Lords Sitting of 20 July 1900

The Earl of Strafford sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—
South Wales Electrical Power Distribution.
And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—
London (Marylebone) Provisional Order.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

EXMOUTH URBAN DISTRICT WATER BILL [H.L.]
  GWYRFAI RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  EAST LONDON WATER BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
  The Queen's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  BLACKPOOL, ST. ANNE'S, AND LYTHAM TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments.
  WANDSWORTH AND PUTNEY GAS BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  ABERDEEN POLICE AND IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
  EXETER CORPORATION BILL.
    KINGSCOURT, READY, AND ARMAGH RAILWAY BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments.
    GREAT INDIAN PENINSULA RAILWAY COMPANY BILL.
    Reported, without amendment.
  DURHAM (COUNTY OF) ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL.
    LANCASHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
    Moved, That the Order made on the 12th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 26th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a; agreed to; and Bills read 2a accordingly.
    MIDLAND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY OF IRELAND BILL [H.L.]
    Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
    DEARNE VALLEY RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  GLYNCORRWG URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL GAS BILL [H.L.]
    LONDON SEA WATER SUPPLY BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
    WHITECHAPEL AND BOW RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN AND WATERFORD, LIMERICK, AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANIES AMALGAMATION BILL [H.L.]
    GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN AND WATERFORD AND CENTRAL IRELAND RAILWAY COMPANIES AMALGAMATION BILL [H.L.]
    Reported from the Joint Committee, with Amendments.
GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN AND WATERFORD, LIMERICK, AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANIES AMALGAMATION BILL [H.L.]
  MIDLAND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY OF IRELAND BILL [H.L.]
    GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN AND WATERFORD AND CENTRAL IRELAND RAILWAY COMPANIES AMALGAMATION BILL [H.L.]
    Report from the Joint Committee (with the proceedings of the Committee) made, and to be printed. (No. 196.)
  EDINBURGH (HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES) IMPROVEMENT SCHEME PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. (No. 201.)
    PAISLEY WATERWORKS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. (No. 202.)
    Brought from the Commons, read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
  LONDON (ST. LUKE) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    LONDON (SOUTHWARK) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    House in Committee (according to Order); Bills reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) (No. 2) BILL.
    Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
    GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]
    Commons Amendments considered (according to Order), and agreed to.
  DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
    CLONTARF URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
    Report from the Joint Committee that the said Bills ought to be allowed to proceed; the proceedings of the Select Committee laid upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 204.)
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1890.
  Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a light railway in the counties of Devon and Cornwall from Bere Alston Station to Calstock, and the working of a portion of the East Cornwall Mineral Railway as a light railway.
  CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
  Forty fourth Report of Her Majesty's Civil Service Commissioners; with Appendix.
  PUBLIC RECORDS (IRELAND).
  Thirty second Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Records.
  AGRARIAN OUTRAGES (IRELAND).
  Return for the quarter ended 30th June, 1900.

  TRADE REPORTS —ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 2479. Argentine Republic (Agricultural and commercial condition).

  No. 2480. Argentine Republic (Buenos Ayres).

  No. 2481. Chile.

  No. 2482. Greece (Finances).

  No. 2483. Austria-Hungary.

  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION ACT, 1889.
  Minute by the Board of Education: sanctioning the subjects to be taught under Clause 8 of the Act, for the county of Middlesex (fifth minute). Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  RAILWAYS (PREVENTION OF ACCIDENTS) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  INEBRIATES AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with an Amendment; the said Amendment to be printed, and to be considered on Tuesday next. (No. 194.)
  COUNTY COURTS (INVESTMENT OF DEPOSITS) BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments to be printed. (No. 195.)
  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next (The Lord Privy Seal [V. Cross.]) (No. 197.)
  LUNACY BOARD (SCOTLAND) SALARIES, ETC.) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next (The Lord Balfour). (No. 198.)
  OIL IN TOBACCO BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 199.)
  POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 200.)
  COUNTY AND BOROUGH FRANCHISE ASSIMILATION (LONDON) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 4:—
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): It is not quite certain to what burghs of barony and burghs of regality the Bill would apply, and the object of the Amendment standing in my name is to make it clear that it does not apply to any burghs which are not included in the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 4, page 1, line 24, to leave out from 'burgh of regality' to end of clause, and to insert' police burgh and any other burgh within the meaning of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, to which that Act applied from its commencement."'—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 5 to 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9:—
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This clause provides the method by which burghs may sue and be sued, and the Amendment standing in my name makes it possible to sue in other ways and not to force them back on this clause. It is a matter of agreement, and I do not think there will be any opposition.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 9, page 3, line 36, to leave out 'shall' and to insert 'may.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 10 to 12 agreed to.
  Clause 13:—
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This clause deals with the reasons which may disqualify a man from retaining his seat as a councillor. Sub-section (a) provides that a person shall not be disqualified by reason only of his having any share or interest in any lease, feu, sale, or purchase of land, or any agreement for the same. Some of the Scottish burghs have large property which is known as the Common Good, and owing to the absence of a disqualification such as this in the early days of the century a good deal of the property of the burgh was made use of. I think it is better that those words should not remain in the clause, and that if a man has a lease of land from the burgh it should disqualify him for a seat.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 13, page 5, line 20, to leave out Sub-section (a)."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 14:—
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I have thought it better to delete the greater portion of this clause, and to substitute words which, in the opinion of my Department, are clearer and preferable as a matter of drafting, rather than attempt to amend the clause as it stands. I do not think there will be any opposition to the Amendment, which gives burgh councils more power to declare as to the way in which a seat shall be vacated.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 14, page 5, line 38, to leave out from end of line to end of clause, and to insert 'until (1) he voluntarily resigns; or (2) his disqualification has been determined by an election court under and within the meaning of the Elections (Scotland) (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1890, on a petition presented within the time specified by said Act, by the town council or by any four or more electors, or, in the case of disqualification alleged to exist at the time of nomination or election, by any candidate opposing him at the election, provided that the last-mentioned Act shall be held to apply to the said petition and procedure thereon, provided that in the case of any continuing disqualification it shall be competent to present such petition at any time while the disqualification subsists; and provided also that if in the opinion of the election court any disqualified person has in the knowledge of his disqualification made an oath or declaration de fideli, or taken his seat in the town council, it shall he in the power of the Court to impose on him a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, which fine shall be paid to the town council, and applied in such manner as they may direct; or (3) a resolution declaring his office vacant has been passed by the town council at a meeting of which notice shall be given to the councillor in question and to the other councillors of the burgh at least three days before the date of such meeting; provided that the said councillor shall be entitled to appeal against any such resolution by lodging a note of appeal within fourteen days after the date of such resolution in manner provided by Section 339 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892; and provided, further, that no such appeal shall entitle the said councillor to vote and act as a councillor while the same is pending."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 15 to 22 agreed to.
  Clause 23:—
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend the Marquess of Huntly, the object of which is to place persons who are ratepayers within Royal burghs on exactly the same footing as ratepayers who reside within police burghs.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 23, page 8, line 10, after 'another' to insert 'or their residing more than seven miles beyond some part of the municipal boundary.'"—(The Earl of Camper-down.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am prepared to accept this Amendment. It is an entirely proper one, and does not in any way touch the Parliamentary franchise. It gets rid of an anomaly which has caused a great deal of hardship, and I accept it on the condition that if it is objected to in another place—I hope it will not be, but it is quite possible—in such a way as to imperil the Bill, I shall not be considered bound to stand by it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 24 to 35 agreed to.
  Clause 36:—
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This clause deals with casual vacancies. It is the custom in Scotland for casual vacancies in town councils to be filled up by co-optation, but it is thought that when they occur at the beginning of the municipal year, immediately after an election has taken place, they should be filled by a new election. The Amendment standing in my name gives power for such a procedure to be adopted.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 36, page 12, line 18, at end of clause to insert 'provided that any vacancy so occurring may, if the town council so resolve, be filled up ad interim as soon as may he by a special election by the electors, and such election shall be held as nearly as may be under the provisions of this Act, and the returning officer at such election shall, subject to the approval of the town council, fix the date of the election, and shall fix the dates for the issue of all necessary notices and for lodging and withdrawing nomination papers, so that the intervals between such respective dates shall be the same as in the case of ordinary elections under this Act.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 37 to 60 agreed to.
  Clause 61: —
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This clause provides that in the event of the provost being prevented at any time from fulfilling, or failing to fulfil, any of the duties of his office on account of illness, absence from home, or from attendance at any meeting or any other cause, such duty shall be performed by the senior bailie. The clause as it stands is, however, too wide, as it would put the senior bailie on all the committees and trusts of which the provost is a member. The object of my Amendments is to limit the business for which the senior bailie should act in the absence of the provost simply to municipal affairs.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 61, page 17, line 31, after 'office' to insert' under this Act or the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 62 to 87, agreed to.
  Clause 88:—
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This clause deals with the ease of an official of a burgh who has made away with the funds, and provides that the deficiency shall be charged against the particular rate to which the funds belong, which are the matter of his misconduct. It is obviously a right clause.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 88, page 24, line 25, after 'levied' to insert 'or funds managed.'"— (Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 88, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 89 to 101 agreed to.
  Clause 102:—
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I propose to add a proviso to this clause
  594
  for the sake of making sure that we are preserving the existing law in certain burghs whose council have the power of appointing one of their number as dean of guild.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 102, page 29, line 10, at end of clause to insert 'and in any burgh where under the existing' law it has been the custom of the town council to appoint a councillor to perform the duties and functions formerly performed by the dean of guild in such council, or in any dean of guild court of such burgh, the council may continue to make such an appointment, and the whole provisions of this Act relating to the appointment, tenure, vacating office, and supply of vacancies applicable to a bailie shall be applicable to the councillor so appointed.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 102, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 103 to 108 agreed to.
  Clause 109 amended, and agreed to.
  Clauses 110 to 115 agreed to.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I now move a new clause to make sure that the rights of counties in certain properties which they have, such as waterworks and the like, shall not be affected by this Bill. I am myself not quite clear that the clause is required, but two or three of the counties in Scotland have made representations that unless this clause is inserted they will run the risk of being deprived of their property, and on the whole I think it is wise to insert the clause.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert as a new clause, 'Nothing in this Act contained shall affect the rights, powers, or authorities of any county council or district committee of a county council or local authority of a county or a district of a county under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897; or prejudice the provisions of Sub-sections 1 and 2 of Section 81 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, as amended by Section 44 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  New Clause agreed to.
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 203.)

  INDIAN EXPENDITURE—REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on Indian Expenditure; to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to accept the recommendations of the Commission; and to move for copies of any correspondence between the Secretary of State for India in Council and the Treasury on the subject. The terms of reference to the Royal Commission were that they were to inquire into the administration and management of the military and civil expenditure incurred under the authority of the Secretary of State for India in Council, or of the Government of India, and the apportionment of charge between the Governments of the United Kingdom and of India for purposes in which both are interested. I, however, propose to confine my remarks to-day to the second head of the order of reference—namely, the apportionment of charge between the two Governments, and of that apportionment almost entirely to the charge on account of Her Majesty's forces serving in India. The history of this question is rather a sad one. For twenty-five years successive Governors General of India in Council and successive Secretaries of State for India in Council have protested against what they considered to be the excessive charge which has been put upon the revenues of India on account of Her Majesty's forces serving in that country, but with little or no result. They protested against these charges under two heads—firstly, on the pure arithmetical calculations upon which the charges were founded; and, secondly, on the ground that certain equitable considerations which ought to have been taken into account in settling how much India ought to pay had not been so taken into account. Twenty years ago I was asked to preside over a small Commission to inquire into the subject. I had the assistance of two able and distinguished public servants—Sir Thomas Seccombe, of the India Office, and Sir Ralph Knox, of the War Office—and the Government, in appointing that Commission, undoubtedly intended, judging from the words Mr. Stanhope used in the House of Commons, that we should settle the whole of this vexed question, after sitting ten years we determined
  596
  unanimously what the charge to be paid by India should be on the arithmetical basis, and the result of our work was a reduction of the charges against India of £1,000,000 sterling. We then approached the question of the equitable considerations, and requested that we should know what was the opinion of the Government of India on the subject. We asked the noble Viscount the present Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cross), who was then Secretary of State for India, to confer with India, and in March, 1890, my noble friend the Marquess of Lansdowne, who was then Governor General, sent an elaborate despatch home giving in full the opinions of the Government of India in respect to the equitable considerations which should be taken into account by the English Government in fixing these charges. I may mention, as somewhat important, that Lord Roberts was then Commander-in-Chief in India, and therefore the opinion of the Government of India came fortified by the opinion also of Lord Roberts, than whom no man is more capable of giving an opinion upon the question. That despatch was not communicated to the Commission over which I presided till the autumn of 1891, more than twelve months after its receipt in this country, and then it was sent accompanied by two letters—one from the Secretary of State for War stating that, although not objecting to the despatch being sent us for consideration, he was not prepared to accept our opinion upon the matter; and the other from the Treasury, stating that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was also not prepared to accept any opinion which the Commission might express on this despatch. That, of course, put any consideration by us of the equitable claims of India out of the question. I declined to proceed with the matter, and so far as my Commission was concerned the matter dropped. I had some communication at that time with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Goschen, and I suggested that a different kind of body should be formed to take these matters into consideration. There was, however, as your Lordships know, a change of Government in 1892, and nothing was done till 1895, when Sir Henry Fowler, then Secretary of State for India, appointed the Commission to the Report of which I now beg to call your Lordships' attention. That is the history of this question. I think it is

  597
  unfortunate that Sir Henry Fowler, in appointing the Commission, overweighted it by adding the obligation to inquire into the whole question of Indian expenditure. They had to go into very minute statistics from the year 1860, and it is no wonder that they were two years taking evidence and throe years more making their Report. My noble friend Lord Welby has been blamed for the length of time which the Commission took in making their Report; but it must be remembered that they had to master all the details of the financial machinery of the Government of India in England and India, as well as the progress of expenditure during the last forty years. I now come to the Report of the Commission. There was a Report signed by a minority of three—Sir William Wedderburn, Bart., Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji, and Mr. W. S. Caine, which I have read with attention; but I will confine myself to the Report of the majority, and it is interesting to consider of whom the ten members composing it consisted. The Chairman, Lord Welby, is well known to your Lordships as having for a great many years occupied with great ability and distinction the office of Permanent Secretary of the Treasury, and has been rightly placed in the position he now occupies in your Lordships' House in consequence of that distinguished service. The next member was Mr. Leonard H. Courtney, who, as your Lordships know, was a very able and distinguished Secretary of the Treasury. The next was Mr. W. L. Jackson, who was also a very distinguished Secretary of the Treasury. The majority also included Sir E. W. Hamilton, at present a very high Treasury official; Sir Ralph Knox, Under Secretary for War; Sir James Peile, a distinguished member of the Indian Council; Sir Andrew Scoble, who was also connected with India; Mr. G. L. Ryder, a gentleman holding high office in the Treasury; and Mr. Buchanan and Mr. (now Sir) Robert Mowbray, two independent Members of Parliament. Your Lordships will see that no less than five out of the ten members who signed the Report of the Majority were either actually serving or had served in the Treasury; one was actually serving in the War Office; only two had any connection with India, and there were two independent Members of Parliament. It is to be noted that two members of the
  598
  Commission, Sir Ralph Knox and Mr. Ryder, prepared the case of the War Office in answer to that which was laid before the Commission on the part of the Secretary of State for India in Council. Although the constitution of the Commission might be taken exception to on behalf of India, I take no such exception. I am perfectly satisfied with the impartiality and ability of those who served; but at any rate the English Government cannot say that there was any bias in favour of India in the composition of the Majority. Moreover, the two independent members of the Commission—Mr. Buchanan and Sir Robert Mowbray—made additional Reports, which were more favourable to India than the Report of the Majority. The main recommendations of the Report were, first, a plan for settling any questions which might in future arise as to the charge for troops, English or Indian, lent by either Government to the other. I will not go into the details of that plan, but it seem to me to be a very reasonable one, and likely to prevent the recurrence of those unfortunate disputes which have taken place between the two Governments on former occasions. There is, however, one difficulty in regard to this. It is easy enough to lay down certain cases in which there could be no direct and substantial interest to India on the one hand, or to this country on the other; but when it comes to be a question of doubt the point is, who is to decide the question? The noble Viscount opposite, Viscount Cross, when he was Secretary for India, and Sir Henry Fowler, when he held a similar position, came to the conclusion that the decision might be left to the two Governments respectively. But other high authorities, including, I believe, the noble Marquess the Prime Minister, think this would not be a proper arrangement. The second recommendation was a plan for settling smaller matters of dispute by arbitration before some judicial authority who would decide after hearing both sides. I am not particular as to what arrangement is made. What I do hope is that some plan based upon these two recommendations of the Commission will be accepted by the Government in order that these disputes may be put an end to. Your Lordships must know how unfortunate it has been that educated natives in India, who are studying these questions, should

  599
  find that the Governors General, the Secretaries of State, and other high authorities have constantly asserted that India has been treated unjustly in these matters, and that no reasonable answer can be produced on the other side. The third recommendation of the Commission was that the arithmetical arrangement which was settled by the Commission over which I presided—£7 10s. per effective man—should be maintained. I trust that this will be accepted by the Government. The fourth subject is the equitable pleas raised on behalf of India, and these mainly depend on Lord Lansdowne's despatch of 25th March, 1890, to which I have referred. The summary of that despatch, given in Lord Lansdowne's evidence before the Commission, was that—
  "Indian foreign policy is really determined by Imperial rather than by Indian considerations."
  and—
  "The Indian Army serves for Imperial as well as for Indian purposes."
  As regards the first plea what better authority can there be than that of Lord Lansdowne in his despatch, which is signed also by Lord Roberts? He said—
  "Millions of money have been spent on increasing the Army of India, on armaments and fortifications, to provide for the security of India, not against domestic enemies, or to prevent the incursions of the warlike people of adjoining countries, but to maintain the supremacy of British power in the East. The scope of all these great and costly measures reaches far beyond Indian limits, and the policy which dictates them is an Imperial policy. We claim, therefore, that in the maintenance of the British forces in this country a just and even liberal view should be taken of the charges which should legitimately be made against Indian revenues."
  That opinion, given on the authority of Lord Lansdowne and his Council, of which Lord Roberts was a member, seems to me to settle that matter, and I do not find in the Report of the Commission any sufficient answer to this plea. The second plea—namely, that the Indian Army serves for Imperial as well as for Indian purposes—it is hardly necessary to argue in view of the fact that Indian forces are now engaged in South Africa and in China. I hear that the Secretary of State for India stated to-day in another place that 20,000 men in all have left India either for the Cape of Good Hope or for China. The
  600
  Commission suggested that these two-pleas should be considered when the capitation rate is revised, but they recommended in the meantime an immediate and substantial relief to the revenues of India of about £300,000 a year. Speaking for myself, I wish that the question could have been finally settled, but I think those who have been urging the question may be content by seeing their main arguments accepted. For my part I am quite ready to accept the Report of the Commission as I should any other arbitration, but with the reservation that India should receive proper consideration for the great delay in the settlement of her claims. I believe that in arbitrations the date for the payment of the award is usually fixed in regard to the date at which the matter in dispute could have been settled if both parties had exercised reasonable diligence in bringing; forward their cases—no one can say that India has been in default in this respect. But the Treasury had Lord, Lansdowne's despatch stating India's case before them in 1890, and the question might have been settled in 1893. Now it cannot be settled before 1901, and therefore I contend that the award, on all equitable principles, should take effect from 1893. I do not think it is too much to ask that eight years arrears of this £300,000 should be paid. It is a mere trifle. Those eight years of arrears amount to £2,400,000, and if £2,400,000 of the Indian debt was taken over by this country it would only create a. charge of about £66,000 a year upon the British Exchequer. I hope Her Majesty's Government may be able to give your Lordships' House an assurance that at last equitable treatment will be given to India in this long-standing controversy, and that it will be announced at once. The condition of the finances of India must be very serious owing to the famine, and if some such treatment as I have suggested is carried out by the Government I feel sure that it will be exceedingly well received in India.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for copies of any correspondence between the Secretary of State for India in Council and the Treasury on the subject of the Report of the Royal Commission on Indian Expenditure."—(The Earl of Northbrook.)
  LORD WELBY: My Lords, I am very glad indeed that this question should have fallen into the hands of my noble friend, for not only has it fallen into the hands of a noble Lord whose authority on Indian matters is second to none, but, if I may say so without presumption, it has fallen into the hands of one whose government of India is marked as a model of prudent and wise financial administration. I am pleased to hear my noble friend support the recommendations of the Commission. I feel that the fact that Lord Northbrook endorses and supports those recommendations will have great weight with Her Majesty's Government. The Commission over which I had the honour to preside, like most Commissions, was not unanimous, but I think I can show your Lordships that on the practical points which are now under consideration the Commission was unanimous. It is often the case that in questions connected with the immense Empire of India, men who take a keen interest in the claims and in the needs of India sometimes forget the claims of the British taxpayer. The opinions of these gentlemen are entitled to every consideration, but for practical purposes we must endeavour to hold a just balance between the claims of the Indian taxpayer and the claims of the British taxpayer. The minority of the Commission, so far as the recommendations go to which Lord Northbrook has alluded, far from differing from them, endorsed them, their only complaint being that they did not go far enough. Therefore, I think I may venture to say that, in regard to these particular recommendations, the Commissioners were unanimous. The noble Lord has alluded to the somewhat wide scope of the terms of reference to the Commission, and I venture to trouble your Lordships with one or two remarks upon that point. It is a matter of great interest to Parliament to know that on an independent inquiry a favourable verdict has been given upon the financial administration of the Indian Empire during the period since it came under the direct control of Her Majesty. That period divides itself into two parts. There is, first of all, the period from 1861, the time when financial equilibrium was restored, to 1884. Before that time the taxes of India were largely increased to meet the demands of the Mutiny, but at the end of that period I think it may be said that they had fallen to the level of the taxes before the
  602
  Mutiny broke out. That was the result of remarkable economy both in regard to civil and military administration. The history of financial administration in India between 1861 and 1884 was very remarkable, and is paralleled in very few countries in the world. I now come to the second period—that from 1884 to 1896. I stop at 1896 on account of the famine that followed. From 1884 to 1896, owing to the fall in exchange and the demands for military expenditure, the taxation which had been remitted was reimposed. It should, however, be mentioned that, but for the fall in exchange, the natural growth of the Indian revenue was so satisfactory that after the increased demands for military expenditure had been met there would have been left a considerable surplus applicable to the reduction of debt. In following out this review the Commissioners were struck by the satisfactory natural growth of revenue, showing, on the whole, a healthy state of things in the Empire; but it appeared to us that the increase was not more that might naturally be expected in the case of a growing Empire. I come next to the most important question of debt. The debt of India at the close of the Mutiny was what is called an unproductive debt. In the interval between the Mutiny and the date to which I have carried the review—namely, 1896—not only did the growth of that unproductive debt entirely cease—a great contrast to the closing twenty years of the administration of the East India Company, when the debt increased by leaps and bounds—but before 1896 that debt had been reduced by 25 per cent., although in the interval expenditure of no less, than £23,000,000 had been incurred in war and in those famine demands which are, in a sense, unproductive. Therefore, I submit that the result of the financial administration of India since India passed under the direct control of Her Majesty is such as should give satisfaction to Parliament. Further than that, the Indian Government class certain of their services under the head of commercial services which do earn a revenue. On each of these heads the Commission was able to report that the result was fairly satisfactory. The Post Office and the Telegraph have both become paying branches, and when we came to the large expenditure on irrigation we were able to report that that very

  603
  large system of works, which is of immense importance to India at all times, does not impose any charge whatever on the Indian taxpayers. Passing on to the railways, I think the result is very remarkable. Although the manner in which the accounts are drawn does not show the figures favourably for a commercial result, the Commission found that, if the cost of military lines and lines simply made for famine protection, which ought to be carried to a separate account, were deducted, the commercial railways of India were paying their way, and that the Indian people had the benefit of them without a farthing of burden being placed on the present taxpayers. The Commission came to the conclusion that the financial machinery was sound, well organised, and effectively controlled. The Commission, as my noble friend informed your Lordships, did not come to its inquiry with any foregone conclusion in favour of India. It was composed largely of officials, and officials are conscious of one another's infirmities. The Report of the Commission deserves weight because it is unbiassed and unprejudiced. During the forty years that India has been under the rule of Her Majesty, her financial administration has been entrusted to faithful stewards. The system under which the finances of India are administered is sound, and one in which the Parliament may fairly have confidence. We ventured to call the attention of Her Majesty to two points: one of them was the large growth of the non-effective service. The Commission, however, pronounced no opinion upon it, knowing well that in the case of a tropical climate the non-effective service must naturally be heavy; but the growth of this service did strike us as serious, and we considered that the Indian Government ought to subject the regulations relating to that service to careful actuarial examination, so that the public might be assured that there was no extravagance. I hope the recommendations of the Commission, so far as they come from the majority, will have the favourable attention of Her Majesty's Government. I go considerably further in one respect. I do not think the audit system of India will over be complete or perfect until the independence of the Comptroller and Auditor General is completely established. The chief desire of the Commission was to remove all plausible, or perhaps even good, grounds for complaint on the part
  604
  of India. On one point we were met by the fact that the Imperial Government pays, without asking any return from the Colonies, the whole cost of the Colonial Office. I do not think the India Office is on all fours with the Colonial Office, but I think the India Office can fairly consider that they are not treated the same as the Colonies if not a farthing is contributed by the Imperial Exchequer to the cost of the India Office. I think it is desirable to remove any such impression which should arise in the minds of the people. I need not enter at length into many of the other points. I think we were justified in recommending that the Imperial Government should pay half the cost of the garrison of Aden. If ever the Empire was organised as a whole, Aden would be an Imperial fortress to which the whole Empire would contribute. That being the case, it is only right that half the military charge of Aden should be borne by the Imperial Exchequer'. In regard to one point we entered upon a rather adventurous course. We put ourselves up to be criticised by attempting to suggest geographical limits within which India might have a separate and distinct interest in military expeditions, and the Commission deserve a certain amount of credit for their boldness if for nothing else. I think a very great end will be gained, and every reason will be given for India to be satisfied, if it is provided that the Imperial Government will not impose a contribution on India except with the assent of India, or until the previous assent of Parliament had been obtained. There is one other subject to which I, as an old Treasury official, attach the greatest importance—namely, that of putting an end to administrative disputes. I know of no other method by which they can be put an end to except by the appointment of an unbiassed and unprejudiced man, in whom both parties have confidence — a man of judicial rank —who should hear both sides and give a decision which should be final. I think both parties would accept that decision, and it would have this further advantage, that the two parties would agree without going to arbitration unless they had a very good case. Although the recommendations of the Commission fall short in many respects of the desires of the Indian Government, and certainly of the people of India, their adoption would go far to remove just grounds of

  605
  complaint, and grants such as are recommended, which are based upon reasons and are in their nature to a great extent permanent, would be of greater value than those occasional and spasmodic grants which Her Majesty's Government are asked to make in cases of pressure.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The noble Lord who has just sat down commenced his observations by expressing his gratification that this subject has fallen into the hands of the noble Earl who called attention to it, and who has had so very wide an experience of the administration of Indian affairs. I wish to associate myself entirely with the noble Lord in those remarks, and I would even go further and say that it appears to me that the evidence which was given by the noble Earl before the Commission, has led to perhaps the most valuable part of the Report which your Lordships are now considering. The noble Lord expressed the hope that Her Majesty's Government would accept the Report as the decision of a competent and a judicial tribunal. So far at any rate as that part of it is concerned which deals with the history of the finances and the administration of India, I have no complaints whatever to make, and I certainly am prepared to accept entirely the opinions which they arrived at. The Commission also expressed their opinion that the general administration of India is not expensive —that law and justice in India are self-supporting, and that the non-effective expenditure upon pensions and upon furlough pay, etc., is not excessive as compared with that upon Imperial and diplomatic services, and similar services rendered in our more important Crown Colonies. I think the Commission might even have gone further; they might have said that perhaps there is no country in the world, considering the vast extent of its area and of its population, which is as economically administered as is the Government of India. The noble Earl who moved the resolution complained that the reference to the Commission perhaps somewhat overweighted them. The noble Earl the Secretary of State for War a few years ago expressed to your Lordships his opinion that most Royal Commissions appointed in this country in their proceedings were guided with great care and with great deliberation. I certainly can-
  606
  not say that anything but the utmost care has been devoted by this Commission to the consideration of this Report. I think they took evidence for upwards of two years, and they were something like three years in considering what should be their Report. If it took that Commission five years to consider and report upon the reference which was submitted to them, I do not think your Lordships will think Her Majesty's Government wholly unreasonable if they say that they have not been able to consider the whole of that Report in all its bearings in the three years since it was presented. It has seemed to us, and I think the noble Earl will agree with me, that the most important point in the Report of that Commission is upon the question of the apportionment of charge between the Imperial Government and the Indian Government, and it is to that question that Her Majesty's Government have in the first place devoted their attention. They have not as yet carefully considered the suggestion which is made for the purpose of a reference to settle all questions of the payment for Indian troops when they are employed beyond the frontiers of India; they have not considered in detail the suggestion that a tribunal of arbitration should be established to consider questions of difference between the Government of India and the Imperial Government, and between the India Office, the War Office, the Treasury, and the other Departments of State with which the India Office are brought into communication. But all those matters are receiving very careful attention, and I will go thus far—I will say that I agree entirely with the noble Lord the chairman of the Commission that the publication and the knowledge which is brought to the people of India that there are going on in England disputes and discussions between the public offices is, as the noble Lord describes it, little short of a scandal. We in this country thoroughly understand what is the meaning of a dispute between two Departments of the Government—each Department is naturally doing the best for its own views and its own interests; but it does not commend itself in that light to the people of India. They are led away by the impression that the Imperial Government is trying to take an advantage and to deal illiberally with the people of India. That, I quite agree with the noble Lord, is something which we

  607
  ought to do all that we can to diminish if not to put an end to altogether. Now, my Lords, what are the points upon which these differences of opinion arise? They are, for the most part, in connection with those undertakings of the Imperial Government in which India is supposed to have, and I think has, an interest, whether it is direct and substantial or whether it is only a comparatively small interest—they are questions in which India undoubtedly is to some extent interested. For example, the noble Lord will recollect that the Government of India agrees to pay a contribution towards the expenditure on our consular and diplomatic service in China. It agrees to pay a contribution towards the consular and diplomatic service in Persia. It agrees to pay a subsidy towards the cable which runs from Zanzibar to Mauritius, and there are certain other small consular services to which the Government of India makes contribution. Those are the most frequent cases of friction between the Departments in this country, and I for one should have been more glad if the Commission could have seen their way to make some suggestion which would enable us to get rid altogether of these subjects of difference which are constantly arising between the Departments at home; and I cannot help hoping that when we are able to give full consideration to this Report we may see some way in which we may avoid these disputes in the future. Then the noble Earl drew your Lordships' attention to certain other charges which are laid upon the Government of India, and he expressed a hope that Her Majesty's Government might in every case refer those to arbitration. I think he suggested that it should be a judicial arbitration carried on by one of Her Majesty's judges. The noble Earl on the Woolsack may have something to say upon that. I am not sure whether he would be disposed to hold that the functions of the judges should be extended to such cases as that. But I may point out to your Lordships that, although we have not called in the services of any of Her Majesty's judges, we have called in the services of several very distinguished Members of this House and of the other House to consider and to arbitrate on differences which have arisen between the Departments. For example, the noble Earl the late Prime Minister, Lord Rose-
  608
  bery, took into consideration the question of the apportionment of the charge for Her Majesty's Navy in Indian waters, and he came to the conclusion that for ten years at least £117,000 was a proper contribution for India to make. The noble Earl the Chairman of Committees in this. House—who, although he is not a judge, has, I think all your Lordships will agree, a judicial mind—was good enough to consider what should be the amount that should be paid by the Indian Government towards the mail service between this country and India, and for at least five years that question has been removed from any possibility of conflict between the two authorities. Her Majesty's. Government are quite prepared to extend the principle of arbitration. I do not think that we could go quite as far as I understood the noble Earl to wish—namely, that there should be a permanent tribunal.
  LORD WELBY: I did not suggest that.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: As I understand, the noble Earl says he did not suggest that. At any rate I can say that the Government agree with the noble Earl in the desire to refer as far as-possible all the larger questions of dispute which may arise between the Imperial Government and the Government of India to competent arbitration. Then, my Lords, the noble Lord who presided over the Commission whose Report your Lordships are considering expressed his opinion—which is to be found in the Report of the minority, and which I know he holds very strongly—that it is desirable that the practice of auditing in India, should be assimilated to the practice of auditing in England. The recommendation was not one to which the noble Lord was able to secure the adherence of all his colleagues, and as it has not been put forward with the weight which would attach to the names of the majority of that Commission I cannot hold out any hope to him that Her Majesty's Government will give it very serious or very favourable consideration. I should, perhaps, point out to the noble Lord, though he is probably aware of it already, that in India the audit is carried on continuously;, the Comptroller and Auditor General's officials are in every department, they can check and disallow any item which in

  609
  their opinion ought not to be charged, it is recoverable immediately, and the charge comes home for the sanction of the Secretary of State in the course of a very short time; and, in addition to that, it is the practice in India to carry on a test audit, which I think the noble Lord himself admits in the Report is of very great value, and a test audit, as your Lordships know, is a practice which docs; not obtain in England.
  LORD WELBY: I think it does.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am content at any rate to rely upon the Report of the majority of the Commission that the sufficiency of the audit in India is not questioned by them, and that they consider it to be well organised and. efficient. The whole gist and sum, I may say, of the contentions of the Government of India to which the noble Earl has referred during the time when the noble Earl, now the Secretary of State for War, was Viceroy of India, was that India is entitled to liberal treatment at the hands of Her Majesty's Government and the Imperial Parliament—liberal treatment in the apportionment of the charges between the Governments; and I think I understood the noble Earl to say that in his opinion the capitation grant of £7 10s. is one to which he is not prepared to demur. I think his only point was that when the question of the capitation grant comes to be revised he would plead for liberal treatment for India at the hands of Her Majesty's Government. I have nothing to say in opposition to either of those propositions. My Lords, the resources of India are not small. India in the past has been a very wealthy community. Its people individually may be poor, but its revenues are large. The times have to a large extent altered, and at the present moment India is labouring under a series of calamities which enlist the sympathies not only of every member of your Lordships' House, but of everybody in this country and throughout the Empire. Her Majesty's Government are as much alive to this as any other members of the community, and I can assure the noble Earl and the noble Lord who presided over the Commission that Her Majesty's Government do intend to accept the recommendations of the noble Lord as regards the amount which, in their opinion, ought to be contributed by
  610
  the Imperial Government towards the revenues of India. That amount is, I think, £293,000, but the noble Lord will pardon me if I point out to him that his Commission made an error which somewhat vitiates those figures. They have in estimating half the cost of the maintenance of the establishments at Aden put it down at £108,000. Now the moiety, as a matter of fact, is Rx. 108,000. Well, the good old days when ton rupees were equal to a sovereign, unfortunately, are days that are bygone, and at the present rate of exchange the noble Lord will see that that Rx.108,000 ought to be £72,000, reducing the total amount which the noble Lord thought ought to be contributed by Imperial revenues to Indian revenues to £257,000. Now, my Lords, I am not prepared to pledge myself to the particular items and the particular heads under which the noble Lord wished that this contribution should be made. This I can say on the part of Her Majesty's Government, that they are willing to accept the recommendations of the noble Lord's Commission, and to give at least £250,000, and probably more, towards the relief of the revenues of India. I trust that this will meet with the approval of the noble Earl, and show him that Her Majesty's Government are desirous of meting out not only equitable treatment but liberal treatment to India, and if he will give us time I hope that we shall be able to go a long way towards meeting the other recommendations which have been so ably put forward by the Commission of which the noble Lord was the chairman.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I have no desire to keep the House whilst I make anything like a detailed examination of this very interesting Report. With regard to the large portion of it which relates to the past expenditure and management of finance in India I can only echo what has been said by others. I think it must be extremely satisfactory to all those connected with Indian affairs to see that a Commission composed largely of what I may call British Treasury experts have pronounced so complete an encomium on the management of the finance and expenditure of India. That I think is a very valuable thing to have effected. But, my Lords, I would rather to-night deal with some of the other parts of this Report. I admit

  611
  at once that I do not think it at all unreasonable that, after the Commission having taken five years to produce this Report, Her Majesty's Government should have a reasonable time to consider how they should act upon it. I never have taken, and I do not now by any means entirely take, the view that India has been unfairly treated by this country. It is very natural indeed, and very proper, that Viceroys who go out to India should espouse the cause of India in matters in dispute between them and the Imperial Government, but I confess I do not think that their arguments have always been sound, and such as could be really acted upon. I am sorry to see that the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War is not here to-night, because I wished to refer to that despatch which my noble friend who introduced the subject read to your Lordships. The whole gist of the important paragraph—the last one quoted in this Blue-book—is—
  "That millions of money have been spent on increasing the Army of India, on armaments and fortifications to provide for the security of India, not against domestic enemies or to prevent the incursions of the warlike people of the adjoining countries, but to maintain the supremacy of British power in the East. The scope of all these great and costly measures reaches far beyond Indian limits, and the policy which dictates them is an Imperial policy."
  I do not agree with that statement. It may be Imperial policy; India is part of the Empire, and it must share in the policy of the Empire as long as it remains part of the Empire. I have never considered that there was any force in the complaint that India is obliged to provide a large military force at great expense to guard her frontier against external enemies, and that she should not have to maintain that force, because, forsooth, that is not an Indian interest. In all I say I trust I assume—I am bound to assume—that our presence in India is an advantage to the Indian people. Assuming that, I do not see that India on account of her connection with us is, as a rule, exposed to any dangers which she would not have to meet if she were entirely independent —nay, more, my opinion is that her position would be one of far less security than it is now if she had no connection with this country. There seems to be an idea on the part of those who administer the affairs of India in India that the military
  612
  forces in India are only required for domestic purposes against the tribes on the frontier. Is there not a Power beyond the frontier—would that Power cease to exist and be a danger if we were to cease to hold India? Would the ambition which is generally attributed to that Power—and which I attribute to her in no sense of finding fault, because the ambition is a natural one, and it is because it is a natural one that it is a. dangerous ambition to India—does anyone suppose that if this country ceased to be connected with India and India was left to protect herself she would be exposed to no dangers from the great frontier Empire which is actually almost on a boundary with her own possessions? My Lords, I am not by any means wishing to attribute any extraordinary designs to that Power, but I say that no one who found himself then in the position of having to administer Indian affairs with such strength as India itself would possess would for a moment neglect that danger beyond her frontier. Therefore I do not admit to the full extent, at all events, the argument used in that despatch. I think that in the past there has been some reason to complain, because it was formerly a policy which I agree with the noble Marquess opposite, the Prime Minister, is a policy which may now be considered to be, if I may use the expression, played out. It was formerly a. principle of our policy that India was so deeply interested in the maintenance of the Ottoman Empire that in any case where that Empire was endangered you might fairly consider that it was a great Indian interest. Well, possibly in the past it may have been so; but if anyone looks at the condition of the world now, they will see—at least this is my opinion—that it is not very likely that in the future India will be called upon to aid this Empire in any great enterprise for the purpose of maintaining the Ottoman in Europe. With regard to the other matters, I think the Commission dealt very fairly with them. It attempted to lay down, and I think laid down not without success, a catalogue of those parts of the world in which India is specially interested, and of those other parts which, though to a certain extent in the neighbourhood of India, may not be considered of special interest to it. I do not think that you could make by an Act of Parliament

  613
  such a catalogue binding upon both Governments, because, in point of fact, the world does not remain at a standstill, and what might be perfectly and entirely; right when Lord Welby's Commission reported may possibly, as changes in the East are not altogether unknown to us, be hereafter anything but right. Speaking generally, however, I think the Commission arrived at a very fair decision; but what I do not at all like (and I do not think the noble Earl who has just spoken held out any hope that such a course would be adopted) is the suggestion of the appointment of a permanent arbitration Commission, presided over probably by a judge of great repute, which should determine disputes between the Indian Government and the Government of this country. That, in my opinion, would simply come to this that because we find some difficulties in doing our duty between India and this country and accommodating our disputes, therefore we are to have recourse to a system of delegating the government to some eminent judges. Now, I have a very great respect indeed for judges when they are performing duties pertaining to them, but, in my opinion, in matters political, as a rule judges are no more the best people to determine great political questions, depending on the relation between great communities, than I should be to decide a Chancery suit. That, I think, is not the least reflection on the judges; but in order to come to a fair determination on questions affecting great political issues it is essentially necessary to have had some political training. I agree also with the noble Earl that that does not by any means exclude having recourse to a system of arbitration in particular cases, and those cases may not be unfrequent. I am very glad to think that a very tiresome question, not of very great importance, but one which was hung up a great deal too long, with regard to naval expenditure, was determined by the late Prime Minister, Lord Rosebery. I am also extremely glad that so competent a man as Lord Morley was able to decide another question to which the noble Earl referred, and I do not think that these two noble Lords were at all less competent to act in those matters than the eminent judge who might preside over a tribunal, which, as it seems to me, would be something only just below the
  614
  Crown itself. It would stand apparently above the Government, possibly above Parliament, indeed it would have a kind of supremacy which I look upon with considerable misgivings. It is no doubt a very simple contrivance, but I do not believe that that simple contrivance will solve the difficulties. I repeat that there are a great many questions which, instead of being left for a long time matters of warm dispute between the India Office and the Imperial Government, might be very well submitted to the arbitration of one or two sensible men who could be trusted to come to a sound decision. But whilst I have the greatest possible regard for India and also for the great Government which so ably conducts the affairs of India, yet I hold that in the ultimate resort the Parliament of this country, led by the Cabinet of this country, must be supreme. It is upon that that must ultimately rest the decision of all matters, and in my opinion any attempt to pass by the Government of the country, and to pass by the Parliament of the country, must inevitably fail To guard against too constant interference in Indian affairs you have provided for the Secretary of State for India a very valuable body—the Indian Council; and it has hitherto been the practice, I am happy to say, to avoid as far as possible making Indian affairs a matter of sharp political controversy in the House of Commons. I hope that that will long continue, though there must be exceptions, of course, when great questions are at issue from time to time. I should like to refer to one matter which no doubt is always one of the main matters of dispute —the amount to be paid by India for the services of Her Majesty's Army in India. Here I think also that there is some misconception. We are constantly told, and it is considered to be a most powerful argument, that India is a reserve for the Empire; but what is the fact? Is it the fact that India is a reserve for the Empire? I happened at one time to hold the office of Secretary of State for India when it seemed likely that we might be engaged in a great war beyond our frontiers. The first step we had to take was to mobilise a portion of our Reserves in this country, and we were well aware that every single man in our Reserves would have had to be sent out if that great war had eventuated. Of course the

  615
  existence of that Reserve was of the very utmost importance, because by it alone should we be enabled to place a sufficient force in India when occasion arose. If the Indian Government had to maintain an additional number of troops equal to that Reserve, it would entail a very large expenditure. Indeed I may say that so far as our military force suffices for the objects in view, the whole of our Army at home—the efficient portion of it—is practically a reserve for India in the case of danger; and it is quite reasonable, it seems to me, that we should regard India also as a reserve on occasions where our interests are threatened in the far East, or it may be, for instance, in Egypt. But when you come to the question whether India shall pay for such expeditions, then I must say I should always be inclined to take what is termed a liberal view of the position of India. There are cases, I think, where India ought to bear a portion of the expenses, but I think we ought always in considering these questions to deal with India in a very liberal and generous spirit. It is a great thing for us to be able to lay our hands on those troops, and to use them when occasion requires, and I do not think we ought to be too stiff with regard to the financial question as to who is to pay for their services when they are taken out of the country. My Lords, there are a number of smaller questions upon which I will only say that I think the recommendations of the Commission are well worthy of attention. I should not like to pledge myself (although it does not very much signify what my opinion may be) to each and every one of those suggestions. They seem very valuable suggestions, and I have no doubt they will receive very careful consideration by the India Office and by Her Majesty's Government. I have very little more to add in the matter. I think that it is highly expedient that there should be no prolonged and acrimonious disputes between the Departments with regard to Indian affairs, and I am quite certain that no one will yield to myself in the strong desire always to support the authority of the Government of India, the authority of the Viceroy, and to deal with our fellow-subjects of the Indian Empire not only in a wise, but in a generous spirit, which I believe to be at the same time the sound and good policy of this country.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I do not know that I have any special reason for interposing in this debate, because, on the whole, I concur very much with the sentiments that were addressed to you by the noble Earl who has just sat down. I am glad that the India Office, under the guidance of the Commission, has been able to make pecuniary arrangements which will be satisfactory to those who have charge of the administration of India. But I entirely concur with the noble Earl opposite in repudiating the idea that India has any reason to complain of the treatment which she has received at our hands. I am very glad that this should be a generous and liberal treatment. It is very desirable not only on account of our political position, but also because the mass of the people of India are a much more struggling and suffering race than the mass of the people of this country. But I think that, with whatever qualifications in favour of liberality and generosity, we ought to look upon it as an adjustment and balancing of burdens between the tax payers of the two countries. People talk as if this expense was Imperial, and, therefore, expense that we ought to undertake without considering whether it falls more upon us than it does upon the Indian Exchequer. That seems to me an unsound doctrine. We ought to bear the common burdens of the Empire as far as possible according to an equal and equitable rule, always remembering that we are dealing with a weaker community whoso sufferings at times—and we have had recently terrible examples of it—are singularly severe; but it is a question of the British taxpayer against the Indian taxpayer, and you must observe justice between the two. There is also another—as it seems to me—fallacy in arguing this Indian question, which has been pushed too much forward, and that is that we are bound to bear a certain number of expenses on behalf of India, because, as a matter of fact, we have borne them on behalf of many of our colonies. I cannot see the cogency of that argument at all. "Is thine eye evil because I am good?" We have, partly from policy, partly from reaction on the great American conflict, and from other reasons, been exceedingly generous in our dealings with the colonies during the

  617
  last fifty years, but I do not think that fey that we incurred an obligation to apply precisely the same rule to every other case that came up for judgment, or that we are bound to discharge this or that claim on the part of India because we have discharged another on the part of our colonies. I would not admit that argument at all. We have to deal with the colonies on the equitable ground; and, remembering always the obligation of liberality and generosity, there is no special call for expenditure which comes upon us because we occupy an Imperial position. It is quite true that it depends on this country to make the expenditure which will defend both India and the colonies, but India does not incur the claim of allegiance as a matter of favour and consideration to us. The less there is of that quasi-sentimental language, and the more we adhere as far as circumstances permit us to do so to the strict rule of justice, the less discontent there will arise. My Lords, we have not gone very far yet into this Report, and at present really the financial burden is one that presses most upon us; but if you consider for a moment you will see how complicated and difficult the relations of India and this country in financial matters are. There is that fortress of Aden; we are told now that we are to take either the whole or the great part of the expenditure on the fortress of Aden. But, if India did not exist, of what possible use would the fortress of Aden be to the British Empire? And I must say that I think much of the expenditure which is thrown upon this country in regard to Persia is subject to the same objection— that it is for India, and for India only, that a certain class of those expenditures in Oriental countries are incurred, and therefore India ought to bear her fair share. What is now happening in the East brings home to us very much how heavy the burden of defending our position in the East may come to be, and we may have in the future to ask whether others besides this little island at this end of the world are not concerned in the maintenance of that great fabric of Chinese trade which has nourished so many parts of the Empire. I will not press into ground which is not open to us yet, but I will only urge upon those who have to deal with this question that we are not dealing with a bottomless purse
  618
  when we are disposing of the resources of the British Empire. we are bound not to put on others any obligation which they cannot bear; but we may find that, without injustice to others, we cannot accept the exclusive burden which we take as part of our claim to Empire, which belongs to our British ascendency, but which, after all, is borne not for any special advantage of our own, but because it is part of that great fabric of beneficence and of peace which it has fallen to us by the action of history to bear as the British Empire. My Lords, I only rose to say these few words, because I think there is a tendency—certainly not in the language of the noble Earl, but I think there is a tendency—to lean too much to the sentimental side and too little to what I might call the business side. "Short accounts make long friendships," and the more perfect justice we endeavour to observe, the more we shall avoid that greatest of all calamities—any difference of opinion with our great Indian Empire.
  On Question, agreed to. Return ordered accordingly.

  EXECUTORS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for Second Reading read.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, this is a Bill of a legal, and therefore I think I may say of an almost entirely technical character. Its object is to remedy certain inconveniences which have been found to exist in the administration of executory estates in Scotland—to meet inconveniences arising from the fact of executors not possessing certain powers which have been conferred by statute upon trustees. The object of the Bill is to confer upon executors who derive their title directly or indirectly from a testator powers which have been conferred on gratuitous trustees by various Acts from 1861 to 1898. The Bill was drawn some years ago by a competent practitioner, and has been revised both by him and by a committee of practising lawyers. It has been generally approved by the Department over which I have the honour to preside, but up to this session it had not been found possible to give time in the other House of Parliament for its consideration. It

  619
  has now passed through the other House of Parliament with the general consent of the Scottish lawyers who have seats in that assembly. It has been favourably reported upon by various legal societies in Scotland—namely, by the Society of Writers to the Signet, whose amendments have been incorporated in parts of the Bill, and also very favourably indeed by the Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow. It has the approval of the Treasury on the ground that it will facilitate administrative convenience. The only particulars in which this Bill is different in structure from the Bills which have been before Parliament in former years are contained in the second clause of the Bill. The Faculty of Procurators approve of the Bill as it now stands. I think that some members of the Faculty of Advocates are not so well satisfied with the change, but I have the assurance of the present Lord Justice General that he has come to approve of the Bill in its present form, and I hope that without material change it may pass your Lordships' House. I beg to move that it be now read a second time.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Tuesday next.

  DIOCESAN REGISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (LIABILITY OF SHIPOWNERS AND OTHERS) BILL.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.— (Lord Heneage.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)said he was surprised that the noble Lord had moved the Third Reading, as he had received from the noble Lord the assurance—as he understood it—that the Third Reading would not be taken until Monday. He hoped, not only for the sake of this particular matter, but in the interests of the conduct of business in this House, that the motion would not be persisted in in face of the understanding to which he had alluded.
  LORD HENEAGEsaid that as his credit, too, was at stake, he must explain that the only question raised between the noble and learned Lord and himself was whether it would be more convenient that the noble and learned Lord should move his Amendment on the Report stage yesterday or on the Third Reading to-day. The noble and learned Lord pointed out that as the Tithes Bill was down for Second Reading on Thursday it would be more convenient to take the Report stage of this Bill formally on Thursday, and that the noble and learned Lord' should move his Amendment to-day. That was all that took place. If this were only a matter of convenience between the noble and learned Lord and himself he would not object to postponing the Third Reading; but there were several noble Lords present who had come down specially for this Bill, and he therefore could not take upon himself to withdraw the Bill from the purview of the House. He regretted that this misunderstanding had arisen, but in the circumstances he felt bound to press his motion for the Third Reading of the Bill.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURYmoved "That the debate on the said motion be adjourned."
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsuggested that as there had clearly been a personal misunderstanding, and there was no question of the delay involving the loss of the Bill, this was not a matter upon which their Lordships should be put to the trouble of dividing, and he hoped Lord Heneage would consent to the adjournment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYjoined with Lord Kimberley in suggesting that Lord Heneage should, as a matter of grace, give way.
  LORD HENEAGEsaid that after this expression of opinion from the Leaders on both sides of the House, he felt himself at liberty to consent to the adjournment.
  On Question, "That the debate on the said motion be adjourned," resolved in the affirmative, and ordered accordingly; Bill to be read 3a an Monday next.

  MEMBERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES RELIEF BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACT (1890) AMENDMENT BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading road.
  LORD HARRIS: My Lords, as your Lordships see, this Bill amends the Housing of the Working Classes Act of 1890, and if I do not detain your Lordships at very great length upon it, I trust it will not be attributed to any want of interest in a subject of such immense and vital importance to hundreds of thousands of people living under very uncomfortable, and, I fear, very insanitary conditions in our great towns, and possibly in some cases in villages. I do not think it is necessary for me to detain you at any very great length, because I do not think there is really any serious opposition, or any opposition at all to the Bill. There may be differences of opinion as to whether the Bill might not have taken a larger scope, but so far as the Bill does go, I do not understand that there is any opposition to it. The Act of 1890 deals with three different subjects. It is divided into three parts. The first part, which refers to London chiefly, deals with unhealthy areas, provides for their clearance, and for the erection of buildings for the housing of persons who have been dishoused by the clearance of the area. The second part deals with the unhealthy dwelling houses and their destruction, and also with houses which are obstructive, which interfere with the sanitary conditions of their own neighbourhood. The third part deals with working class lodging-houses. It is with this third part, which is adoptive by the bodies which have the power of adopting it, that the Bill now before your Lordships deals. Under the third part the local authority has the power of acquiring land and erecting lodging-houses for poor people within its area, and it is in this that a difficulty has presented itself. Your Lordships know just as well or even better than I do how extremely difficult it is for a local authority in London or any large town to obtain a site within it? boundaries for the erection of lodging-houses. The expense of the
  622
  land is very serious, and I believe that one of the reasons that have caused this Bill to be brought forward now is that the County Council of London found themselves unable to accept an offer of a site outside their own boundary. The Bill before your Lordships will enable a local authority to go outide its own area, acquire land, and put up lodging-houses on it for the purpose of the inhabitants of the area which it governs. That is what is dealt with under the first clause of the Bill, and I think I am justified in saying that it is the most important in the Bill. That applies to any council other than a rural district council which has adopted Part III. of the Act of 1890. Clause 2 deals with the rural district council, and the difficulty that has been met with there is not of the same character. The difficulty there is in the matter of procedure. Under the present law a rural district council has to obtain the approval of the county council by a laborious process. The county council has to appoint a committee, and has to inquire very closely in detail upon the spot, and altogether it has been found that that process is so laborious that the district councils have been discouraged from adopting that part of the Act. Clause 2 of the Bill before your Lordships simplifies that procedure. The consent of the county council is still necessary, but it will not be necessary for that county council to go through the same process that it had to take under the present Act. Sub-section 2 provides—
  "(2) In giving' or withholding their consent under this section, the county council shall have regard—

  (a) To the area for which it is proposed to adopt the said Part; and

  (b) To the necessity for accommodation for the housing of the working classes in that area; and

  (c) To the probability of such accommodation being provided without the adoption of the said Part; and

  (d) To the liability which will be incurred by the rates, and to the question whether it is, under all the circumstances, prudent fur the district council to adopt the said Part."

  The 3rd Clause of the Bill will enable the now Metropolitan Borough Councils to adopt Part III. as amended, and to exercise powers under the Act as amended for the acquirement of land and the putting up of houses for the purpose. Then, my Lords, at present the law insists upon expenditure upon one part of

  623
  the Bill being accounted for under that part. Clause 4 of this Bill will enable the local authority to account for expenditure under Part III. under any one of the other parts. For instance, if an area has been cleared under Part I., and if a site for lodging-houses has been acquired under Part III., and a profit can he made by the scheme under Part III., that profit may be set against the expenditure under Part I. The only condition is that there shall be a separate account. Then, under Clause 5—
  "(1) The local authority, if not a rural district council, with the consent of the Local Government Board, and if a rural district council with the consent of the county council, may lease any land acquired by them under and for the purposes of Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890 (in this section referred to as 'the Act,') to any lessee for the purpose and under the condition that the lessee will carry the Act into execution by building and maintaining on the land lodging-houses within the meaning of the Act."
  That was an Amendment put in during the course of the Bill through the House of Commons with a very practical argument behind it that it might very possibly he that some person perfectly competent and anxious to do work of this kind might be very much better able to do it than the county council itself, and therefore this provision has been made, that the local authority, with the consent of certain higher authority, may for the purpose of carrying out the intention lease the land. Sections 61 and 62 of the Act will not extend to any lodging-house to which this Act applies. For this reason: that those sections refer to the local authority where the land has been acquired—that is to say, the land outside the area administered by the local authority which has acquired it. Let us take the case of the London County Council. If they had acquired some land outside their own area they naturally would not want the local authority in that area to manage their lodging-houses for them. The intention is to retain the management of those lodging-houses in the hands of the authority that has acquired the area. Under Clause 6, on the complaint of a parish council where a district council has, in the opinion of the parish council, failed to adopt the Act when it ought to have adopted it, or failed to carry out a scheme which might in the opinion of the parish council have been advantageously carried out, the county council is empowered to examine into the arguments
  624
  pro and con., and, if it thinks right, to take over the powers of the rural district council, and to adopt the Act with regard to that particular scheme. Under Clause 7 a cheaper form of arbitration is provided for, whereby a single arbitrator will be called in instead of, as has been the practice, two arbitrators with an umpire in case of disagreement. These, my Lords, are the general provisions of the Bill. The main objections that have been taken to it are as follows: It has been objected that the Bill does not contain provisions for securing convenient railway and tramway facilities. It was thought by some Members of the House of Commons who I am sure have a very wide knowledge of the conditions under which people live in these very crowded areas, that this Bill should have taken a wider scope and should have provided for, I think I may say, the compulsion of railway companies to run convenient workmen's trains to those areas before the lodging-houses were built. Well, in the opinion of the Government, the powers of the President of the Board of Trade are already sufficient to secure that convenient workmen's trains shall be run to these areas when there is some indication that there will be a population there requiring those trains. That is so far as trains are concerned. With regard to tramways I understand the difficulty to be this: that a local authority wishing to project a tramway not only through its own area, but through the area of, we will say, a neighbouring local authority, is unable to obtain the ear of Parliament because the local authority which intervenes or is outside the particular area, if it objects, can prevent the first local authority approaching Parliament at all. A deputation waited upon Mr. Chaplin, the President of the Local Government Board, and Mr. Ritchie, the President of the Board of Trade, with the object of placing before them their views upon this particular point. Having considered very attentively the representations put forward by that deputation, I believe the intention of the Government—I do not know that I am authorised to say that they intend to do it, but I am sure that I am authorised in saying that they are considering most sympathetically the proposal to omit the present Standing Order No. 22, with a view to insert a new Standing Order providing that where a local

  625
  authority desires to run a tramway through the area of another local authority, the first local authority shall be entitled to be heard by Parliament. I understand the difficulty at present is that they are debarred from being heard before Parliament in such a case if an objection is raised by a neighbouring local authority. If the Standing Orders are amended as suggested then the local authority desiring to project the tramway will, at any rate, be heard by Parliament, and I am given to understand that the members of the Government who have given their consideration to this are prepared to support it. I do not know whether it has at present come before the Chairman of Committees in this House, but I believe it has come before the similar authority in the other House, and has been approved there. Those are two of the objections that have been raised to the Bill. Another objection is that the Bill ought to have provided for the power of a local authority to hire land outside its own area. That the Government have opposed—I personally think upon thoroughly sound grounds. I can imagine most serious injustice being done to very deserving people and people who are by no means in very affluent circumstances. If such a power did exist one can conceive this—I do not say injustice, because it would be the law, but I think it would be rather unfair—that a man having invested his fortune in a piece of land would be under the risk of its being acquired by a local authority and his not receiving even the purchase price of the land, but only such an amount of rent (in perpetuity, I believe, is the intention) as somebody or other—not the local authority, I presume, but some arbitrator—might decide was at that date the value of the land. How the individual would ever re-acquire the real estate I am not sure. However, there was a proposal in some such form as that which the Government opposed in the other House, and it was not pressed. My Lords, the general complaint in the other House was that the Bill was not of a large enough scope, that it might have been a very much more heroic measure altogether. Well, there is a different opinion, which is that in this matter—an extremely difficulty one, affecting the rights of property—it is on the whole better to go slow than to take a very long time poring and arguing over the
  626
  merits or demerits of a large measure, and perhaps in the end not producing out of the argument anything very valuable. At any rate, if this is not a very long step in advance, I honestly believe that it will be a useful one. It endeavours to remedy at any rate one serious difficulty, the difficulty which the local authority has in obtaining land at a moderate price. There is one other objection, I remember, which was raised, and that is that the Bill did not contain any provision for the length of time within which a loan obtained by a local authority for acquiring land should be repaid. The suggestion was that the term of sixty years should be extended to seventy, or even up to 100 years. That was resisted by the Government in the other House on the ground that it is impossible to say now what may be the demand for houses sixty years hence or longer, and that sixty years is a sufficient period during which it is safe to allow those loans to be repaid. My Lords, as I say, the Bill does not profess to be a great scheme. It follows on the lines of those Bills that have been at various times introduced, and which were consolidated in the Bill of my noble friend the noble Viscount behind me (Viscount Cross) in 1890. It endeavours to meet a distinct difficulty which has been experienced by the County Council of London amongst others, and I think your Lordships will see for yourselves that if the Bill, when it becomes law, is as effective as the Government believes it can be made to be, it does solve one of the most difficult problems which we have to face in the case of these overcrowded areas—that the local authority can take the people concerned out of a crowded area into one in which the sanitary conditions are far better. Those are the main reasons with which the Bill has been introduced. It has, on the whole, I think, been received by thoughtful people even on the other side of the House in the House of Commons with approval, although I admit that there have been these criticisms; but as a whole it has been received with approval, having regard to the divisions and the speeches. I have read every speech that has been made in the other House, and I think I am perfectly justified in saying that the Bill has been received with approval there where it has been debated at consider-

  627
  able length, and I hope it may receive the same approval from your Lordships.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Lord Harris.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, the great interest that has been taken in this Bill and in the question of the housing of the working classes generally must be my excuse for troubling your Lordships with a few words upon this motion, first as a member of the Housing Committee of the London County Council, and also as an elected Member for St. Pancras, which is one of the most congested parts of the whole of congested London. I have listened with great attention to the very lucid speech of the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading. With two points brought forward by him I entirely agree. He says this is not a great scheme. Indeed it is not. He also says that there will be no opposition. Naturally there will be no opposition from this side of the House, or, at any rate, there there will be no opposition from the Liberal party, but I am bound to say that the scheme has been received by the whole Liberal party with very great and grievous disappointment. The noble Lord did not say much about the circumstances that led up to this Bill being brought forward. I will for one moment refer to them, and if I say anything that is not the fact there is Lord Cross, who has the whole thing at his fingers' ends, and he will correct me if I fall into any error. From 1851, when Lord Shaftesbury's two Acts were passed, up to 1870, there was no desire on the part of municipalities to take action in this matter of the housing of the poor. Then the noble Viscount opposite brought in his Acts of 1876, 1879 and 1882, and those, with Mr. Torrens' Acts of 1866 and 1868, produced a little improvement; but I think I am only speaking the absolute truth when I say that mainly owing to the expensive machinery required to put those various Acts into motion the activity that was shown was short lived and spasmodic. Then in 1884 the noble Marquess (Lord Salisbury) moved for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole subject. We sat for two years and issued a unanimous Report. I cannot say that there was anything very—to use the noble Lord's language—heroic in that Report, but it had the effect of leading
  628
  to the Bill of 1885, which was put forward by the noble Marquess, and on the Report of this Commission I think I may fairly say that the consolidation and amendment of the foregoing Acts with Lord Salisbury's Act of 1885 were effected by the Housing of the Working Classes Act of 1890, which simplified and cheapened the machinery involved in municipal action. In 1889 the Conservative Government created the London County Council, and the Metropolitan Board of Works ceased to exist. The Metropolitan Board of Works, as the House well knows, used to clear away insanitary areas and sell land to building companies, and I believe during the whole of its existence it housed a little more than 27,000 persons up to the year 1889, when it ceased to exist. The London County Council then came into operation, and they began to build them selves in 1892, and in eight years we have housed 10,000 persons. What we have in hand now and what we have completed in the last sixteen months amounts to an additional accommodation for 25,000 more people, at a cost of £1,500,000, and we confidently expect that schemes that we are considering will enable us to house an additional 24,500 persons, making a grand total of 60,000 persons rehoused within the next five years. But, after all, we have been told that this is only touching the fringe of the question. That I admit, but I say that we could have done a great deal bettor, and we could have really—if I may be permitted to use the expression in this House—tackled the question in sober earnest, had we had greater facilities for housing the working classes. The noble Lord opposite said there were very few objections that had been made to this Bill in the House of Commons, and he mentioned some of them, but I venture to think that he forgot some of the most important ones. There are five propositions of what is really wanted for housing the poor in urban districts. First of all, the period within which loans for building purposes must be repaid, should be considerably extended. As the noble Lord said, it is now up to sixty years, and we ask as a matter of justice that it should be extended to 100 years. If noble Lords would be kind enough to go round to the Millbank site, and see the building being put up there by the London County Council for the housing of the working classes, they will,

  629
  I am perfectly certain, agree that it is absolutely preposterous to imagine that those buildings will not last 100 years. Then the next thing we want is the compulsory registration of the real owners of all property, so that those benefiting from insanitary slums and illegal overcrowdings could be immediately and drastically dealt with. Your Lordships know that the Land Transfer Act of 1897 is not compulsory, except in a few parts of London. The third thing we require is power to the local authority to have destroyed without compensation, and at the cost of the owner, insanitary slums which are injurious to health, where the owners fail to make them really habitable after being called upon to do so, and if then the owner refuses to rebuild, the local body should have the power to do so on equitable terms. Fourthly, we want power given to the local authorities—this point was mentioned by the noble Lord—to insist on a much better transit service to and from the suburbs of the great towns. At present the cheap transit follows the peopling of a new district. If overcrowding is to be really prevented, cheap transit must be used largely in the development of new districts, and must not be left merely to follow their development. Then, fifthly, what we have always asked for, and what this Bill no doubt gives, is that local governing bodies in our great towns should be empowered to acquire land compulsorily outside their own jurisdiction for the erection of workmen's dwellings. The Bill on the Table gives us this last concession, but it refuses to entertain the other points which we consider so essential to the welfare of the community at large. I have spoken of the disappointment with which this Bill is received by the party to which I have the honour to belong, and I maintain that we have cause to complain that so little has been done for the working classes only at the end of five years by this all-powerful Government to try to put an end to a condition of things which is a danger to the State and a disgrace and a stain to our civilisation and our Christianity.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): I only wanted to call attention to one or two points mentioned by the noble Lord behind me, but I cannot help being rather amused at
  630
  hearing my noble friend opposite, as a representative of the Liberal party, talking of their disappointment at the character of this Bill. As far as I know, the whole legislation relating to the curing of these formidable evils, which I fully admit, was carried out by my noble friends behind me; and during the time that the noble Lord opposite and the Liberal party were in office, I am not aware that they did anything towards carrying into the Statute-book any of those reforms that my noble friend has enumerated just now. It is rather amusing, therefore, now to hoar my noble friend expressing bitter disappointment at the small nature of this Bill. However, my Lords, that is neither here nor there—it is by the way. I did want to say one word about a matter that was referred to by my noble friend in moving the Second Reading of the Bill—namely, the question of the consent of local authorities to tramways running through their district from another district. As the House is aware, at present under the Standing Orders of the House the consent of any local authority, or, if the local authority differs from the road authority, the road authority as well, is necessary as a preliminary to the introduction of any Bill. It is what is called an Examiner's Standing Order, and unless the consent of the authority is proved before the Examiner it is impossible for the Bill to come before Parliament at all. Now, I entirely sympathise with the views of my noble friend who has moved the Second Reading of the Bill, and I think they to a great extent fall in with the views of my noble friend opposite. I am strongly of opinion that the local authorities ought to have a very strong voice when tramways are put through their district by persons, either companies or municipalities, outside those districts; but, beyond giving them a mandatory power of being heard before Committees, I venture to think it would be desirable (and I should be very glad, if certain circumstances arise, to move an Amendment in the Standing Orders to that effect) to take away from authorities the absolute power of stopping schemes of this kind. That is the main point to which I wanted to call attention; but I confess that I am very glad to hear from my noble friend that the Government do not look with any favour upon the idea of compulsory hiring

  631
  in matters of this kind. I think this question of compulsory hiring, which has cropped up in several directions, at present is not a very safe one. If local authorities or companies for public purposes require land, surely they ought to take the land with all its liabilities and obligations upon it, and allow the owner to be absolutely free. I think this question of compulsory hiring is a most dangerous one, and that it will act very unfairly and with great hardship upon owners of land. There is a very important question raised by the noble Lord opposite as to the length of term during which loans for various objects should be repaid by local authorities. I do not like to dogmatise at all on such a question. I quite see the importance that it is to local authorities to get those terms prolonged, but still it ought to be done with very great caution. At present the maximum term is sixty years—that is, two generations; and I think we ought to have very strong arguments before we extend the term very much beyond that. One hardly knows what changes may take place in the surroundings of any undertaking or any scheme in the course of two generations. As I said, I am not prepared to dogmatise on the subject, but I confess that at present very strong arguments should be brought forward to induce Parliament to assent to extending the time beyond the sixty years or two generations that has thus far prevailed.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: I should not have intervened in this debate if it had not been for the reference made to myself personally by the noble Lord opposite. He has given a fairly accurate account of the history of this particular kind of legislation, and it is a great satisfaction to me to find that public opinion has grown very much upon this subject, especially of late years. It was in the year 1875 when I had the honour of bringing forward a Bill to enable the authorities in London to get rid of what you may call the unhealthy areas; and if anybody remembers what unhealthy areas there were in London at that time, and were to go to those places and see the fine buildings erected now for the lodging of the labouring classes in their place, he would be perfectly amazed at the change that has taken place. I do not believe that there is one of these unhealthy areas
  632
  now existing in London which it was the special object of the Bill of 1875 to remove. But so difficult was it at that time to pass a Bill of that kind that I remember very well when I laid the instructions before the noble Lord, Lord Thring, who was then the Parliamentary draughtsman, to draw that Bill he came to mo and positively refused to carry out my instructions. I inquired why. He said, "I can only characterise your Bill, Mr. Cross, in two words — Communism and Confiscation." Well, I do not think there is much confiscation if you look at the amount of money which the City of London and the Metropolitan Board of Works had to pay in order to carry out the Act; while as to Communism, if by communism is meant doing what you can to house the working classes in fit and decent places, not at the expense of the State, but to enable them to house themselves in decent houses, then I am quite willing to be called a. Communist. But it was not till I drew the Preamble of that Act of 1875 that the noble Lord would consent to draw the clauses which were to give effect to it. Public opinion has changed very considerably since then. That Act of 1875 is now embodied in the Act of 1890. The noble Lord opposite has complained that the present Bill does not go quite far enough. At all events, it does make a very substantial step in the right direction. It will enable local authorities, where it is almost impossible for them to obtain land within their area, to obtain equally good land for the housing of the working classes outside the area. If it did no-more than that it would have done a great deal. It will, I believe, promote the building of houses for the working classes, and I sincerely hope your Lord-ships will not only give the Bill a Second Heading but will carry it through as it is. I am bound to say I quite agree with what has fallen from the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. I do not think that the time of borrowing ought to be extended too much. Sixty years, as the noble Earl has said, covers two generations. At all events, if the present generation is not to bear its own burdens, do not go beyond the next generation. If you come to 100 years you come to the third and fourth generations, who will have burdens of their own to bear in dependently of those which you want to place upon them. Therefore I for one

  633
  should be certainly opposed to an enlargement of the time daring which the money is to be repaid. My Lords, I believe this Bill is a substantial contribution to what we all want to see, and I heartily support the Second Heading.
  LORD WINDSOR: I wanted to ask one question upon the Hill and its relation to the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890. In the first place we are all agreed that this is not a very large scheme; but I think that the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill is justified in saying that it is a step in the right direction, and on two grounds particularly I should be inclined to support it. One is that I think the ratepayers have a right to some relief. We all know the difficulty in rehousing the working classes in the very centre of the huge population of London. Only a few hours ago in a Committee Room upstairs a member of the London County Council was giving evidence, and he stated that a site had been acquired at the cost of £200,000, and that with the condition upon it of erecting workmen's dwelling-houses it was valued at,£45,000; that is, that the commercial value of the land had been reduced 75 per cent. at least in consideration of the condition attached as to the erection of workmen's dwelling-houses upon it. In fact, he gave us instances more striking even that that. Another one that I may mention was an instance of a site that had been acquired and had been put up to auction, and not one single bid of one single penny-piece did they get from anyone for this land, because of the condition attached to it. Therefore, I say that I do think it is desirable for the sake of the ratepayers that larger powers should be given to acquire land outside the area, so that the London County Council, for instance, can make greater use of the powers which I believe they already have; that is of, in certain cases, selling land when they have taken away the old houses—selling the land at its commercial value, and buying other more suitable laud for the erection of dwelling-houses. My Lords, it is not possible, it is not to be expected, that exactly the same persons who are displaced can be immediately housed in new dwellings. We had an instance of that mentioned in evidence this afternoon before the Committee to which I have referred. A witness for the
  634
  London County Council told us that on a certain site where tenants had been displaced new buildings were erected, and a certain number of the old tenants applied for these new buildings, but their behaviour has been such that it has been absolutely impossible to keep them; no respectable person would take lodgings under the same roof with them, because they were not amenable to any proper discipline, and such discipline as is absolutely necessary for persons living together in the same building. So that we do not suppose that those persons will be immediately housed, but it certainly will have a tendency to remove the congestion if these dwellings are built on outside areas. The persons who occupy them must at any rate have lived somewhere before—they will have left their own houses and left them empty, or if the houses had been overcrowded before it will have a tendency to remove the congestion. Therefore, I think the noble Lord is perfectly justified in saying that it is a stop in the right direction. My Lords, I wanted to ask what relation has this Bill, under Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, which is mentioned over and over again, with Part I. of that same Act. In Clause 12, Sub-section 3, Part I. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, I road that—
  "The local authority may also engage with any body of trustees, society, or person, to carry the whole or any part of such scheme into effect upon such terms as the local authority may think expedient, but the local authority shall not themselves, without the express approval of the confirming' authority, undertake the rebuilding of the houses."
  Then in Sub-section 5—
  "If the local authority erect any dwellings out of funds to be provided under this part of the Act, they shall, unless the confirming authority otherwise determine, sell and dispose of all such dwellings within ten years from the time of the completion thereof."
  Then, turning to Part III., Clause 59—
  "The local authority may, on any land acquired or appropriated by them, erect any buildings suitable for lodging-houses."
  And further on, Clause 61 says—
  "The general management, regulation, and control of the lodging-houses established or acquired by a local authority under this part of this Act shall be vested in and exercised by the local authority."
  LORD HARRIS: That is cut out in. this Bill.
  LORD WINDSOR: Then I presume it would mean that they are not to rebuild houses other than lodging-houses.
  LORD HARRIS: My noble friend opposite, Lord Carrington, knows bettor than I do, but I think the explanation is that the houses referred to in Part I. are not lodging-houses. It is only Pact III. that deals with lodging-houses, and if a local authority builds houses on the area that has been cleared they need not be necessarily lodging-houses; they may be probably houses of any kind or description.
  EARL CARRINGTON: Under, I think, the 13th Clause of Lord Salisbury's Act the noble Lord will find in the definition that "lodging-house" means any house or tenement of any sort or description that is erected for the occupation of the poor. "Lodging-house" does not mean a house kept for lodgers to live in, but it includes every sort of house, whether two families live in it or one, that is erected for the occupation of the poor. I think that is the definition of "lodging-house" in the Act of 1890.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

  PROHIBITION OK EXPORTATION OF ARMS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law relating to the exportation of arms, ammunition, and military and naval stores—was presented by The Lord Chancellor; read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next. (No. 205.)
  House adjourned at half-past Seven of the clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven of the clock.