he remembered that lamp-posts were only available in towns and in the large villages. As to the damage done to the roads by traction engines, there was only one way of preventing that, and that was by not allowing them to use the roads at all. The damage was caused by too heavy weights being put on too narrow tires. They had had considerable experience of the harm done by them in Wiltshire during the military manœuvres. He assured the Committee that he was doing all he could to secure the loyal carrying out of the Act, and he thought that if a little patience were exercised on both sides the Act would be found to work very satisfactorily. In answer to the question of
    638
    the hon. Member for Pontefract, the metropolitan boroughs were the authorities in London for making regulations under the Act, and the police were responsible for their enforcement. He could not give the number of prosecutions.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEYasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid the hon. Member for South Somerset had complained that a certain association was not represented on the Departmental Committee which recently inquired into this question, but he could assure him that the Committee had taken the interests of the ratepayers into most careful consideration. They had endeavoured to protect those interests by making representations that a proper width of wheel for traction engines should be laid down, as the damage done to the roads depended mainly on carrying heavy weights on an insufficient width of tire. The evidence laid before them was almost unanimous on that point. There was no power to stop this class of traffic in certain kinds of weather, for it was when the roads were excessively soft and wet that the chief damage was done. He could not help thinking that if the new regulations for motor traffic followed on the lines recommended by the Committee the public would have no real cause of complaint, neither would those who were interested in what was undoubtedly a rapidly developing industry and one which might be of great use to the agricultural community as well as to other classes.
    SIR CARNE RASCHurged the desirability of giving to justices the power of awarding imprisonment after the first instead of the third offence in cases where a driver had caused injury to man or beast, and had refused to stop when called upon to do so. A resolution on these lines had, he said, been unanimously passed by the Essex County Council.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    SIR ERNEST FLOWERsaid it had been customary on this

    639
    Vote in past years to raise a discussion on the subject of the treatment of children under the Poor Law. Since a Departmental Committee examined the subject in 1895, and made a sweeping condemnation of what was known as the barrack school system, interest in the matter had grown steadily, and as a result there had been a very considerable modification of the system of barrack schools. In the schools which remained there had been no doubt a notable improvement both in the condition of the schools and the character of the education imparted to the children, but still in some cases the guardians had failed to do as much as could have been desired. Still those who entertained the view that these schools did not afford the best means of dealing with these children had no reason to abandon that opinion, and he proposed to name one or two cases for the information of the President of the Local Government Board which would, he thought, afford basis for an inquiry by his Department. The first was the case of the schools under the Barnet Board of Guardians. At these schools there had, ever since 1892, been successive outbreaks of contagious diseases, and the schools had been infected as a result of the last one for a period of not less than sixteen months. Schools such as that ought to be abandoned. They were told that the history of the schools was very bad. The medical officer had reported that the sleeping accommodation was very inadequate, the dining-room having to be used for sleeping purposes, and there being no room available for purposes of isolation it was impossible to prevent the spread of the infection. Unhappily this school was not controlled by an enlightened board of guardians, and it afforded a concrete illustration of the evils which tended to flow from this barrack system. Another case of overcrowding was to be found in the West Ham schools; but there, he was informed, the guardians were endeavouring to arrange to board out some of the children, of whom there were 169 beyond the number which the schools were certified to accommodate. He had followed up this case pretty closely, and he could not find that any attempt had been made by the guardians to enforce the "call" system. As the Committee were no doubt aware, a systematic inquiry by
    640
    the guardians into the particular circumstances of each child generally led to a considerable reduction in the number of children retained in the school, and he remembered that when the Whitechapel guardians resorted to that system of examination the number was reduced by a very large percentage indeed. He believed the West Ham guardians were proposing to remove some of the old inmates of their workhouse to a new building being erected in Mare Street, Hackney, and to put the children into the vacated blocks. He did not think that was at all a satisfactory way of dealing with this question. What was desirable was to get the children removed from what might be called the taint of workhouse surroundings, and he wished the Local Government Board had seen its way to point out to the guardians that the scattered homes system afforded a much happier method of dealing with this class of children. He felt that a mistake was being made in urging upon the guardians the establishment of large central institutions. They not only injuriously affected the development of the system of individual treatment for the children, but the expense of building and maintaining them was very much in excess of the outlay required for scattered homes, the more general adoption of which he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would do his best to promote in the ensuing year, for he believed such a system was fraught with advantage both to the children and to the ratepayers.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUELdrew attention to a circular issued advocating the emigration of Poor Law children to Canada and other Colonies. He said they were all agreed that such emigration was desirable and they wished it to prove successful. But in this connection a scheme had been proposed to which considerable objection was taken. Emigration of Poor Law children to the Colonies was desirable in order that they should have better opportunities of employment than in this country and be able to make a completely fresh start in the new land altogether free from the taint of being Poor Law children and from the drawbacks arising from their

    641
    origin. A committee or delegates of the Metropolitan Poor Law Unions met to consider this matter last December, and passed a resolution declaring that a united scheme of training was desirable to fit the children for emigration and that there was a necessity for the establishment in Canada of homes or certificated schools under the auspices of the Dominion Government. He sincerely hoped that the President of the Local Government Board would not give his consent to such a proposal. At present the children were sent out to Canada through Dr. Barnardo, Miss Macpherson, the Roman Catholic Emigration Society, and other similar institutions. When they arrived in Canada they were placed in small receiving homes and afterwards drafted to various employment throughout the country, where they were subjected to visits by the inspectors of the society and of the Canadian Government. That system was quite efficient and worked vary satisfactorily, but now it was proposed to practically establish a wing of the English workhouse on Canadian soil and to segregate the children and place them in a special home. There they would be inevitably labelled as Poor Law children and known as children who emanated from the British workhouse system. The cost of such a proposal would be exceedingly heavy, while the present cost of sending children out and maintaining the system of inspection was only so me £20 per head. The main objection to the proposal was that it would seriously work to the detriment of the prospects of the children in Canada, because there was a certain amount of natural prejudice in the Colonies against such children, and if they were specially labelled they would be subjected to great drawbacks. The metropolitan unions were not unanimously in favour of the proposal, and several o£ them had passed resolutions against it, but there were persons who wished this scheme put into operation in Canada, South Africa, and other Colonies. He therefore hoped the President of the Local Government Board would assure the House that he would not consent to each a proposal.
    SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he concurred in the appeal
    642
    which had been made by the hon. Member who had just sat down to the President of the Local Government Board not to establish British workhouses in Canada. He did not think this annual conversation—it could not be called discussion, because all the speeches were invariably on one side, and the President of the Local Government Board always gave a sympathetic answer—with regard to Poor Law children had been satisfactory, and he simply rose for the purpose of asking the President of the Local Government Board whether the influence of his Department could not be exercised in the direction of securing the carrying out of some of those reforms with regard to Poor Law children upon which everybody was agreed. The Departmental Committee which had been referred to sat to consider this matter as long ago as 1895, and it reported unanimously against the retention of children in the workhouses and the workhouse infirmaries, and everybody concerned with the improvement of the treatment of these children agreed that it was most desirable to get them out of the workhouse. The Committee would hardly believe that, although nine years had passed since the unanimous Report of that Committee was issued, in the metropolitan area, which was the area with which the Committee was particularly concerned, there were actually 10 per cent, more children in the workhouses and workhouse infirmaries than when the Report was issued. At the time the Committee reported there were 2,994 children in the metropolitan workhouses and workhouse infirmaries, and now there were 3,367. Besides this, there were in the provincial, workhouses and workhouse infirmaries 18,873 children, which brought up the total number of Poor Law children in these places to 22,240—rather more than one-third of the total number of children at any one time under the care of the Poor Law guardians. Could not something be done by the Local Government Board to carry out the recommendations of the Committee, so that next year, when this conversation again took place, the Secretary of the Local Government Board could tell the Committee that the numbers of the children in the workhouses and the workhouse infirmaries had decreased instead of having increased?
    He also desired to call attention to the large district schools. Some people were

    643
    still of opinion that that was a desirable way of dealing with these children, but the Committee reported unanimously against it; and so impressed was the Local Government Board by that Report that they came to the conclusion that these vast aggregations of children should no longer be allowed, and many of these schools were broken up, to the very great advantage of the children. Some schools, however, still flourished in spite of the Report. The Hanwell School, for instance, built for the reception of the children of Southwark and the City of London, was certified by the Local Government Board for 746 children. In May of this year there were in that school 817 children, or seventy-one more than the school was certified for. He had mentioned this fact in the debate which took place last year, when a rumour was current that the Local Government Board was to be asked to certify for a larger nnmber; but his right hon. friend then said no such certificate should be given, and, as a fact, no such certificate had been given. He had also called the attention of the Local Government Board to the fact that not only were there more than 10 per cent. more children in the school than it was certified for, but that old ophthalmic buildings, which had previously been abandoned, were being used for the reception of these children, and that the children were being taken into the schools without any period of what was called probation—a period during which the new children were kept apart from the others, so as to make sure that they were not suffering from any complaint which might be otherwise communicated to the school. It was very necessary that there should be a period of probation. He had read a reply from the Local Government Board, in which they said that they disapproved of the managers of the school dispensing with the period of probation. Nevertheless, this school, in the month of May last year, admitted eleven children without any term of probation, and subsequently admitted five more. That was one instance where a reform, which was entirely in consonance with the Report of the Committee and with the view of the Local Government Board itself, was desirable.
    There were two methods by which these large district schools were being superseded, one was that of the "village
    644
    community," in which the children lived in different houses instead of one high barrack and there was a playground and school and chapel and various building of that kind common to all. So far as the health of the children was concerned that system was far better than the district school, but it still had the effect of separating the children from the other children of the country and separating them from our social life. The other system was that of "scattered homes," a system under which the Poor Law children were put out in, various houses in the district from which they came. They attended the ordinary schools of the district and played with the other children of the neighbourhood and were thus removed as far as possible from the taint of the workhouse, living as they did in these artificial homes. A Return made in 1902 showed that there were twenty-five village communities which were most expensive to build and to maintain, and not nearly so economical as the scattered homes, and, although he admitted that economy was not to be so much considered in a matter of this kind which so much affected the welfare of our Poor Law children, he asked why the Board, instead of being neutral in this matter, should endeavour to force the village community system upon boards of guardians who would prefer to have the scattered homes system.
    ME. WALTER LONG: We do not.
    SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that last August the Wigan Board of Guardians, after visiting Reading, Mile End, Bradford, and Leeds where the scattered homes system was in full swing, held a meeting to consider whether they should adopt the scattered homes system and abandon a village community scheme for which they had actually secured a site. In order that the matter should not be hurried the consideration of the question was adjourned for three months. The matter was finally dealt with in January last, when, by a majority of twenty to three, they decided to adopt the scattered homes system. The Local Government Board inspector, who was present at the meeting, took part in the discussion, and vehemently urged the adoption of the

    645
    village community instead of the scattered homes system.
    MR. WALTER LONG: That is not the Local Government Board.
    SIR JOHN GORSTpointed out that the inspector was present in his official capacity, and in the Local Government Journal for;25th May, he was reported to have said—
    "The official view of the Local Government Board was that the best system was the group system, and it was his duty to press that view on the hoard, and to say that as far as his view went he entirely agreed with the Local Government Board."
    What he desired to suggest was that the officials of the Board should be instructed to adopt a neutral attitude in the matter, and that where a local authority after careful inquiry and full discussion, had decided in favour of a particular course, their decision should be respected by the Local Government Board.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Has the Local Government Board refused their sanction to the scheme?
    SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that sanction had not been refused, but the official of the Board had done his utmost to prevent the local authority from deciding in favour of scattered homes. But by far the cheapest and best way of dealing with Poor Law children was the boarding out system. That system suffered from two things. One was the discouragement it always received from headquarters. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would say that he encouraged boarding-out.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Certainly.
    SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he was glad to hear that, because many of the regulations of the Department discouraged the system. A great number of children could not be boarded out; but many might be who were not. He had often thought that the cases of widows with large families deserved the attention of the House of Commons, but as the widows were not voters the cases received no attention, but went to form one of those social incidents which were passed over. There were two ways in which
    646
    such cases were at present dealt with. Sometimes a poor pittance of outdoor relief was given, and by working herself to the bone the widow managed to scrape an insufficient livelihood and to "drag up" her children after fashion. The more worthless and less energetic widows went into the energetic widows went into the workhouse and the children were sent to district schools or otherwise dealt with at great cost by the guardians. How much better it would be, in the case of a widow with six children, to say that she should bear the cost of the herself, while the guardians boarded out with her the other four. She would then be able to bring up her family at much less cost to the ratepayers and in a much more satisfactory manner than under the present system. The second hindrance to the boarding-out system was the inspection. He agreed that inspection was necessary, but as now carried out it was so inquisitorial that the more respectable people would not take the children. In an establishment before a woman was permitted to adopt a child, but once the child was adopted it was handed over for good or for evil and no further inquiries were made. He held very strongly that the inspector should be a medical woman. On one occasion he visited some boarded-out children with Dr. Barnardo's inspector a medical woman, and he was greatly struck by the pleasure with which she was received in every house and by the extreme value of the advice which she gave to the mothers. The inspection, though very searching and complete, was not looked upon as at all inquisitorial, and the inspector was welcomed as a friend.
    He desired to protest against a practice of some years standing by which destitute children who ought to be boarded out were Bent to industrial schools. In this connection he might tell the Committee a story. Eight years ago when visiting an industrial school he saw amongst all the rough boys a charming child of six years of age. He inquired what offence the child had committed, and found that he had been sentenced to over. There were two ways in which be kept at an industrial school until

    647
    he was sixteen years of age for the monstrous crime of being found destitute. Surely a child six years of age found destitute ought to be taken in hand by the Poor Law authorities, but, so far from this being an exceptional case, he found upon inquiry that it was the regular practice to send such children to industrial schools. He did his utmost to rescue that child. The Home Secretary, who was communicated with, did his best, but neither the authorities of the school nor the guardians would agree to the child's being taken out although he himself offered to bear the extra cost of maintenance and education. Subsequently inquiries were made as to what had become of the boy, and he was found to be a strong boy of fourteen years of age. He was asked what he had been taught, and he stated that he had been employed all the time in the school darning stockings. Had he been under Dr. Barnardo, he might now have been on the point of going out to Canada, or at any rate he would have known some trade. The result was that this boy was turned out into the world with no other accomplishment but that of being able to darn stockings.
    With regard to the question of vagrants, there was no doubt that vagrancy was on the increase. County councils, quarter sessions, and boards of guardians had all addressed the Local Government Board upon this subject and had called attention to the serious spread of vagrancy. The official statistics showed that this class numbered, according to the Poor Law Returns, 30,000, but a great many vagrants lived on commons and dragged about with them a lot of verminous children who were not included in that total, and they were a real source of danger to the country. The children in particular of the class known as "the ins and outs" could not be looked after in any way whatever. If they were put into the Poor Law schools they were taken out again in the summer time and came back again in the autumn, and they were undoubtedly the worst class the Poor Law authorities had to deal with. They did not go to the casual wards because in the summer they were well off and were a most valuable asset to tramps because children were better beggars
    648
    than adults. As a matter of fact, these children were often hired by tramps, for begging purposes. The Salvation; Army and the Church Army were the only institutions which appeared to be dealing with this class in this country. In America, Germany, and Switzerland labour colonies had been established for tramps, and though they had not succeeded as well as they might have wished, at all events they had done much to mitigate the evil, and they had kept the tramp class from increasing. A tramp was a diseased member of the social body who required reformed treatment. They were incapable of working as they were, but they could be taught to work. The Salvation Army had taught them to work and they could make them work. He wished to know whether the Local Government Board intended to take this quest ion of vagrancy seriously in hand. They wanted some form of inquiry in the first instance, either by a Royal Commission or a Departmental Committee. There was a good deal to be learned upon this subject from foreign countries. Legislation might take the form of giving powers to local authorities. No time ought to be lost and inquiry ought to begin at once. Next session they should have a Bill to clothe local authorities with powers to deal with this question. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that if he brought in a Bill it would be treated with the greatest desire to pass it through in all quarters of the House, because all hon. Members would unite in any serious effort that was made to put down this great social evil.
    MR. CROOKSsaid he desired to associate himself with what had been said by the right hon. Gentle-man opposite in regard to the control of vagrant children. Children who were brought up as beggars grew up quite useless for anything else but begging. He wished to congratulate the President of the Local Government Board upon some of the work he had done, especially in regard to education. He wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would take a personal interest in the desire which existed that the children chargeable to the various unions should have the right to go to the elementary and secondary

    649
    schools outside. The Bethnal Green Guardians had under their care a clever boy who they believed might win a junior county scholarship, but because the school happened to be in the county of Essex that county had refused him admission to their school for training. He thought that was most unfortunate. He was aware that a good many children were in those schools in consequence of the thriftlessness of their parents, but if it was true that technical education was paid for out of wines and spirits, then these children had all the more claim upon these schools. Scattered homes were all very good in their way, but he did not want to see boards of guardians become competitors for houses in crowded neighbourhoods, where there was already a house famine, and where, it was now extremely difficult to get houses at reasonable rents.
    He was glad that for years there had been a sympathetic view taken of the claims of various localities in regard to the treatment of these children, and it had very properly been held that the locality was the best judge. Where scattered homes had proved to be the best, let them have them. Boarding out when it was good was good, but it wanted a lot of watching and inspecting. The difficulty in connection with inspection was that sometimes it relieved the foster parents of their responsibility to some extent. He thought inspection was good, and that it ought to be carried out. What was this boarding-out system of which they had heard so much? It might be good, bad, or indifferent. He knew villages where the keeping of boarded-out children had become the staple industry. He remembered the first time he visited a village in Suffolk where there were boarded-out children, and truly he was undeceived. He had been advocating the boarding-out system, believing that the children would work into the village life, and that the workhouse taint would never visit them again. When visiting the children he was sent to look after he inquired if there were any more there. "No," was the reply, "we have no more Hackneys, but there are a few Poplars over there." He was told also that there were some "Bethnal Greens" in another place. He asked the secretary of the
    650
    boarding-out committee whether, when these lads got old enough they would go to work with the farmers in the neighbourhood. He replied, "We have trouble enough to find work for our own boys. We look after them when they are young and you can get them into the Army or Navy." Who were the applicants for boarded-out children? Ha could give a whole list of them. They were people who had applied for outdoor relief. Instead of giving them outdoor relief the boards of guardians gave them a couple of London "kids" to look after. Assimilate with the horns life of the people! Rubbish! There was nothing of the kind. He rejoiced to say that lie had known people who had taken youngsters and brought them up splendidly, but these were not the people to be found in villages where boarding-out was the staple industry. He knew a case; where a lady was engaged in the making of stockings, and the boarded-out children helped her. The average wage for labourers in the district was 11s. a week. The lady had four boarded-out children and received 16s. a week for them. She was the duchess of the place. She was absolutely better off than anyone else there. The hon. Baronet said these children in scattered homes were not known from the other children of the village when they went to school, but he laboured under a mistake in regard to that matter. They were known, and personally he had no difficulty in distinguishing them. He once visited a "scattered home" where there were fourteen children. Just imagine a working man's house with fourteen children under fourteen years of age. He never knew anybody who had fourteen children under fourteen years of age. When he asked the lady who was minding them if she allowed these children to go out to play, she stated that they were out a week ago. "Don't you allow them to go out to play in the street?" he asked, and the lady answered, "You've not got their heads to keep clean, I have." It was quite easy to pick out these Poor Law children in school. The ordinary child who went home to his mother did not care whether his collar had spots on it, but the boy who went to a cottage home knew that he was not going to be received with motherly love if his collar

    651
    was dirty. The whole difficulty of the situation presented itself when they tried to find out the proper class of people to take charge of those children. He thought the boarding-out should be limited to certain villages and people, and that the children should always be boarded with able-bodied men and women who had one or two children of their own. In that way the system would be good.
    He agreed with what the right hon. Gentlemen said about using an abandoned ophthalmic building as a school. It was a positive scandal that this should have been allowed, but the difficulty was that they could not find at five minute notice the accommodation required for these children. A school might be largo or small, but according as the personal supervision was good or otherwise so would be the results far as the best interests of the children were concerned. He rejoiced that the Local Government Board had seen their way to deal with mentally deficient children. They were always troublesome and difficult to deal with. Until a year ago, whenever children arrived at sixteen years of age, they became adults, and, no matter how backward their training had been, they had to return to the workhouse. Now they could be retained in suitable places of instruction until they were twenty-one years of age, and an amount of success had been achieved in educating that class which formerly would hardly have been dreamt of. He could testify to the good which was being done in this direction. Reference had been made to the number of children in workhouses and infirmaries as compared with a few years ago. He dared say that there had been an increase in the number of sick children, but that was because they had been removed for treatment from the slums in great cities. In order to ascertain the true state of matters in regard to these children they should find out how many were "ins and outs," and how many were permanently there. In Yorkshire some years ago a Poor Law child captured a junior scholarship in a technical school, and he was going on to try to get a senior scholarship. He regretted that boy was not a London child. The right hon. Member for Croydon got a clause inserted in the Juvenile Offenders
    652
    Act to enable the magistrates to place children under remand elsewhere than in the workhouse. But a step farther should be taken. When a child, sir years old, was charged with being a wanderer it was sent to a reformatory instead of to the workhouse. But that was a mere shuffle. Instead of being sent to Holloway Gaol for the night, these children ought to be sent to remand homes where the magistrate might go and deal with them instead of their being brought to the Police Court. He would like to ask how it was that when there were these remind homes in London certain children were dragged off to the provinces? The provincial guardians had no more right to neglect their duty in this respect than the London guardians.
    Again, he would like to know how it was that when an East End union desired to give an increase of salary to a deserving officer the Metropolitan Poor Law Commissioners invariably refused it. What he was afraid of was that these Metropolitan Poor Law Commissioners lived in West End parishes and did not want to contribute to the expense of the East End parishes. They said that they had no objection to the East End parishes granting an officer a gratuity or raising his salary, but that that must be charged to the local rates. That was manifestly unfair. Why should the extra cost be put on the poor localities? Here, in London, there were cities of the poor and cities of the rich. It was to the advantage of the State, he supposed, that there should be industrial communities at one end and, should he call it, idle communities at the other end living in delightful quarters where there was no smoke or worry to upset their nerves. But what about the worries and woes of the poor widows and children in the East End, where they were compelled to aggregate? Was it unreasonable to say that the rich and poor localities should be put together, and a common charge should be made on them for extra services? One of the best officers he knew had not got a rise of salary for fifteen years, and he was told he might get another rise after five years more service. Another point was sending children into the workhouse. Why should they not be left in the care of their widowed mothers, if they were respectable? A contribution was made

    653
    for these children from the common fund by the Metropolitan Poor Law Commissioners if they were in the workhouse schools, but why should not 9d. a day be given for those who lived with their mothers, instead of in the workhouse schools, which were overcrowded? If that were done it would brighten many a home. He also wanted the Local Government Board to insist that in sick asylums and infirmaries there should be no pauper help; that there should be fully-qualified paid labour to look after the patients. There had been great improvement in the administration of the Poor Law during the last ten or twelve years, but he hoped that the appeal made that afternoon for still further improvement would not be in vain.
    *MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he sincerely hoped that his right hon. friend would be able to follow up what he had in comtemplation in regard to carrying out the reforms urged upon him. He himself was keenly interested in the question of vagrant children. He believed, with his right hon. friend the Member for Cambridge University, that little good could be done for these under the existing law; and he hoped that next session matters would be put on a footing to enable the House to deal with this question. He was anxious to know, in consequence of an answer he had received to a Question on 2nd May last, what progress had been made in carrying out an important clause of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, by which the duties relating to the administration of all the Housing Acts should be concentrated in the Local Government Board instead of being divided as now between the Local Government Board and the Home Office. Surely the ingenuity of the Treasury, the Local Government Board, and the Home Office could have brought about that concentration, and he emphasised the keen disappointment of all who had housing reform at heart at the undue delay. He dared say that his right hon. friend might reply that the delay in the transfer was due to the fact that in the particular clause of the Act the sacred word. "may" was inserted instead
    654
    of "shall." He sincerely trusted that the President of the Local Government; Board would not hide himself behind the word "may" and that only a very short time would elapse before the concentration was made.
    There was another point of very I considerable importance as to which a great deal of discussion had taken place. He referred to the clause in the Act dealing with loans. Owing to the Public Works Loans Commissioners being permitted to advance money for a shorter period than provided by the Act it was rendered somewhat nugatory. Re-housing administration which the Act placed in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, was another subject upon which no information had been forthcoming, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman, to tell the Committee what he had been able to do under the Act of last year. If the right hon. Gentleman was not able to do that it might be possible to initiate a set of Returns, brought up to date, which would give some information on this subject to show how far this administration had been beneficial or otherwise. It was very difficult to get any practical information on the subject of insanitary areas, and upon this subject it would be most beneficial if the Local Government; Board could see its way to keep up a set of Returns in the same way as did the Board I of Trade in respect of various matters relating to trade and to labour. He admitted that the suggestions he made would not be easy to carry out so long as the work of the Local Government Board was distributed in the manner in which it was at the present time. He ventured to point out that there was not a single officer whose whole time was given to housing. The various duties with regard to the housing of the people were distributed over a great number of officers, and there was not one officer whose salary and whose duty related entirely to this important subject, He contrasted this I state of things with that which obtained at the Board of Trade in connection with certain labour matters, where there were men whose official duty was concentrated on a particular subject instead of all these matters being muddled up together as was the case at the Local Government Board. The officers of the

    655
    Local Government Board were, he was quite aware, most industrious, and the fault did not lie with them but with the system. They were bound up with red tape. He was quite satisfied that the time had arrived when public opinion would value very highly a statement from the right hon. Gentleman which would indicate that there had been great progress made with the reorganisation of his Department. At the same time the right hon. Gentleman might be able to inform the Committee whether he had received the Report of the Committee appointed to consider the reorganisation of the duties of his Department of the Board of Trade and other public Departments.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Committee has not reported.
    *MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had also promised some time previously to appoint a Departmental Committee to deal with the question of vagrants' children and also a Royal Commission to deal with the question of vagrancy itself. Neither of those two bodies were yet in operation and the right hon. Gentleman would perhaps acquaint the Committee with the decision at which he had arrived in regard to those promises, because, although these questions might not excite a great amount of interest inside the House, there was a g owing opinion outside which took deep interest in them and which looked with great disfavour upon any delay in carrying out reforms which were absolutely necessary if the housing of the poor and evils of vagrancy were to he improved.
    *MR. JOHN HUTTONexpressed the hope that the President of the Local Government Board would take up the question of vagrancy most earnestly. It was a very difficult problem and one which required further investigation. At the present time there seemed to be a competition between the boards of guardians and the prison authorities as to how this class should be treated. The vagrants apparently found the policy of the prison authorities the kinder of the two, and the result was that our prisons were full and
    656
    the boards of guardians were only too glad to see the cost of the maintenance of the vagrants taken off their hands. He would also like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman had considered the case of the imbecile and weak-minded at present in the workhouses, and whether he would be able to hold out some hopes that he would be prepared to deal with that question shortly. With regard to the general condition of the workhouses throughout the country, it was possibly thought that he (Mr. Hutton) had exaggerated the condition of the rural workhouses. He had always maintained on every opportunity that the condition of some of our workhouses was a disgrace to the country. If the right hon. Gentleman would appoint a Committee consisting not only of officials of the Local Government Board, but also of some experienced gentlemen from outside the Department with at least two competent ladies, who should have an opportunity to visit the various workhouses in different parts of the country, to ascertain for themselves whether the facts he had stated were correct or otherwise, then if it was discovered that things were as bad as he had pointed out no one would be more glad to be able to put them right than the right hon. Gentleman, while if on the other hand it was found that he (Mr. Hutton) had exaggerated the case then he would be only too happy to withdraw all he had said.
    *SIR A. HAYTERsaid he was most anxious to emphasise his earnest and cordial sympathy with what had been stated by the Member for Cambridge upon the other side of the House. He had determined to bring the matter before the House himself because the question of vagrancy at the present moment was in a very critical position. I He was able to speak from experience, since he happened to be a magistrate for Berkshire, which was in what was described as the home circuit for vagrancy. The number of vagrants had very largely increased in that county owing to race I meetings which took place in the neighbourhood. It was, however, not only on account of the vagrants themselves but also on behalf of the poor children dragged about with them, that something ought to be done. This question had been under the consideration of the Lincolnshire

    657
    Quarter Sessions, who had issued a very valuable report upon the present mode of dealing with offences against the Vagranoy Act. They appointed a committee to see if any changes in the present Act were necessary and if it were desirable to establish labour colonies to which magistrates would have the power to sentence habitual offenders. The only difficulty in the way of dealing with vagrants was through their hatred of steady labour. They hated anything like a steady day's work, and the benefit of labour colonies such as had been established by the Salvation Army and in Belgium, was that they gave a man ten hours steady labour per diem: they taught him to work on a farm or gave him manufacturing and industrial employment which fitted him for an industrial life. No good was done by putting vagrants in prison, because they were not afraid of that treatment and said, as a man once said in his union, "I have never done a day's work in my life, and please God I never shall." The committee reported to the Lincolnshire Quarter Sessions in favour of approaching Parliament with the object of initiating legislation for the amendment of the Vagrancy Law either by way of establishing labour colonies or by other means. He knew perfectly well that the matter would require serious consideration because at the present time magistrates had no power to send vagrants to such colonies. He thoroughly endorsed the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the member for Cambridge University for establishing lab our colonies in this country. The difficulty had been solved in Belgium by those means. The first, offenders were not there regarded as criminals; but in the case of second offenders there was power to order a detention ranging from two to seven years for professional beggars and other classes of vagrants. He cordially recommended the report to the President of the Local Government Board, and hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would give some hopes that there would be some systematic treatment of vagrants in the future, and that, if necessary, he would prepare a Bill on the subject for next session.
    *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he had noticed with considerable satis-
    658
    faction that so far as Poor Law children were concerned, what he might call the area of attack had considerably diminished. For many years the debates on the subject had been very fruitful. In the past the large school at Sutton was the main object at which criticism was levelled. The word Sutton was not, however, mentioned that afternoon because, as he understood, the school had altogether disappeared. He should like to learn from the President of the Local Government Board what had become of the children sent by London unions to that school, and, secondly what had happened to the enormous buildings erected for their accommodation. With reference to Hanwell school charges were made against it last year or the year before. It was alleged that the accommodation for the children had been increased, but he did not think that that was the fact. He thought it was the kitchen accommodation that had been increased. That was practically the only barrack school attacked that afternoon and he thought that was a testimony to the work the Local Government Board and the local guardians had been doing during the last few years. As regarded Wigan the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University complained that the Local Government Board had not left the question of scattered homes and village communities an open question. But the scattered homes system was practically a recent development. Up to a few years ago the only experiment of the kind was at Sheffield. Two years ago the Camberwell Board of Guardians made the experiment, and he could quite understand the inspector of the Local Government Board, who he knew was a most competent official, advocating a system of village communities which had been tried and had succeeded and for which a site had actually been purchased by the Wigan Guardians. In regard to the whole question of the treatment of those children the Committee ought to recollect that that was a matter on which the Local Government Board had no coercive powers. It was a question for the local authority, and all the power the Local Government Board had was of an indirect character. Hon. Members knew perfectly well that the question of the rates was a very serious

    659
    question in all those cages, and, having regard to the large Imperial and local expenditure now existing, he thought that the Committee should not ask the Local Government Board to recommend any scheme of great expenditure against the wishes of the local authority. Either the local authorities should be given local government or they should not, and the Committee ought to make up their minds which horse to ride.
    The only other question he would mention had reference to the education of those children. For years it had been a burning question. Deputation after deputation had waited on the Local Government Board and the Board of Education asking that the inspection of the schools in which those children were educated should be placed in the hands of the Board of Education, and taken out of the hands of the Local Government Board. The Local Government Board had no facilities for testing the educational progress of the children and he saw no reason why the children should be differently treated from children in the ordinary schools. He should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether any change in that respect had taken place and, if so, what had been done in regard to it. It was a question which had caused a great deal of feeling. He only wished to add that those debates in the House of Commons for eight or nine years had been most fruitful of good for the children, and if the Local Government Board would only continue to exercise the legitimate pressure it could apply, the time would soon arrive when the children would be taken out of the workhouses altogether and provided for in separate homes or cottage homes.
    MR. THEODORE TAYLORsaid that the vagrant population was rapidly increasing. In 1900 the mean average number of casual paupers relieved was 9,400; in 1902 it was 10,793; and in 1903 it was 12,963; or an increase of 30 per cent, in three years. There was no doubt that there was a tendency on the part of vagrants to prefer prison to the vagrant wards; and but for that tendency the increase would be greater than it was. This was a very serious question, which was arousing the anxiety
    660
    and dread of many boards of guardians throughout the country; because vagrants spread infectious diseases, particularly smallpox. It was a very serious financial question so far as many local authorities were concerned. The great bulk of vagrants were not genuine out-of-works at all; they were looking not for work, but for as good a time as they could get without work. That view was shared by most of the inspectors of the Local Government' Board, and a striking instance was given by one of the inspectors. A tradesman in a small town in Somersetshire applied to the poorhouse for six working men. Six, all professing to be anxious for work were supplied, but, although the wages offered were eighteen shillings a week, only one man turned up, and he was working there still. That was probably about the proportion; not more than one-sixth of the vagrants really wanted work. The question of how to deal with the out-of-works who wandered about the country was one of the most serious aspects of the social problem. When localised and living in the workhouse for a while they could be dealt with to a certain extent, but there must be something wrong with the Social system under which men prefer; ed prison to the tramp ward, and it was really one of the most important questions to which a Minister of the Crown could address himself. He earnestly urged the President of the Local Government Board, who had done good work during his short tenure of office, to take up this question of vagrants It was not that vagrants were made too comfortable; he believed boards of guardians did their best to discourage vagrancy. There had recently appeared a pamphlet by "A Lady Amateur Casual," which perhaps the right hon. Gentleman had seen. The daughter and the wife of a clergyman, in the course of a five days tramp through Yorkshire and Lancashire, had experience of two workhouse tramp wards, two common lodging-houses, and one women's shelter, and the last-named was the only place in which anything like decency or cleanliness was observed. It was a great blot on the Poor Law system that paupers should be permitted to have charge of the lodge of admission. At each of the workhouses to which they applied these two ladies were improperly accosted, and

    661
    in one case personally assaulted, by the pauper in charge of the lodge. Such a state of things was almost incredible. It appeared to be due to lax local administration, for which the Local Government Board could not be blamed, but he mentioned it in order that it might be more publicly known, and in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would instruct his inspectors to look into the matter.
    MR. WALTER LONG: That was done as soon as the occurrence came to our knowledge.
    MR. THEODORE TAYLORsaid he was very glad to hear it. Other irregularities were discovered to which attention should be paid, and if the right hon. Gentleman desired to ascertain the views of one of the ladies he would be glad to arrange an interview. He fully agreed with the remarks of the hon. Member for Walsall as to the desirability of dealing with the socially unfit men who had become so demoralised by begging that they had got out of the habit of working. Great national economy could be effected by converting these men, as had been done in Germany, Holland, and Belgium, through the instrumentality of labour colonies, from parasites upon the community into producers of wealth and honest working men. This was in no sense a Party question, and should he be a Member of the Home when a Minister of the Crown introduced a Bill to deal with the question on the only possible lines—viz., by the establishment of labour colonies—no matter to which Party the Minister belonged, he would give him his heartiest support.
    *MR. TOULMINassociated himself with the remarks which had been made on the question of vagrancy. The aspect which had chiefly impressed him was that of the sufferings of the children associated with vagrants. In the picturesque and forcible speech of the hen. Member for Woolwich there was much with which he agreed, but in some points he was unable to follow the hon. Member. The workhouse taint, of which the hon. Member for Woolwich had complained was not removed by the scattered homes
    662
    system, was not a name, but a system of education; it was not that a child was called a pauper child, but that he was brought up amid associations which did I not bring out the best that was in him—among the moral and physical failures of the population. In the large buildings I everything was done for the child; he never saw anything of ordinary home life, and could do none of the little errands and so forth that were entrusted to children of the industrial population. He believed the instances given by the hon. Member for Woolwich in which, children were boarded out with people instead of relief being granted were altogether exceptional, and rather than an argument against boarding-out they were an illustration of a gross misuse of power by a particular board of guardians. A year ago the President of the Local Government Board held out the hope that the boarding-out Order might be extended, Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether anything had been done in that direction? It was a regrettable fact that boarding-out beyond the union, which was the most valuable method of dealing with difficult cases, had declined, probably in consequence of the limits put to the payments under the regulations of the Board. For instance, a clothing allowance of £2 a year for a growing boy was altogether inadequate. Twelve months back, in reply to a Question, the right hon. Gentleman stated that it was impossible for children adopted under the Poor Law Act of 1899 to be brought under the boarding-out Order. He hoped the right, hon. Gentleman had further considered the subject, because some of the objections advanced on the former occasions were capable of removal. It was very improbable that parents of the children of the class which ought to be boarded out beyond the union would trace the children if they were sent to a sufficiently distant place. It was essential that their old associations should be absolutely cut off and the method of boarding-out had always seemed to him to be the best. The present boarding-out Orders were made fifteen years ago and the circumstances had very much changed, and in his opinion the time had arrived when the right hon. Gentleman ought to consider

    663
    whether these Orders could not be revised. The Local Government Board had considerable power in preventing boards of guardians from taking certain courses, and they might prevent them engaging in large schemes for village communities, or other more expensive methods of dealing with children. These village communities were sometimes established in proximity to the workhouse, and there appeared to be a wobbling of judgment in this matter. Not long ago the Kidderminster Guardians asked permission to build children's quarters on their own land at some distance from the workhouse, but permission was refused. Recently the Poor Law inspector had informed the Kidderminster Guardians that if they would again submit their scheme to the Local Government Board it might receive favourable consideration. He trusted that the policy of the Local Government Board in this matter would not be reversed and that they would continue to insist upon the removal of the children as far as possible from the workhouse. He should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House whether he could not extend the boarding-out system.
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid the debate had ranged over a very wide area. He agreed with what the hon. Member for South Tyrone had said in regard to the undoubted improvement which had been made in providing for pauper children. They were all agreed that they ought to do all they could to increase the number of children educated and trained away from the workhouse and that they should leave as few as possible in the workhouse. It was not necessary to trouble the Committee with figures because hon. Members were familiar with the facts of the case. The improvement he had alluded to had been steadily growing in recent years and a comparison of the figures now with ten years ago would show that the number in the work-house infirmaries were steadily decreasing. Where provision for the children was made in the work-house buildings they were becoming fewer, and the energy of the Department would be devoted to the promotion of an object which they all agreed was desirable in the interests of the children and of the community. The
    664
    right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University quoted the case of the Wigan Board of Guardians, but the extract he had read showed that what he stated was not the view of the Local Government Board. The inspector said he spoke the official mind of the Department, but when the Department were approached they gave their assent, and therefore it was obvious that the inspector, however much he might have been justified in his statement, was evidently mistaken, because when the application was made to the Department consent was immediately given and the Local Government Board adopted in that case, as they did in almost every case, the very line suggested by his right hon. friend. He had been asked why the Department could not be neutral in this matter. As far as he was concerned he had never spoken upon this question without stating quite clearly that that was the position they would take up. He agreed with the hon. Member for Woolwich that the circumstances in each case ought to be separately considered, and, whether scattered homes, village communities, or larger schools were asked for, in each case they must deal with the circumstances, and it would be impossible for any Government Department to force upon boards of guardians the adoption of any one of these particular remedies against their own wishes and views. Boards of guardians took an immense deal of interest in their work and endeavoured to ascertain what was the best way to deal with the paupers in their charge, and, having made up their minds that scattered homes, or village communities were the best, any attempt on the part of the Department to force them to alter their view would be sure to do more harm than good. With regard to lady inspectors he agreed that they were doing admirable work, and he thought it would be desirable if a vacancy occurred that they should appoint another lady inspector. If the work was to be really efficiently and scientifically done it was advisable to have one of those lady medical inspectors which had been referred to.
    During the debate they had had a revival of some of the cases which had been constantly quoted. There was the case of Hanwell in the central London district,

    665
    where there were a great many more children than the school was certified for and where the managers were dispensing with the system of probation. There again the Department came into conflict with the local authority. The figures were not quite so bad as his hon. friend seemed to think. The managers of these institutions were confronted with a very difficult problem, for they must either provide accommodation for a number in excess of the certificate or else they must keep them in the workhouse. Provided there was no serious overcrowding and the accommodation was reasonably satisfactory, he thought it was far better that the number actually certified should be exceeded than that the children should be left for any length of time in the workhouse. The figures which had been given by his right hon. friend were for May, but the total number of the children on the 28th of May was 784, forty-two of which were in the infirmary. Therefore, the number in the school buildings was 742, and that was by no means unsatisfactory. With regard to the probation system, they disapproved of that change in policy and they were doubtful whether it was a wise one or not. The managers of the schools had very strong views on the subject, and they had behind them the opinion of their medical officer, and so they were being allowed to try this experiment. The Department would not, however, approve of this course unless some very strong reason for the change were brought forward. He was confident that in no single case could it be shown that the Department had sanctioned the extension of the large barrack-schools system, except it was some extension for improving existing accommodation, and even in such cafes they had reduced the number allowed by the certificate.
    His hon. friend the Member for South Tyrone asked whether they had dealt with the vexed question of the inspection of Poor Law schools. He was happy to say that the President and the Vice-President of the Board of Education had been good enough to meet him half-way in this question, and that the Board of Education had taken over the inspection of the Poor Law schools,
    666
    which in future would be on exactly the same footing as regarded examinations as the other elementary schools in the country. They bad been long in settling this matter, but he was very glad that they had succeeded and that the educational inspection would now wisely be separated from the inspection of buildings and general Poor Law administration. The hon. Member for Woolwich had dealt with a difficulty with which London Members were very familiar—the constant applications made to the Local Government Board to allow the guardians to increase the salaries of their officers. The hon. Member appeared to forget that London enjoyed a common fund for local government purposes, and that the burden of the poorer districts was considerably lightened by contributions from richer districts. It was obvious that there must be some standard of salaries all over the area, and that it would be unjust to allow salaries to be paid in one portion of that area which were altogether out of proportion to the salaries paid in the other portions when they were all charged on the same fund. Therefore the Board adopted the fair system, which he saw no reason to alter, of sanctioning a general standard of salaries, and of making any local authority which gave an additional sum to its officers meet the charge out of the local rates.
    His hon. friend the Member for Hoxton asked some questions with regard to the housing of the working classes. The hon. Member took a very active interest in the Department with which he himself was concerned. He had had ten years experience of the Department, but his hon. friend seemed to know more about it than he did. What the hon. Member said would be very interesting if correct, but it was not. He said there was no one connected with the Department who had charge of the housing question. He could assure his hon. friend that he was wrong. He did not think the hon. Member would find more "red tape" in connection with, the Local Government Board than any other Department. Red tape was only, after all, the necessary precaution which must be taken in the carrying out of the administrative work of a Department. There must be some record of the work

    667
    they were doing. The work of the Local Government Board was divided into different departments, and the housing question was taken charge of by one of those departments, but if the hon. Member desired that there should be one secretary in charge of that work he would know, if only he had a few minutes experience of the work of the Department that that would involve a waste of time. He had been in communication with the Public Works Loans Commissioners on the subject, and he would point out that the Commissioners were not the only people from whom money could be borrowed by the local authorities. They could borrow on very satisfactory terms in other ways. They could borrow from the Public Works Loans Commissioners if they were willing to lend, but the Committee were aware that they were not anxious to lend money in small amounts, and in matters of this kind they had to deal with the money at their disposal as they thought best. His hon. friend had further asked whether some sort of Return could be given showing what had been done by the Local Government Board in regard to housing. If he could meet the wishes of the hon. Member in any way he would be very glad to do so.
    *MR. CLAUDE HAYrepeated his question as to whether the administration of the Housing Acts had been entirely transferred to the Local Government Board.
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid his Board would be willing to relinquish the work, but obviously there would be natural reluctance on the part of the Home Office to take it over. It would be more satisfactory if it could be arranged to have a fair exchange in the way of taking over some work at present done by the Home Office for the work done by his Department in regard to housing. He was anxious to see that change made, and he hoped the fact that the subject had been mentioned that day would act as a spur, and that they might be able to do something very soon. He quite agreed that it was desirable the work should be in the hands of one Department, and that it should not be dealt with by divided authorities.
    668
    The only other question which had been referred to was a very difficult one indeed, namely, the question of vagrancy. The Government had appointed an Inter-Departmental Committee, representing the Home Office and the Local Government Board, to deal with that question. It had been treated in the discussion very much as if it were a local government question alone; but it was not so, for probably not more than 25 per cent. of the total vagrants in the country came under the Poor Law administration. The remainder were not paupers in any form, and did not take refuge in pauper institutions, and the question of dealing with them was a conundrum which could only be solved after careful onsideration. Many attempts had been made to deal with this question. Reference had been made to the labour colonies in Belgium. There were several labour colonies in different parts of the Continent, and one of his inspectors who was probably as competent and experienced in matters of Poor Law administration as any official in the country, had more than once visited the countries in which these labour colonies existed, and only the other day he made a further report on the subject. The inspector, he thought, had not much hope of good results from the establishment of labour colonies. It was true that in some cases labour colonies might serve to redeem those who were young enough and were willing to be redeemed, but he was afraid that the majority of the men and women who were described as vagrants would not respond to any remedy of that kind. These, however, were matters that must be left for the Committee to report upon after they had heard the evidence of those who were competent to speak on the matter. He could promise that there would be no avoidable delay in setting up the Committee, and that it would have the freest hand in its inquiry. He agreed with everything that had been said as to the incalculable mischief done by these vagrants. They seemed to terrorise the wives of cottagers in lonely parts of the country, while the husbands were away at work, extorting food, and even money sometimes. They were unquestionably a curse and a pest to society.

    669
    As to the proposal to send children abroad, speaking for himself, he recognised the desirability of sending children to any colony, such as Canada, where they were likely to be well cared for; but anyone who had studied the question must realise that the colonisation plan was attended with risks, and might prove a curse rather than a blessing to some children. His hon. friend had asked whether he would appoint a Committee to examine into the inspection of workhouses. He did not think there was a case for a Committee, or that there was anything to justify it up to the present time. He would, however, consider any further information which the hon. Gentleman who had referred to the matter might lay before him. His hon. friend behind him made an inquiry as to outdoor hospitals for consumptives. He believed that there were two of them, that at Skipton, and another provided by the joint unions of Liverpool; and he understood that they had done very good work. So far as he knew, there was an inclination on the part of boards of guardians to unite and set up such hospitals, and the Department would be glad to do anything it could to help the guardians in work of this character. As to the extension of boarding-out, he was of opinion that the Order might be extended partially, although there had been some practical difficulties in the way. At any rate, he thought the orphan cases might be dealt with by the boards of guardians.
    MR. KEARLEYsaid he wished to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the satisfactory answers he had given to questions in regard to Poor Law administration; but he was afraid he would not be able to continue in the strain of praise as to the administration of the Department in regard to the Adulteration Acts, especially in London. He had made a similar complaint last year, but he was sorry to say that instead of an improvement having taken place, the laxity in the administration had been rather aggravated. Under the Act of 1899 the President of the Board of Trade was given exceptional powers to take such steps as were necessary to stamp out the adulteration of the food supply of the people. For the first time the
    670
    Board of Trade, in association with the Board of Agriculture, was given power to coerce the local authorities which did not carry out the provisions of the Adulteration Acts. He might go further and say that it was generally understood that the Department of the right hon. Gentleman would not only constitute itself a coercer of the defaulting local authorities, but constitute itself an intelligence department, in regard to all these matters of adulteration, to which public analysts and local authorities could look with confidence for information and advice. He wished to direct attention chiefly to the great amount of adulteration which took place in milk. The percentage of adulteration for all food products was 8·8 per cent., and he was glad to say that that percentage had been speedily falling since the Act of 1885. But the adulteration of milk, he was sorry to say, had been steadily rising during the past few years, and the percentage of adulteration at the present time was 11·6. In London the evil was more marked than in other parts of the kingdom. The percentage for the twenty towns which came next in order of size to London was 10·3; but in London the percentage was 15·6, and in six of the leading Metropolitan boroughs it was 28 per cent In Hackney and St. Pancras it was 32 per cent., in Shoreditch it was 29 per cent., in Poplar it was 22 per cent.; but the average for the six leading metropolitan boroughs was 28 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman had laid down a standard of purity for milk which the public analysts thought unduly low. The most prevalent form of adulteration of milk was the addition of water, but preservatives and colouring matter were also introduced. The latest available information in the Report of the Local Government Board showed that 50 per cent. of the diarymen of London introduced preservatives into their milk. A Departmental Committee was appointed by the right hon. Gentleman in association with the Board of Agriculture to inquire into this very question of the introduction of preservatives and colouring matter into food products. That Committee made most startling recommendations, they recommended that the use of

    671
    formalin in food or drink should be absolutely prohibited; that the use of preservatives or colouring matter in milk should be made an offence under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act; and, above all, that a Court of reference should be established to supervise the use of preservative and colouring matter in food. What steps had the right hon. Gentleman taken to give effect to those recommendations, and to stamp out this hideous adulteration which was taking place in the metropolitan boroughs. The right hon. Gentleman had taken no steps whatever. His record for the past year was no better than his record for the preceding year. Really it was a mere farce for the House of Commons to be wasting time in passing Acts of Parliament if the Minister who was responsible for putting them into force failed to do so. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman take the slightest notice of the Report of the Departmental Committee, when, by a mere stroke of his pen, or the mere publication of an Order, he could have given effect to that valuable Report.
    He would suggest that, as regarded London at all events, if the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to carry out the responsibility which the House of Commons looked to him to perform, he should hand over the responsibility to the London County Council. At present, each metropolitan borough was responsible only to itself; but if the London County Council had the power they would soon teach Hackney and St. Pancras that they could not continue to disregard with impunity the powers given to them. It was a standing disgrace and discredit that this infamous swindling should be allowed to continue almost at the very door of the Local Government Board. What happened when the Acts were properly administered? In Salford, a few years ago, a similar state of things existed. The local authorities determined to stamp it out; and they gradually got the percentage of adulteration down until now it was as low as 2 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman was familiar with the question, because he himself had raised it in previous years. What was wanted was a man belonging to the Local Government Board, or some other Department, who would not consider it beneath his dignity to make a name for
    672
    himself in connection with stamping out adulteration. He did not know of any higher ambition to which a man could aspire than to secure a pure food supply for the community. He saw a skit in the Westminster Gazette a few months ago, with the legend, "He gave us cheap food." Who would earn the reputation of giving us pure food? He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should look to his laurels in this matter, and enforce on the local authorities their duty under the Acts. The Local Government Board had not at hand experts to advise them. The ways of the adulterators were devious, and wanted following and watching. No sooner was one form of adulteration stopped than another asserted itself. If the Local Government Board were really in earnest in the matter they would have a committee of experts to advise them; and on their advice the right hon. Gentleman by merely issuing an Order in Council could set up a standard of purity, or whatever else was required. He had spoken rather strongly, for he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman did his best to administer his Department. That Department had a great deal of work to perform; and he should like to see this important question transferred to another Department which could give more time to it. He was not suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman did not attend to the duties of his Department; but the right hon. Gentleman should put his shoulder to the wheel. He wished he had an opportunity of telling the right hon. Gentleman how it could be done. It was by no means difficult. Last year the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the very worst thing that could be done would be for the Local Government Board to step in and take over the responsibilities of the local authorities, and that it was the office of the Department to take steps to induce them to act on their own responsibility. He would be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman would give the Committee some information as to what steps he had taken and what he was prepared to do further.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,)said

    673
    that perhaps he might be allowed to reply. The hon. Gentleman stated that nothing had been done as a result of his speech last year. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that that was not so. The very next day after that speech was delivered the Local Government Board had a consultation with the Board of Agriculture, which naturally looked after the adulteration of milk and butter, because they had experts at their disposal, which the Local Government Board had not, as to whether any alterations should be made in the existing arrangements, and papers were then obtained showing what the Board of Agriculture had done in the matter in 1901 and 1902. The chief inspector of the Board continually visited the authorities in London and pressed them on this question of adulteration, but they could not, as his right hon. friend stated last year, take away under a system of local government such responsible duties from the local authorities. As regarded samples of milk taken in London, in 1902 8,411 samples were taken, of which 1,314 were found to be adulterated. In 1903 9,468 samples were taken, of which 1,275 were adulterated. He was not convinced that that was a sure test of the amount of adulteration. Everything depended upon where samples were taken. If they were taken from the best shops in the neighbourhood, probably the percentage of adulteration would be very small; but if they were taken from shops suspected of adulteration the percentage would be very high. It did not prove that there was more general adulteration in one place than in another. The samples taken in London were not really out of all proportion to the rest of the country. In the model borough of Devonport, for instance, with a population of 70,000, fifty-five samples of milk were taken. In Chelsea, with a population of 73,000, ninety-four samples were taken. In Hackney, with a population three times that of Devonport, twelve times as many samples were taken, and in the City of London, with a regular population of only 26,983, 605 samples were taken. These figures did not show any neglect of duty on the part of the London boroughs.
    MR. KEARLEYsaid the whole matter could be settled by an Order in Council.
    MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid that could only be done by taking each article of food separately and making an Order with regard to it, which would be a very cumbrous method. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that if his words of last year had not apparently borne fruit the Department had done their best to carry out his desires, but, after all, the Board of Agriculture was the most suitable authority to deal with butter and milk, and they were, as a matter of fact, making efforts to insure purity in those articles.
    MR. KEARLEYsaid he was not surprised that the Local Government Board had endeavoured to place the burden of responsibility upon the shoulders of the Board of Agriculture. At the time of the passing of the Act every effort had been made by himself and others to relieve the Local Government Board of all responsibility in the matter, but they insisted upon coming in, and now, when pressed to prevent adulteration, they shelved the responsibility. No answer had been given by the hon. Gentleman to the figures which he had brought to his notice, and he should press the matter to a division, because it was one which he believed would have the assent of the whole Committee.
    MR. ALFRED DAVIEScalled attention to the liability of rating officers to give particulars of the rates they levied. He had himself received a demand note from the Buckinghamshire County Council for a rate, and at once wrote to that authority for particulars of the rate demanded. He received a reply from the official of the Buckinghamshire County Council, stating that he had no authority to analyse a rate struck for county purposes. He then called attention to the question in this House, and put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, as to whether the Buckinghamshire County Council could not be compelled to give particulars. The right hon. Gentleman answered, evidently in error, that he (Mr. Davies) should communicate with the Buckinghamshire County Council on the subject. That, of course, he had already done. It was most important

    675
    that general details should be given to ratepayers, if required., of the rate demanded, otherwise they could not criticise the expenditure, and what he now asked was whether the right hon. Gentleman had not full authority to compel the Buckinghamshire County Council to disclose these particulars, and, if he had not, would he say what power there was, if any, to compel them to give them? All lie really desired was a proper answer to the Question he had put previously on this subject. There was another question on which he desired some information. He had for years taken a great interest in the importation of frozen and chilled meat. He had no objection to its being eaten if it was not injurious. But some time ago he asked the right hon. Gentleman for information as to whether the decomposition in meat from abroad was injurious to health, and the reply he got was that it was a subject for inquiry. In answer to a further Question, whether it was causing an increasing number of cases of cancer, the right hon. Gentleman stated that he would make inquiries of the Cancer Research Committee. Nothing, however, had since been done, although the matter was of vital importance. No one knew that this meat was injurious to health, but, on the other hand, no one knew whether it was beneficial, and he held that that was a point upon which the country was entitled to information. The President of the Local Government Board had at his command analysts and other officials who could soon settle the question, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take the matter into his consideration with a view to supplying the fullest information possible.
    *MR. WEIRexpressed his dissatisfaction with the reply given to the hon. Member for Devonport with regard to the adulteration of food. Whether it was milk, whisky, beer, or anything else, the people were entitled to have it pure and unadulterated. It was not expected that the Department would take up all articles of food at once, but why did they not start with one of the most used articles of food, milk? In two districts recently, viz., Finchley and Woking, 500 persons had
    676
    been affected through contaminated milk, The Local Government Board ought really to take steps, through their experts, to deal with the matter instead of leaving it to the Board of Agriculture. No I legislation was required; by an Order in Council the whole business could be settled at once. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken as though it depended upon the kind of shop in which the milk was sold, implying that it was only in little back streets that the adulterated article was sold; but only the other day two large firms were summoned for selling adulterated milk, though they had a guarantee from the farmer. It was time the Board gave up making such miserable excuses. If only Government Departments would give adequate replies to Questions, an enormous saving of public time would be effected, as it would not then be necessary to be constantly raising points in Committee of Supply. He recently asked a Question with regard to the issue of vaccination certificates at Brighton on which the local vaccination officer had had printed a number of notices to parents, and the right hon. Gentleman replied that there was nothing in the certificate to which he could take objection, and that it could be issued as a Government document. Who had to pay for the printing of all these additional notices? Why, the ratepayers! Had not the Local Government Board a staff competent to draw up a circular which would answer all purposes? If not, the sooner they made room for efficient men the better. Notices issued by Government Departments ought to be complete in themselves, and local vaccination officers should be prohibited from adding thereto their own fads.
    A further matter about which he had to complain affected another official under the Board. A bacteriologist, in receipt of a salary of £600 a year, was permitted to carry on business on his own account, to use the calves, the laboratory, and the vaccine station belonging to the Government, and to sell lymph for his own profit. So unsound a system ought not to be permitted to continue for a single week. No commercial firm would tolerate this for five minutes. The Government Departments ought to be pure and free

    677
    from all that sort of thing. If the gentleman to whom he referred was worth more money, let him have it, but do not let this system of jobbery go on. The system was thoroughly unsound, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman to put a stop to it. He wished to know whether there were others in the department who were doing a little on their own account. In regard to the question of calf lymph, he asked the right hon. Gentleman to arrange that there should be a standard of purity, or rather of quality and strength. At the present time there was no standard, and medical men did not know where they were. There were Local Government Board bacteriologists who would be better employed in endeavouring to set up such a standard than in doing a little business on their own account and feathering their nests in the fashion he had described. The Government should be able to furnish every medical man in the country with a supply of lymph if he paid for it. According to a statement published in The Lancet in June last, there were something like 16 firms in the metropolis who sold vaccine lymph. It was rather rough on medical men that they should have to go to these private vaccine establishments instead of being able to go to the Local Government Board for their supplies. Vaccination being compulsory it was only right that the Government should make provision for furnishing pure lymph to medical men so that they would not require to go dancing all over the face of the earth for supplies. There was nothing at present to prevent anyone supplying calf lymph. The Local Government Board ought to stop this practice, because an enormous amount of disease arose from vaccination. He asked an explanation of Item P with respect to certain expenditure in the national vaccine establishment. There was a footnote on the same page which stated that £105 had been received from the Local Government Board in Scotland for vaccine supplied to that Department, and that part of this money was paid to the bacteriologist. We should know how much was paid to him. What an extraordinary method of conducting the affairs of this department! The right hon. Gentleman ought to know the details of expenditure in his
    678
    department. All that hon. Members asked was that the President of the Local Government Board should see that the business of his Department was not conducted on loose and unsound principles such as no employer of labour would tolerate. He begged to move the I reduction of the Vote on Item A by £200.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: I draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that if he does so he will preclude any answer being given to the various questions pat to the Minister in charge of the Vote.
    *MR. WEIR: In that case I beg to move a reduction of £200 on the whole Vote.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £141,889 be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Weir.)
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid that, in answer to the somewhat vague statements of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, he wished to say that Dr. Blaxall was one of the best public servants employed by the Department. No action of Dr. Blaxall had ever been previously challenged, and the arrangement to which the hon. Gentleman had called attention was arrived at between the Scottish Office and Dr. Blaxall with the full consent of the Treasury. It was not fair to accuse Dr. Blaxall of feathering his own nest and making money at the public expense. There was not the faintest foundation for any one of these vague charges. It was suggested that there should be a standard purity of lymph. In the first place, he doubted whether there was any necessity for it; in the second place, it would be difficult for any Government Department to under take the supply of lymph to the whole country; and, in the third place, there was no reason to doubt that, from scientific inquiry which had been made, the commercial lymph was not of admirable and excellent quality in every respect. The hon. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs asked if it was within the power of the Local Government Board to prescribe the form of the demand note for rates. The Local Government Board had no power to compel the local authorities to state

    679
    the different objects of their expenditure or to compel them to break up the rates so as to show the different purposes on which they were to be spent.
    *MR. WEIRsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had referred to one matter and one matter only, although he had I mentioned several. The question of pure unadulterated milk was a matter of vital importance; but the right hon. Gentleman treated it with contempt. The right hon. Gentleman smiled. Another matter he brought under the attention of the right hon. Gentleman was the question of vaccination officers expressing in print their own fads on the back of Government Vaccination Certificates, the right hon. Gentleman treated that also with absolute indifference. Then the right hon. Gentleman stated that he had made vague charges against Dr. Blaxall. He had done nothing of the kind. He condemned the system which allowed an officer of a great Government Department to carry on business on his own account. It did not satisfy him to be told that the Treasury approved of it. He, for one, did not approve of it. The officials of the Treasury were not infallible and made I mistakes; he thought they did a very wrong thing when they allowed this gentleman to carry on business on his own account. The right hon. Gentleman referred to a standard of purity for lymph. He, however, mentioned quality and strength as well as purity; but the right hon. Gentleman avoided quality and strength. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to refer to those who prompted him. He wished to tell the right hon. Gentleman that he was not prompted by anyone. He acted on his own account; he studied the questions he brought before the House for himself, and did not take his information second-hand. He did not think, therefore, it was fair on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to state that he was prompted. As the reply of the right hon. Gentleman was so unsatisfactory, and as vital questions were ignored, he could not see his way to withdraw his Amendment.
    The Committee proceeded to a Division, and the Chairman stated that he thought the Noes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was vexatiously claimed, and
    680
    he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared the Noes had it, Fifteen Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.
    Original Question again proposed.
    And, it being after half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

  EVENING SITTING.

    THAMES RIVER STEAMBOAT SERVICE BILL (BY ORDER).
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
    *MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid he rose to move that this Bill be considered this day six months. Up to the previous evening a similar Motion to that which he now proposed, and having the same object in view, stood upon the Paper in the name of one of the representatives of the Admiralty and he now invited the attention of the House while he addressed himself to the circumstances which led to the placing by the Admiralty authorities of the notice on the Paper and to its subsequent withdrawal. It was frequently pleaded that when a Bill had been considered by a Committee the House of Commons must demand very good reason indeed for interfering with such decision. That was. a general rule in which he acquiesced, but in this case the decision given by the Committee had not precluded the Admiralty from placing a notice of Motion on the Paper which, had it been persisted in, would have upset the decision arrived at by the Committee and brought about the rejection of this Bill. The promoters of this Bill when they found themselves opposed by this powerful public Department had postponed the Bill from time to time while they

    681
    negotiated with the Admiralty with whom they had now come to terms. His submission was that it was most unfair that a municipal body should be allowed to come to terms in this way with a great State Department, and that when private interests were concerned they should be utterly callous and ignore them. A State Department and a private individual having property at stake should be treated in a similar manner, and it was not fair when the opposition was strong for a great municipal body to negotiate with their opponent and when the opposition was that of a private individual to ignore it and try and beat it down.
    The Bill before the House proposed to establish a new service of steamboats on the Thames to run from the western to the eastern boundaries of the administrative county, beyond which it was not proposed to go. It was proposed to invest a capital sum of £280,000 for the purpose of carrying out this scheme, but there was nothing in the Bill which restricted the London County Council to that capital expenditure. This project had been before the House on three separate occasions. It was rejected by a Committee of this House in 1902, and a similar Bill was also thrown out in 1903, but on this occasion the Bill had been passed by the Committee. The £280,000 proposed capital was no doubt proposed to be raised on the credit of London, and he asked the House to seriously consider the high indebtedness with which the London County Council was burdening the ratepayers. It was proposed to add this huge item to outstanding capital account, yet the London County Council could not even claim that this service would then be self-supporting. Their own witnesses before the Committee admitted that the concern could not be made a profitable one for at least six years, while for the first three there must be a continual annual loss, so that year after year the ratepayers of London were to be called upon to make good the administrative faults of the London County Council,—tramways, first one venture and then another, always with an illusory prospect of profit in the future which was never realised. If the evidence given before the Committee on behalf of the promoters meant anything at all it meant that the House of Commons
    682
    was being asked to sanction a proposal embracing a large capital expenditure which was to extend over twenty years, although the project was not likely to have so long a life; and in addition to that expenditure the ratepayers of London were to pay the annual loss. This was an instance of municipal trading of the very worst kind. He doubted the need for this action on the part of the London County Council. He doubted whether this service was ever likely to be of any value to the real workers of London or whether any steamboat service which had existed upon the river had ever met the needs of the working classes. No working man wanting to move quickly from Battersea to Westminster would look to a Thames steamboat as a means of quick transit. If any service was to be a success it must be one analogous to that upon the river Seine composed of very small boats running in very quick succession, but that was not the service proposed under this Bill. If he saw the least chance of this Bill conferring any benefit, on persons desiring to reach their work quickly he should be prepared to accept it and swallow a large number of the objectionable principles which it contained, but, knowing the river as he did and the class of people who filled the boats, he did not see the least chance of that being the case. The majority of the people who filled these boats were the bank holiday folk and the Sunday afternoon folk, the working man was seldom seen I upon them, they taking the opportunity of using a more rapid means of getting from east to west.
    This scheme of municipal trading needed the most careful scrutiny. It was open to many and serious objections. Quite apart from the fact that it would place upon the London ratepayers an annual charge for an indefinite period, he failed to understand how anybody could stand up and advocate that this boon should be conferred on one section of the community at the cost of another. No benefit could be conferred on the dwellers in the extreme north and south of London by a system of cheap transit on the river, and therefore they should not be called upon to pay for it. He ventured to say that when municipal

    683
    bodies embarked in trading of this character, they should be bound by the conditions which bound every private individual, that was to say, they should make such undertakings self-supporting. There were many other objections; for instance, there was the strong objection of the borough which he had the honour to represent. He had earlier in the day presented a petition signed by over 7,000 citizens of West Ham praying that the House should not pass this Bill in the present form as it would inflict upon them a permanent injury of a very serious character. The names in that petition were collected within the last five days, and had further time been devoted to their collection the petition would have contained from 50,000 to 80,000 names of persons all honestly opposed to the Bill in its present form. It was obvious in the face of the London County Council proposals that no private company could compete with this authority in this service. The London County Council proposed to start a service of steamers, build piers, charge pier dues and tolls, and the London County Council alone would be the authority running steamers up and down the river. It would be suggested that the Bill contained nothing which could prevent a private company running its own steamers, but with all the piers under the control of the London County Council such a thing was quite impossible, and to suggest it was most unfair. It was manifestly impossible for any company or individual to compete with the London County Council, because with the piers under the control of the County Council, with the tolls and dues upon them, it was impossible to make a private concern pay.
    This Bill created the largest and most serious monopoly that London had yet seen. This Bill asked the House to create a monopoly all along the river, but it did not propose to deal fairly with the interests which it disturbed, or compensate those whose interest it destroyed. In the case of West Ham there was a population of nearly 300,000 people, with two miles of frontage on the river. This service proposed to stop some distance from the boundaries of West Ham. It was opposed to a scheme promoted by a private company which was prepared to supply West Ham with a
    684
    service, yet that locality was unable to extract from the London County Council; any sort of pledge that they would give them any service whatever. It was distinctly unfair, if they could not give a service at all, not to allow an open field to those who were prepared to do so. He would, no doubt, be told that the London County Council was very generous, that they had constantly given West Ham grants. It was true that they had given West Ham grants to buy parks and open spaces, but West Ham was daily giving London grants. West Ham was the dormitory of London. The men who made the wealth of London came to West Ham to sleep, their children were the care of the locality. West Ham did not ask for charity but for justice. Inasmuch as these men were engaged in London from early morning till late at night, they said they ought not to be shut off from access to the river, and that if the London County Council sought to establish a monopoly, it should at least extend its service to the whole of the riparian portions of this urban borough. The southern portion of this borough was intersected with water-ways, owing to the Albert and Victoria Docks. To allow the coming in of big ships from the river the swing bridges were so often moved, that for hours during the day the place was a complete island, shut off from rail and road communication, and the people of this part of West Ham were naturally very anxious to secure the benefit of a river service. As it had been impossible to extract from the promoters of this Bill a pledge such as had been given by the promoters of the other Bill which was rejected by the Committee, he had to come to this House and ask it to take these circumstances into consideration and not to allow a monopoly of this kind to do West Ham this injustice.
    On the Thames, ten years ago, was a fleet of steamers owned by the Victoria Steamboat Company; the company got into difficulties, and as a result of an investigation into their affairs by the London County Council, it was suggested that the approaches to the piers should be improved and private enterprise should be encouraged. The County Council subsequently went farther, and Sir J. McDougall, the Chairman of the London

    685
    County Council, and the chairman of the committee which carried out the investigations, approached Mr. Hills, a well-known shipbuilder, and encouraged him to embark in this enterprise. There was but little difference between the statement of Mr. Hills and that of Sir J. McDougall, and certainly the Rivers Committee passed a resolution which would be construed by any ordinary man as a direct encouragement to private enterprise to take up this work. Pressure was brought to bear on the chairman of the committee, and the report which had been prepared by the committee, but not submitted to the Council, was withdrawn. The report itself had been published in The Times, but the fact that it had not been approved by the Council was not made public. Thus Mr. Hills was egged on to proceed with the enterprise, and, after he had spent £150,000 on boats and piers, the County Council, as another election was approaching, thought it would be a grand advertisement if they decided to run a service of boats themselves. That was manifestly unfair. Mr. Hills had been misled, he would not say deliberately, and what had been the result? That gentleman kept on the service for five years; 15,000,000 passengers were carried without a single accident to life or limb; the service was a safe, quick, and popular service, and it would have been pecuniarily successful but for the fact that Mr. Hills, being a strong teetotaler, refused to allow refreshments to be sold in the cabins, and thus lost a considerable revenue. The service was as good a one as could be obtained under the present conditions of the river, but the County Council now came along, claimed to crush their competitor out of existence, and calmly told him to do the best he could with the stock they bad induced him to purchase or construct. The Admiralty had under their care one single pier at Greenwich Hospital, and the County Council had to bargain with them for it; but Mr. Hills, who had purchased eight piers, being a private individual and not a Government Department, was left in the lurch. The Committee by which the Bill was considered said that they took note of the fact that the London County Council were prepared to deal fairly with the property of Mr. Hills, but the Council
    686
    through their counsel immediately denied that they had given any pledge, and refused to agree to purchase even under what were known as the "old iron" clauses. It was unjust as between a great municipality and one of their prominent citizens who, in a time of stress and at their invitation, had undertaken this enterprise that the County Council should now attempt to ride rough-shod over Mr. Hills, and he appealed to the House of Commons not to allow so great an injustice to pass unnoticed. This was an attempt on the part of an ambitious municipality, who were prepared to be the makers and sellers of everything in London, to crush out anybody who attempted to compete with them, and if Parliament were prepared to make them the greatest monopolists this country had yet seen they ought at least to insist on fair treatment being meted out to those who were being hustled out of the field. He was anxious to see the riverway restored to its proper position, but he believed it could be done by private enterprise, and until it was proved that private enterprise could not maintain a service of boats on the river Parliament ought not to create this municipal monopoly, or, if they did, they ought to see that even-handed injustice was meted out to all concerned, whether State Department, local authority or private individual. He appealed to the House not to allow it to be said that inside Parliament might was right, and that right might cry for help in vain. He begged to move.
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURY, in seconding the Amendment, said that experience had shown that a steamboat service on the Thames could not be made pecuniarily successful, and he failed to see why the ratepayers of London should be put to the expense of maintaining a service which would benefit only a small proportion of the inhabitants. The past history of the question was this, the Citizen Company became bankrupt, and were taken over by the Victoria Company; they in turn lost a great deal of money, and were bought out by Mr. Hills; Mr. Hills, being an exceedingly rich man, did not become bankrupt, but he found the chances of making a profit

    687
    so remote that two years ago he abandoned the service. These three attempts by private enterprise having failed, he was unable to see, looking at the matter from a commercial point of view, what chance there was of the County Council succeeding. The contemplated capital expenditure was £280,000, an annual expenditure of £98,000 was estimated, and the County Council did not pretend there would be a sufficient return to cover it. In the evidence given before the Committee the Council stated they would at first pay the same wages as were paid by Mr. Hills, but it was to be expected that as soon as the service was municipalised there would be an increase of wages and a reduction of fares, so that it would be impossible for the service to be remunerative. If they once admitted the principle that municipalities were to come forward as philanthropists and carry out schemes which were for the advantage, or the supposed advantage, of the few, and that the expense or profit was not to be considered, they would be embarking upon a policy the final results of which no man could foresee. Unless it could be proved that this service would be an advantage to the great majority of the inhabitants of London, the County Council had no right to place any charge on the ratepayers in respect of it. The only people who would derive any advantage would be those who lived upon the river and who desired to go to some other locality also on the river. The inhabitants of Fulham, Chelsea, and Greenwich would doubtless be benefited, but he objected to his constituents who were not on the liver and who would therefore gain no advantage having to pay for privileges enjoyed only by a small minority. In the days when the Thames was a great highway, there were no underground railways, tramways, or good roads, but matters were now very different. He was prepared to vote with his hon. friend, but he was not quite clear as to the proposal to give compensation to Mr. Hills. Mr. Hills went into a trading concern and be lost his money, bat he did not see that that had anything to do with the County Council. This Bill had been before three Committees within the last three years. Two of those Committees had rejected it, while one Committee had
    688
    passed it only by the casting vote of the Chairman.
    MR. CHARLES ALLEN: It was rejected last year only by the casting vote of the Chairman.
    SIE FREDERICK BANBURYsaid that in that case the one balanced the other, and the third ought to be taken as conclusive. He hoped the House would not allow the Bill to pass on this occasion.
    Amendment proposed—
    "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day sis months.'"—(Mr. Ernest Gray.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    *SIR JOSEPH LEESEsaid that seeing that he occupied the position of Chairman of the Committee whose decision was now being called into question he would naturally be expected to intervene in this debate. He had listened with some interest to the speech of the hon. Member for West Ham, which he thought would have done infinite credit to the counsel for West Ham before any Committee, and personally he should have been very glad if the hon. Member had given evidence as a witness before the Committee which passed this Bill. He thought the hon. Member's speech was rather one of generalities, and he appeared to have avoided the real issue. They had before the Committee a clear issue. Two Bills were brought before them, one asking for Parliamentary powers for the London County Council to run steamboats on the Thames, and the other was a competitive Bill run by Mr. Arnold Hills who claimed that the County Council should purchase his boats, piers, and plant, and alternatively that they should enter into a partnership with him, the County Council finding a sum of £60,000 or £70,000, the only quid fro quo for which was to be the appointment of two of their number as directors of the joint board. On that issue the Committee, after twelve days hard work, came to an unanimous decision in favour of the County Council.
    MR. GALLOWAY: It was not unanimous.
    *SIR JOSEPH LEESE: The courtesy of the hon. Member for Manchester is so well known that I will not give way to him.
    MR. GALLOWAY: I beg pardon.
    *SIR JOSEPH LEESEsaid he would repeat his statement that it was an unanimous decision. The Committee over which he presided, after hearing all the evidence of the witnesses, decided to reject Mr. Hill's Bill and accept the preamble of the London County Council's Bill. In doing so the Committee rejected the proposal that there should be a partnership with the County Council, and they also rejected the suggestion that the County Council should be called upon to purchase Mr. Hill's boats, piers, and plant. And after this the hon. Member for West Ham put down a proposal to the effect that—
    "The Council shall before exercising any of the powers of this Act, purchase such of the piers and such of the steamboats of the Thames Steamboat Company (1897), Limited, for such price and upon such terms and conditions as, failing agreement, shall be determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Board of Trade."
    That point was argued and witnesses were examined upon it, and the Committee determined that the case would not hold water. He submitted that this proposal contained in the clause put down on the Paper by the hon. Member for West Ham was directly subversive of the decision of the Committee.
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURY, on a point of order, asked whether it was competent for the hon. Member to discuss a clause which was not before the House. The question before the House was the rejection of the Bill.
    *MR. SPEAKERsaid that the hon. Member for West Ham had devoted a large part of his speech to the proposals contained in his clause.
    *SIR JOSEPH LEESEsaid he was sorry to see that the good manners of the hon. Member for Manchester were extending, [Cheers and MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh."]
    MR. GALLOWAYasked whether the hon. Member was in order in making a suggestion that he was discourteous to him when he had no such intention, and had, indeed, offered him an apology across the floor of the House.
    *SIR JOSEPH LEESEsaid the courtesy of the hon. Gentleman showed itself by giving him a very direct contradiction on a matter on which he could not be well-informed.
    MR. GALLOWAY: The hon. Gentleman entirely misunderstood me. I did not contradict him.
    *MR. SPEAKER: I hope this controversy will now close.
    *SIR JOSEPH LEESE, after remarking that he apologised if he had said anything offensive to the hon. Member opposite, said the Committee decided to give the County Council a free hand. I Mr. Hills possessed thirty-six steam boats, and their age averaged twenty-four years each. It was true that three of them were built in the year 1898. When Sir William White, who was one of Mr. Hills' own witnesses, offered his; evidence, he, as Chairman, asked him what was the average life of a Thames steamboat, and Sir William replied, "twenty-five years." This clause, which had been put down by the hon. Member for West Ham, would place upon the London County Council an obligation to purchase Mr. Hills' boats, most of which were, on that gentleman's own admission, within a year of the term of their natural existence. They also refused to tie the County Council's hands with regard to the eight piers owned by Mr. Hills, because it was put before the Committee that the tramways and the steamboats were to be made part of one general scheme of transit, that through tickets available by both trams and steamboats would be issued, and that in the interest of the public it might be necessary to put piers in places where they did not exist at present. On that ground they refused to tie the hands of the London County Council. There was an Amendment on the Paper with regard to West Ham. But West Ham was outside the jurisdiction of the London County Council, and made no contribution to the

    691
    rates. The Committee had very carefully considered the matters involved in the Bill, and he hoped the House would not set aside their decision. The hon. Member had made reference to what had been said by him as Chairman in announcing the decision of the Committee. He read the shorthand report of his remarks on that occasion, and from that report it was clear that he had very expressly guarded against the introduction of any clause such as that which had been put on the Paper. Therefore he hoped that the House of Commons would not accept this Motion but pass the Bill.
    *SIR ALEXANDER BROWNsaid the Committee over which he presided heard the case thoroughly, and after careful consideration threw out this Bill upon its merits. The County Council now came forward with precisely the same proposals and asked the House of Commons to pass the Bill which the Committee ever which he presided had previously rejected. He did not wish to go into detail, but he would give briefly the reason why the Committee thought this Bill should not pass. The Thames, it was contended, was a great waterway which the Bill proposed to use in order to convey working men to and from their work. It was found, however, that working men going to and returning from work could be carried more quickly and cheaply by tram and railway. The river service could only become a great service for pleasure purposes in the summer months, and he and his colleagues agreed that the charge for such a service should not be laid on London as a whole. The tidal character of the Thames and its windings were serious obstacles to a successful service. The House would be well advised not to allow this charge to be imposed on the ratepayers of London.
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for West Ham practically opened up a number of issues which would have been more appropriately discussed on the Second Reading of the previous Bill. In raising those issues the hon Member made certain statements, one of which evoked some sympathy, which he was afraid was
    692
    given under a misapprehension. The hon. Member said in moving the rejection of this Bill that he had put down a similar Motion to that which was put down by a representative of the Government on behalf of the Admiralty. That was hardly the case. The Admiralty were the trustees for the widows and orphans, chargeable upon the revenues of the Greenwich pier, and consequently they had a right to defend the interests of those dependent upon them. The hon. Member opposite, however, did not inform the House that the Greenwich pier was the only pier along the Thames which the County Council sought to acquire compulsorily, and he thought that was sufficient to dispose of the misinterpretation which the hon. Member for West Ham built upon that mistake. The City Corporation did not oppose the Bill, and the Thames Conservancy and the County Council had agreed to clauses. The Admiralty had been satisfied, and all the borough councils with one exception supported the Bill. The House had been asked to reject this Bill for some of the most remarkable reasons which had ever been advanced. There was one person opposed to this Bill and that was Mr. Arnold Hills, who was a large creditor of the defunct steamboat company and the present owner of the derelict company which had not run a boat for three years upon the river. Mr. Hills lived in the constituency of the hon. Member for West Ham, and it did not surprise him that that gentleman, out of 5,000 or 6,000 men he employed, with their uncles, cousins, and their aunts, had managed to get 7,000 signatures to a petition against this Bill. He thought that would dispose of the petition. The hon. Member for West Ham objected for other reasons, and he asked the House to "look at the indebtedness of London." He wished to point out, however, that the object of the hon. Member's proposal was to increase the indebtedness of London and to relieve West Ham of its responsibility in this matter. In this connection he would ask the hon. Member to remember his little jaunt down the Thames that afternoon.
    *MR. ERNEST GRAY: Allow me to inform the hon. Member that I have been in the House all this afternoon.
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that he was glad that the hon. Member had not taken part in a vulgar and impudent attempt to influence hon. Members by asking them to lunch and giving them a trip on the river, and parading some half-dozen of these steamboats, with an extra coat of paint, up and down in front of the Terrace. The London County Council were not unsympathetic towards West Ham, but they had no right to spend the money of the ratepayers of London upon questions external to the London ratepayers' jurisdiction. The London County Council had brought in a Bill to have a steamboat service from Hammersmith on the west to Greenwich on the east, to which the ratepayers of the County of London were asked to contribute. In regard to this proposal, West Ham had asked to have a look in, but the answer of the County Council was that in this Bill they could not sanction such a proposal, which ought to come before the Examiners in order that everyone interested could be heard, and therefore they were unable to comply with the request made by the hon. Member for West Ham. If this service turned out successful and Parliament was willing to allow them to help West Ham, then they would not object, but they must do things decently and in order, and they had no right to spend the money of London ratepayers upon a provincial community's interests. If they did thi3 in regard to West Ham, why not do it also in regard to Windsor and Tilbury? Wherever the County Council could help West Ham in reference to parks, drainage, the across-river ferry, or in other ways, they had always done so as much as they possibly could.
    The hon. Member for West Ham had stated that the County Council had lured Mr. Arnold Hills on to promote this service, but it was not so; Mr. Hills knew his business as well as anybody, and he would remind the House that in 1893 and 1894, four years before Mr. Hills came upon the scene, proposals were made in election addresses for a municipal steamboat service on the Thames. The steamboat service on the Thames for a long time had been irregular and slow; it started late and stopped too soon; the boats were dirty and obsolete; and they were urged to establish
    694
    an efficient steamboat service on the Thames long before Mr. Hills appeared on the scene. When the hon. Member for West Ham talked about the value of these steamboats, he would remind him that only some four out of thirty-six were considered to be at ail decent instruments of transit, The Daily Chronicle described them as "penny strugglers," and the Financier and Bullionist stated that no one would buy them at any price. The Sunday Sun declared that this was the very worst steamboat service in Europe. As The Times had said, they were "neither fast nor commodious," they were "old, dirty, and worn out," and afforded no shade in summer or shelter in winter. The cabins were dark and stuffy and the means for landing passengers were inadequate. In fact, the only way to improve the service was "to scrap existing passenger vessels." After that he should subscribe to The Times for the rest of his Parliamentary life. Another witness called by Mr. Arnold Hills this year declared that he should prefer to keep the three new boats of the fleet and have a new lot beside them, with one or two exceptions. The principal witness called by Mr. Hills, Sir William White, stated that no boat ought to be expected to last more than twenty-five years, and the average age of Mr. Hills' fleet was beyond that period.
    They had been accused of ill-treating Mr. Hills in this matter, but he would remind the House that Mr. Hills frequently carried out large contracts for; the London County Council and they had no fault to find with his work. Therefore they had no prejudice against him, and they had such a good case that magnanimity took the place of prejudice, and they pitied Mr. Hills. The House should remember that Mr. Hills said that he would not sell his boats and that he would not be ignored, and he also assured that if the London County Council went to Parliament he would oppose them. Mr. Hills wanted joint municipal and private enterprise, but the County Council were not willing to adopt that course upon the terms suggested. He denied that they had lured Mr. Hills on, and therefore the accusation of the hon. Member for West Ham fell to the ground. He wished to point out that in this matter they were not treating Mr. Hills

    695
    differently than the House of Commons treated gas and water and railway-companies. When a municipality in an Act of Parliament expropriated either a gas, water, electric lighting, or railway concern, it was compelled by Parliament to pay to the people expropriated the proper price of their undertakings, as a going concern, and their business was handed over to the community. In these cases, however, those companies had statutory rights and monopolies conferred upon them by Parliament, and so they had a legal right to be fairly and reasonably, and, in some cases, generously, compensated. Mr. Hills was not in that position, for he had no exclusive privilege to run steamboats on the Thames. There were three other steamboat companies on the Thames besides Mr. Hills' company, and, therefore, he had no statutory or monopoly claim, and his service was not a going concern. Mr. Hills' service had been derelict for three years, and it was bankrupt before he foolishly took it over. Mr. Hills would not sell, but he asked that in this Bill there should be inserted a clause which would treat him as if he had a statutory monopoly right. The London County Council said that out of regard for the interests of the ratepayers of London they could not consent to such an unfair and monstrous proposition, and he was glad that upon this point they had the strong financial support of the hon. Baronet the Member for Peckham, who knew more about finance, especially in regard to steamboats, than he could claim to know. He asked the House not to place such a charge upon them, because if the clause of the hon. Member for West Ham was carried the County Council would not proceed any further with the Bill, for they had already decided to treat Mr. Hills as fairly as he deserved to be treated. In the event of Mr. Hills having any piers or steamboats which, in the County Council's judgment, could be adapted and used for the benefit of the new steamboat service, they would be only too pleased to purchase them. He would go further and say that other things being equal the County Council would like to give Mr. Hills a share of the contract for the building of the new boats. If they had a good service they would do their best to help West Ham.
    696
    The question was—Can this be made to pay? In the past it had been impossible for private enterprise to make this service pay. Why? Private enterprise had said that the piers should be in the wrong places—namely, between the bridges instead of at the bridges. The County Council, being the bridges authority and the embankment authority, and, in this matter, having the assistance of the City Corporation and the Thames Conservancy Board, who would let them have their piers for nothing, would be able to provide a pier at every bridge and a tramway at every pier, with a system of interchangeable tickets for the tramcars and the boats. They carried 150,000,000 of passengers on the tramcars, and they believed that, even if they had a small loss on the working of the boats during the first two or three years, they would ultimately derive a profit from the boat service. If they treated the boats and the tramways as one service they could make up on the tramways what they lost on the boats. The hon. Member opposite said the County Council had lost on the tramway service. They had only lost during the period of electrification, and in four years they had made £300,000 profit which they had been able to apply for the benefit of the ratepayers. The hon. Member for Peckham knew that they were more likely to gain than to lose, otherwise the bus proprietors would not oppose them as they had done. Whether that were so or not let the County Council have its chance. He asked the House with respect and confidence to allow the County Council to make an attempt to provide a steamboat service on the river worthy of London.
    MR. PLATT-HIGGINSsaid the hon. Member for West Ham had stated that if Mr. Hills had been allowed to have his way there would have been an efficient service provided. What did the people of West Ham regard as an efficient service? Was it a service that only ran in the summer time? What good would such a service be to working men who had to go to their work all the year round? The hon. Member for West Ham did not state that if this Bill were thrown out there would only be a summer service. The County Council should be entrusted with this work because they

    697
    would give a service all the year round. It was not to be expected that they could get an efficient service from a: company that needed financial support From a report by the statistical officer of the London County Council seven years ago it appeared that the Thames Shipbuilding Company made proposals to them somewhat on the same lines as the present. He reminded the House that on a former occasion Mr. Hills put in the model of an electric launch which he considered a desirable type of boat for the river service. He recommended that small electric launches should run frequently. In view of that opinion he thought it would be outrageous if the House were to require, the County Council to purchase large boats of insufficient speed. If this Bill were thrown out West Ham would get a steamer service which would be of little or no use. West Ham was not a Sunday outing place or a week-end resort. This was a case in which municipal enterprise would step in and carry on a business which could not be carried on profitably by private enterprise, but was needed in the interests of London.
    MR. FITZROYsaid he did not intend to follow other speakers in going into the details of the evidence given before the Committee. He did not think this House was capable of sifting evidence of that kind, and he should prefer to treat only of the main principle which influenced him in opposing the Bill now before the House. As a member of the Committee that sat upstairs last year on the Bill of a similar character that was brought before the House by the London County Council, he should like to say one or two words with reference to this Bill and to give his reasons for opposing it. He only regretted, and he was sure the House would agree with him in that respect, that the Gentleman who acted as Chairman of the Committee last year had been removed from their midst by death. He deplored that he could not therefore give his views on this subject, which he would have done so much more ably than he (the speaker) could do. This was now the third Bill which had been brought before the House, the two previous ones having been thrown out by Committees upstairs,
    698
    which had gone carefully and exhaustively into the evidence which was put before them. He would say at the outset that he thought Mr. Hills, the owner of the old steamboat service, was wrong in imagining that Parliament would sanction a Bill giving power for a county council to connect itself with a private individual in undertaking a necessarily speculative proceeding such as this must be, so the only question which really remained was as to whether the County Council should have the power, or rather the monopoly, of running a steamboat service on the Thames, or whether it was to be left to a private individual company to satisfy the public demands in this direction. Most people were of opinion that there should be a service on the Thames, and they were led to believe that unless the County Council established one there would be none. He believed that was an error; indeed it was shown in the evidence that if the London County Council would remove their opposition to Mr. Hills' company, and some better arrangement could be made in regard to freeing the piers from dues, the steamboat service would have been running these last two years and would continue to run.
    Before a county council undertook an enterprise such as this with public money there were one or two points which should be definitely established. In the first place it should be clearly established that there was a very general demand for the undertaking by a good majority of the ratepayers. Otherwise public money taken from the pockets of all was being spent for the benefit of a small minority. From the evidence given Before the Committee he did not think it was at all clearly shown that there was a general demand for the County Council to undertake the steamboat service, the only demand coming from pleasure seekers who enjoyed a trip: on the river, and from one or two boroughs situated high up on the banks of the: river. Secondly, if it could not be shown that this would be a very great boon to the great majority of ratepayers, it should at any rate be shown that if it only benefited the minority, it could be undertaken with a reasonable prospect of financial success or at any rate with a very small loss to the ratepayers as a whole. Everything in the evidence

    699
    pointed in a contrary direction. They had the experience with regard to the river service for a great many years back, and, so far as he knew, hardly, any company or private individual had been able to make anything, except a summer service on the river, pay. This Bill of the County Council proposed to run a service all the year round, but, from all the evidence they could collect on the subject, nothing but a service from April to September showed any adequate return for capital laid out, and even that depended on the weather. If, then, they accepted the fact that it was impossible to make an all-the-year-round steamboat service pay, and that it must be maintained by a body to whom profit is a secondary consideration, they might be inclined to ask whether to a county council loss was a secondary consideration also. It was astonishing to hear Gentlemen talk in giving evidence in support of this Bill, that even if it was a loss it would amount to something very small on the rates—a farthing or something of that kind. They seemed to forget that a multiplication of farthings on a variety of different enterprises amounted to pennies and pence to shillings, and so they got the enormous rate under which so many municipalities and local authorities suffered. The London County Council's past history was not an encouraging one to lead one to believe that this enterprise would be any more profit-table than their other undertakings. The London County Council laid great stress on the fact that up to now the service had not been efficient. He would point out that the tide, fogs, etc., on this river were of a different character from any other river in the world, and that influences of this kind would affect boats controlled by the County Council equally with any others, and that the fact of the County Council owning this service would be no more a guarantee of a punctual service than if any other company gave the same pledges. Altogether the evidence on this Bill distinctly pointed to the County Council being willing light-heartedly to enter upon this undertaking with the utmost certainty that it would involve them in financial loss, and put a further burden on the ratepayers in London, not for the benefit of the majority but of a small minority.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid he was a member of the Thames Conservancy Board, which at present was the only authority existing with respect to matters pertaining to the river. The hon. Member for Shropshire had stated that on two previous occasions a Bill similar to this had been thrown out. He wished to point out that on the two previous occasions the Thames Conservancy had offered strong opposition to it. On this occasion they had come to terms with the County Council. The County Council had given them ail that they wanted, and, when it was understood that the Committee had practically accepted the preamble of the Bill, general satisfaction was expressed at a meeting of the Conservators that at last the Thames was to be provided with an all-the-year-round service. All the municipal authorities of London, with the exception of St. Pancras, were in favour of the passing of the Bill, and he ventured to think that fact might well add to the weight of the evidence which had been adduced in support of the measure.
    LORD HUGH CECILsaid he would say nothing about the dispute, which had occupied a good deal of the time and attention of the House as between Mr. Hills on the one tide and the County Council on the other, because he was strongly of opinion that it was not a matter appropriate to be discussed in the whole House, but one appropriate for the consideration of the Committee which had already considered it. If the result arrived at was not satisfactory to Mr. Hills the matter could be considered by a Committee in another place. He felt, and indeed he thought his hon. friend the Member for West Ham would admit, that the opposing of a private Bill on the Third Reading was never a very convenient course. A private Bill ought not to be thrown out on the Third Reading on a mere question of private right—which was properly a. matter for a Committee—but on the ground of public policy. Therefore, considering the Bill entirely from the point of view of public policy, he felt bound to support it. The action of the London County Council in undertaking to provide a steamboat service upon the Thames was different from other cases of

    701
    municipal trading, because here there was no entering into competition with private enterprise, as there was no steamboat service in existence. The riverside people wanted an efficient service. What was proposed by the County Council resembled the ordinary proceedings of a municipal body in affording facilities for the inhabitants in the district under their control. Compare it to the action of a municipal body in substituting wood pavement for stone pavement in a street. That was not an absolute necessity. They could get on without it. But wood pavement added to the amenity and conduced to easy communication in the street. The street was improved and the rateable area on which the cost of the wood pavement was thrown was much larger, and rightly so, because everybody used the street. It was the same with the waterway. The London County Council proposed to make the Thames an effective thoroughfare. He thought the House would be acting most in judiciously if, in opposition to the desire of the ratepayers of London as expressed by the municipal boroughs and the County Council, and the decision of its own Committee, it were to reject the Bill on the Third Reading.
    *CAPTAIN JESSELsaid it had been stated by previous speakers that the London boroughs were in favour of the Bill. There was a danger of this statement misleading the House of Commons, and he wished to point out that the City of London, City of Westminster, and the Borough of Chelsea, the rateable
    value of which amounted to £11,000,000, or more than a quarter of the rateable value of the Metropolis, had expressed themselves in favour of the Bill only if the financial position was a sound one. He quite agreed that it was very important to London that there should be a proper steamboat service on the River Thames. The Bill under consideration gave a fifteen minutes service which was useless for the purpose of helping the workmen to easily get to their work. To be really efficient, there should be a five-minutes boat service, and he estimated that this would involve a charge upon the rates of three half-pence in the pound. This would be an unfair burden upon London generally, while the benefit would be solely with the riparian constituencies.
    MR. CUMMING MACDONAsaid he supported the Bill. The hon. Member who last-spoke talked about certain parts of London paying the rate and the riparian owners only deriving the benefit from it; but the river belonged to the whole of London and all its inhabitants enjoyed the advantages of the steamship service. It was discreditable to London that the Thames should be without steam boats for passengers, and such a service would be a relief to street traffic, and a great convenience to all the inhabitants of London.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 156 Noes, 70. (Division List No. 132.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Denny, Colonel

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

    Devlin Charles Ramsay (Galway

    Allen, Charles P.

    Cawley, Frederick

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets

    Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J. A (Worc.

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Charrington, Spencer

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Edwards, Frank

    Blake, Edward

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

    Elibank, Master of

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Emmott, Alfred

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex

    Cremer, William Randal

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

    Brigg, John

    Crooks, William

    Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r

    Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow;

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Cullinan, J.

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Caldwell, James

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Gardner, Ernest

    Cameron, Robert

    Davenport, William Bromley-

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Spear, John Ward

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

    Spencer, RtHn. C.R. (Northants

    Grant, Corrie

    Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Mount, William Arthur

    Sullivan, Donal

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

    Hall, Edward Marshall

    Norman, Henry

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

    O'Malley, William

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

    Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

    Parker, Sir Gilbert

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

    Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.

    Parrott, William

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield Brightside

    Partington, Oswald

    Tomkinson, James

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Toulmin, George

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Randles, John S.

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Lambert, George

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Weir, James Galloway

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Roberts, John H (Denbigbs.)

    Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E (Taunton

    Leamy, Edmund

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

    Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.)

    Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareham

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

    Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Leng, Sir John

    Rose, Charles Day

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

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

    Lough, Thomas

    Runciman, Walter

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Lowther, Rt Hn J. W. (Cum. Penr

    Russell, T. W.

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Shackleton, David James

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Shaw, Chas Edw. (Stafford)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. John Burns and Mr. Charles Hobhouse.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

    Slack, John Bamford

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North),

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    NOES

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

    Flannery, Sir Forteseue

    Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Forster, Henry William

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W.

    Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Staly bridge)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Gretton, John

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

    Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Bignold, Arthur

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

    Brassey, Albert

    Hunt, Rowland

    Stroyan, John

    Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Talbot, Lora E. (Chichester)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Tuff, Charles

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

    Valentia, Visconnt

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Keswick, William

    Webb, Colonel William George

    Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

    Lawson John Grant (Yorks, N. R

    Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks.)

    Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

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

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lonsdale, John BrownJee

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Dyke, Rt Hon. Sir William Hart

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES, Mr. Ernest Gray and Mr. Fitzroy.

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Majendie, James A, H.

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Muntz, Sir Philip A.

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

    Main Question put, and agreed to.

    Bill, as amended, considered.
    A Clause (Purchase of piers and steamboats from the Thames Steamboat Company (1897))—
    704
    "The Council shall, before exercising any of the powers of this Act, purchase such of the piers and such of the steamboats of the Thames-Steamboat Company (1897), Limited, for such price and upon such terms and conditions as, failing agreement, shall be determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Board of Trade, and in such arbitration the price to be

    705
    paid shall be the value (exclusive of any allowance for past or future profits of the undertaking or any compensation for compulsory sale or other consideration whatsoever) of such steamboats, piers, landing-places, and other property of the Steamboat Company suitable to and heretofore used by them for the purpose of a steamboat service on the Thames."—(Mr. Ernest Gray.)
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.
    Bill to be read the third time.

SUPPLY [11TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
*Mr. C. R. SPENCERsaid he was sorry to interfere with the business of Supply, but he wished to call attention to the incident which occurred at the conclusion of the Morning Sitting, in order to ask the Chairman's ruling on the following point. He was in the Aye Lobby, accompanied by twenty-three other Members, twenty-four of them had passed the division clerks, and had had their names ticked off. Suddenly there was a call of there being no division. He confessed that he had hurriedly left the Chamber to go into the Lobby at twenty-eight minutes past seven. He wished to know whether those hon. Members who were called upon to stand up in their places took part in a division, or whether he did. He wished also to know whether his vote would appear in the division lists to-morrow as having taken part in a division, or whether he should be stigmatised as having frivolously and vexatiously claimed one.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member asked him whether he would appear as having taken part in a division which did not take place. [Cries of "No" and "Withdraw."] If the hon. Member had been in his place he would have known exactly what occurred, namely, that no division did take place. [Cries of "Why?"] If hon. Members would look at the Rule, they would find it was as follows—
"Mr. Speaker or the Chairman may, after the lapse of two minutes as indicated by the
706
sand-glass, if in his opinion the division is frivolously or vexatiously claimed, take the vote of the House or Committee by calling upon the Members who support and who challenge his decision successively to rise in their places, and he shall thereupon, as he thinks fit, either declare the determination of the House or Committee or name tellers for a division. And in case there is no division the Speaker or Chairman shall declare to the House or Committee the number of the minority who had challenged his decision, and their names shall be thereupon taken down in the House and printed with the lists of divisions."
The hon. Member was not in his place, he did not rise to challenge the decision, and therefore his name would not appear on the list.
MR. BRYCEsaid might he ask the Chairman to complete his ruling? What happened to Members who-were in the lobby expecting a division? Were there no means open to those Members of recording their opinion upon the Question which was put from the Chair?
*THE CHAIRMAN: I have read the Rule, and it makes no provision for this. This is not the first time the Rule has been put in force, and if hon. Members find themselves in the Lobby instead of being in the House—["Oh"]—I was asked a Question, and I tried to give an answer.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: May I ask—when you came to the conclusion that a division was challenged frivolously, there was only a small number of Members present at the time—whether you had informed yourself that a considerable body of Members, in accordance with the practice of the House, had gone to the Lobby?
*THE CHAIRMAN: I certainly came to the conclusion that the division was challenged vexatiously. If it had not been so I should not have put the Rule in force.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: There was only a small number of Members in the House.
*THE CHAIRMAN: My decision was based on the general course of the debate and the action taken by the hon. Member who challenged a division and who moved the reduction.
MR. EMMOTT: May I ask whether the names of the hon. Members who stood up were taken down, and, if so

707
may I ask that my name should be added to them, because I was in the Lobby and passed the teller?
*THE CHAIRMAN: I would really ask the hon. Member to look again at the Rules. He cannot ask to have his name put down when he did not rise in his place. The names of the hon. Members who rose in their places were taken down, and will appear to-morrow in due course.
MR. EMMOTT: May I ask whether we were out of order in going into the Lobby? This is a serious matter. We should not go into the Lobby at all if our votes are not to be counted.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I will not undertake to say that the hon. Member is out of order in going into the Lobby. The old Rule of the House was that no Member could vote until he heard the Question put from the Chair, but for the general convenience of Members that was found impossible.
MR. EMMOTT: May I make an appeal to the Prime Minister?
*THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I have to administer the Rules of the House. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to alter them he must take the ordinary procedure.
MR. CALDWELL: Are we to understand that it is our duty to remain in the House until the Question is put a second time?
*THE CHAIRMAN: May I point out that this procedure only takes place when a division is vexatiously and frivolously challenged?
MR. WHITLEY: May I ask whether an appeal was made to you that the Members who were in the Lobby should be permitted to come in and stand up in their places and register their votes?
*THE CHAIRMAN: The Clerk at the Table has no means of sending out information to Members in the Lobby. The Rule says that Members must rise in their places.
MR. DALZIEL: said that in view of the importance
708
of this question might he ask whether the ruling was that twenty-five Members whose names were taken in the Division Lobby, many of whom challenged the Question on the first occasion, and the fifteen Members who rose in their places on the second occasion were to be considered guilty by the ruling of having challenged the division vexatiously and frivolously.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I wish to pass no reflection on the hon. Members who went into the Division Lobby. I do not know what their intention was. The opinion I came to was that the division was vexatiously claimed. It is for me, and not for hon. Members, to give the decision. It is an unfortunate position in which I [am placed, but the Rules impose upon me the duty of coming to a determination. I came to that determination in this particular instance. That being so, it only rested with me to put the Rule in force. I have no dispensing power with regard to the Rules. I am as much bound by them as anybody else.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I wish to ask whether there is any precedent for the action which was taken this evening, the Chairman not having been fortified by a previous division that the minority did not amount to forty. I wish to know how you, Sir, made up your mind as to the extent of the opposition. I have in my mind many instances where such action was taken, but it was always taken after repeated divisions which showed that the minority did not amount to forty Members. I ask you. Sir, respectfully, whether there is any precedent for the action you have taken, no division having been held.
*THE CHAIRMAN: There is nothing whatever in the Rule with reference to previous divisions, or that the Speaker or Chairman must be guided by previous divisions, in coming to a conclusion as to whether a division is vexatiously or frivolously claimed. I used the best of my judgment, and came to the conclusion I did.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is there any precedent for the action which was taken this evening, a previous division not having been taken?
*THE CHAIRMAN: I have said there is nothing in the Rule with regard to! previous divisions; but as the hon. Member asked for a precedent I will give him the precedent of the 22nd April of this year, when the same course was taken without a previous division.
*MR. NORMAN: I wish to ask, on a point of order, as arising from your replies, whether; it is proper for the division clerks to tick-off the names of hon. Members as having taken part in a division when in fact no division was taken?
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has been some time in the House; but if he had been as long in the House as I unfortunately have been he would know that the division clerks tick off the names of hon. Members before the Question is put a second time; and that is for the convenience of Members themselves. When a division is "off" nothing happens as regards the names which have been ticked; and hon. Members are no worse off.
*MR. NORMAN: My point is that, as the result of your ruling, a new situation appears to have arisen.
*THE CHAIRMAN: There is no novelty in the situation. The pro-cceding is perfectly according to the Rule.
MR. KEARLEY: On a point of order, Sir, I wish to ask, Can you consider a division to be claimed in a frivolous manner irrespective of numbers?
*THE CHAIRMAN: I can only refer the hon. Member to the Rule. I may say again that I am as much bound by the Rule as the hon. Member himself; and if the hon. Member will kindly look at the Rule which I have read to the House he will see that there is nothing whatever in it about numbers. The Speaker or Chairman has to come to a conclusion as to whether a division is frivolously or vexatiously claimed or not.
MR. MACVEAGH: Is it within the power of the Chairman, even if fifty or a hundred Members challenge a division, to decide that that challenge: is vexatious?
*THE CHAIRMAN: The Rule says nothing about numbers. The hon. Member had better wait until such an occasion arises.
MR. MACVEAGH: It has arisen to-night.

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1904–5. Class II.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £146, 461, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments, including a Grant in Aid."
*MR. WEIRsaid he wished to call attention to the question of light railways in the Highlands of Scotland. The predecessor of the President of the Board of Trade stated that special consideration would be given to the Highlands. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence with the Treasury to give effect to that undertaking. There were many districts in the Highlands in which neither dukes nor millionaires were interested, which ready required assistance. Light railways would be of enormous advantage to the fishing population; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the matter his earnest consideration; otherwise all the money which had been spent on surveys and other preliminaries would be lost. There was another matter. This House granted a large sum for the construction of a breakwater at Mallaig in connection with the extension of the railway; he wished to know why the Department had not stirred up the North British Railway Company to complete the work. The breakwater was extremely dangerous; surely it was within the province of the Board of Trade to take action. Twelve months was long enough in which to inquire into the matter: and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not allow another twelve months to elapse before taking action. The North British Railway Company did not carry out the work for which they had received a subsidy.

711
He would urge on the Board of Trade to bring pressure to bear on the railway companies in order to secure a uniform set of by-laws on all the railways throughout the kingdom. It was very confusing to have different by-laws on different lines. He knew railway directors had great influence in this House; but the President of the Board of Trade ought to be head and shoulders over all the railway directors in the country. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to take action. Then, as to overcrowding in railway carriages, it was no uncommon thing, especially in lines in the vicinity of Loudon, to see first-class carriages overcrowded with passengers irrespective of what fares they had paid. He had frequently counted as many as eighteen passengers in one compartment. That ought not to be allowed, and the President of the Board of Trade was responsible. He wished to know what action the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take. The right hon. Gentleman said on a previous occasion that the attention of the railway companies would be drawn to it; but what did the railway companies care about overcrowding? They cared only about dividends. This question of overcrowding had been dealt with by the Viceroy of India in connection with Indian railways, and he could not understand why the President of the Board of Trade could not deal with it here. At any rate he would continue to call attention to it until he received some satisfaction. Every year the railway companies were displaying a greater amount of arrogance. If a third-class passenger was found in a first or second-class carriage he was pulled out by the collar. That was an unseemly state of affairs, and ought not to be permitted. He felt some delicacy in attacking the President of the Board of Trade because he had a very small salary; unfortunately he would be out of order in moving that it be increased. The right hon. Gentleman, however, accepted the position and received all the honour and glory attaching to it, and he must take the cuffs and kicks if he did not do his duty. He himself considered the Board of Trade had miserably failed to put a stop to overcrowding. Every year it got worse. As for himself, when railway companies
712
found, as they appeared to be able to find, that he was a Member of this House, they sent him most courteous replies to his communications; but he was shocked at the manner in which the public was treated by the companies. He should like to know what precaution the Board of Trade were taking to prevent a disaster such as happened at Paris a year ago. What precautions were the Board taking to protect people travelling on the tube railways nearly one hundred feet beneath the surface. He trusted before the new lines were opened that the President of the Board of Trade would take care that the carriages were fireproof, and that the public safety would be insured. He, himself, would sooner walk than travel by a tube railway seventy or eighty feet below the surface, where he would have no possible chance of escape in the event of an accident. When he remembered the Paris disaster he thought it was time that they should cry "Halt." The Board of Trade had a large staff of inspectors, and the right hon. Gentleman should see that the safety of of the public was secured.
With reference to the steamers plying to the Western Highlands, he wished to know if they were inspected every year. Some of them were tubs fifty or sixty years old, and they had to traverse the stormy Northern seas exposed in many parts to the Atlantic. Were their boilers and engines examined yearly? This last point referred to the North British Railway Company. Only that morning he had been looking at the casualties on that railway; and he thought that the President of the Board of Trade ought, in the interests of the public, to require the enforcement of the rule forbidding a railway company to employ men for thirteen or fourteen hours a day. The public were exposed to serious danger through the long hours of railway employees.
And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.