Lords Sitting of 18 July 1905

INTRODUCED.
The right hon. William Court Gully, late Speaker of the House of Commons, having been created Viscount Selby of the city of Carlisle, was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Lord Balinfiard (E. Southesk) sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL(TRAMWAYS)BILL.
  Moved, "That the Order made on the 16th day of March last, 'That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 27th day of Juno next,' be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Chairman of Committees.)
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I rise, on the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill, to move "That the Bill be read a second time this day three months." I may as well at once tell your Lordships that the provisions of the Bill to which I take exception refer only to one of the systems of tramways which are promoted. There are in this Bill, as I understand, three separate tramways, two of them entirely unobjectionable and not very important, and one of them very important and very objectionable. It is that proposal—the proposal to bring trams over Westminster Bridge down the Embankment and back again over Blackfriars Bridge—to which in its present shape I take exception, and on that ground I desire to move the rejection of the Bill.
  I may remind your Lordships that this is no new question except in the sense that it is new in the shape in which it now comes up to your Lordships' House. Attempts have been made from time to time to bring trams over Westminster Bridge, and this House
  998
  and the Legislature generally has invariably taken the line of refusing to grant the necessary powers. I need not dwell upon the history of this Bill. Suffice it to say that in 1903 and 1904 the Bill was very heavily defeated in the Lower House, and this year it only succeeded in passing by a majority of one, the Speaker giving his casting vote. This is not a Government question, inasmuch as I think sixteen members of His Majesty's Government voted against the Bill in the other House. Not only did it only just succeed in getting through the House of Commons this year, but in the shape in which it now appears it is a totally different Bill from that which then passed the Lower House. I think I shall be able to show your Lordships that it proposes to take a course which will do no good to the public, which will be extremely inconvenient to a large section of the public, which will absolutely infringe the rights of a certain number of persons, and destroy the beauty of one of the prettiest parts of London without in any way improving the facilities for traffic which we all desire to see improved.
  If you will allow me, I will take your Lordships round the course of this tramway for the short space of two miles. It is proposed to connect up the tramways at the southern end of Westminster Bridge and take the trams over the bridge. Have the promoters seriously considered the congestion of traffic that will be caused at that particular point by bringing these two tramways together, both of them running on a minute service, which will subsequently become a half-minute service? There is a constant and steady traffic crossing Westminster Bridge and turning to the left to Waterloo. A half-minute service of trams would greatly incommode that traffic. The tramway will then cross Westminster Bridge. How is it proposed that it should cross? It is proposed that it should cross within two feet nine inches of the pavement on the east side of the bridge, obviously making it impossible for any traffic to pass on that side, and every carriage crossing the bridge will have to pass over the lines of tramway before it can get to Waterloo. Moreover, there are a certain number of shops at the southern side of the bridge, and

  999
  it would be absolutely impossible for any carriage or wagon to stop in front of those premises, and the whole of the business of these tradesmen would be seriously incommoded, if not altogether stopped.
  There is a Standing Order of your Lordships House, No. 13, which enacts that when any tramway is proposed to be run within nine feet six inches of the pavement, notice must be given of the intention to do so, not only in general, but also to every person the frontage of whose shop or dwelling is affected, not later than December 15th of the year preceding. That has not been, and could not have been, done in this case, because the particular provision which would necessitate this notice was inserted by the House of Commons Committee after the Bill had passed its Second Reading; but it is a great hardship that the people who have these shops and dwellings should be prevented by this technical fact from the possibility of raising their objections and presenting their case, which, under the Standing Orders of the House, they would have been able to do in the ordinary course of events. I understand also that should this Bill unfortunately pass its Second Beading, the Committee which will have to deal with it will sit on Friday. Well, how is it possible for these people to get up their case and present the aspects of it as it appears to them between now and next Friday?
  As I have said, the tramway then crosses Westminster Bridge, to the great inconvenience of the travelling public, and goes down the Embankment. It is not long since the public spent £1,000,000 in beautifying that part of London. It is now proposed to run tramways down the Embankment on the river side, and the result will be to destroy the trees there and to gravely imperil the whole of the amenity of the, Embankment, And when the tramway gets to Black-friars Bridge it is proposed to run it over the bridge, causing, as I maintain, a block in the traffic there, in the same way as it would cause a block in the traffic on Westminster Bridge. These are the great inconveniences which this Bill would produce
  1000
  in the short course of a mile and a-half, or a little more.
  I do not wish to appear as opposing the extension of tramways because they are tramways, or because they are promoted by a particular body. I would wish to support the extension of useful tramways, but what arguments have the promoters of this Bill produced to show that this will be a useful tramway? After all, it will go over Westminster Bridge and down the Embankment; where there is certainly not any great demand for traffic and where 'bus companies have never found it worth their while to run a line of 'buses, and then back again over Blackfriars Bridge. If this proposed tramway really connected the north and the south of the Metropolis, I would be one of those who would admit that there was a great deal to be said for it, even if it did inconvenience a certain section of the public. But this Bill does not do that. It merely proposes to take people for a little pleasure trip round the Embankment, and the only proposal which has been seriously put forward for connecting the north with the south was thrown out by the House of Commons' Committee. The proposed tramway, therefore, is not only inconvenient but useless; and it is not only useless, but it cannot be carried out without further legislation.
  The Bill which we are asked to pass provides that nothing shall be done until powers are obtained for widening Black-friars Bridge. The Committee found that it was impracticable to take these tramways over the bridge as the bridge is at present, and the extension cannot be carried out without further powers to be obtained in a Bill next year, and these powers will have to be obtained by a separate authority—the City Corporation. In other words, before the County Council can proceed with these lines they will have to get the City to promote a Bill next year for the widening, at considerable cost, of Black-friars Bridge. Therefore this legislation is not only inconvenient and useless, but it is incomplete. I believe it has not been the practice of this House to pass legislation in an incomplete form. There was one occasion this year where the Great Northern and Strand Railway were promoting a single

  1001
  line crossing under the river, which the Committee of the Lower House said could not be completed unless they got powers to make the single line into a double line; and I understand that the Chairman of Committees of your Lordships' House ruled that because it was an incomplete Bill and could not be carried out in its completion this year the Bill could not proceed. This Bill, at any rate, is an incomplete Bill, and, if incomplete Bills cannot be passed, this Bill should not be proceeded with.
  I do not know that there is any other feature of this measure which I need weary your Lordships by referring to. I would only say this in general, that this is surely not a moment in which to add another complication to the complicated system of traffic in London. What, my Lords, is the real difficulty with which the Royal Commission on Traffic have had to deal? The real difficulty has been the multiplication of different interests and different systems of traffic. If that Commission began de novo with London a grass field, it would be easy to make the traffic ideal and work properly; but this multiplicity of different systems makes the matter a very difficult one. One of the recommendations of the Royal Commission that a Traffic Board shall be appointed in order to deal with the general system of traffic in London. Are we to make the labours of that board, if, as I hope, it is appointed, greater by imposing another vested interest upon them to deal with? I maintain, therefore, that this is not a moment to pass legislation which will not really solve the problem of north and south tramways, which many of us would desire to see, but which will add another difficulty to the already great difficulties in London, and which will further burden the ratepayers of the Metropolis with an expenditure of some £350,000 at a time when nobody can say with certainty that motor omnibuses will not supersede trams in the future. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and add at the end of the Motion the words 'this day three months.'"—(Viscount Ridley.)
  LORD CHELMSFORD: My Lords, I hope you will allow me to intervene in this debate as a member of the County Council who are promoting the Bill the rejection of which the noble Viscount has just moved, and I hope your Lordships will realise the very serious course which you are asked to pursue. It is usual on these occasions to send the Bill to be discussed in its details to a Committee of your Lordships' House, and it is certainly extremely unusual to take the course of rejecting the Bill before the Committee stage. I therefore urge you to pause before you follow my noble friend into the lobby this afternoon.
  Now, what is the position we find ourselves in with regard to this Bill? Here is a great administrative body, the London County Council, set up to administer the government of the Metropolis, and this body comes forward in the usual way with a Bill which, if it had been promoted by, say, Manchester, Liverpool, or Birmingham, would have been considered at any rate, as a measure which ought not to be discussed on Second Reading in this House. The proposals contained in the Bill are not only practically unanimously supported in that great body, but they also find considerable support from the local authorities all round London. Out of twenty-eight borough councils in London twenty-one are actually supporting the Bill. The other seven have not taken any action, some because they have no tramways at all in their area, and others because they are not interested in the matter. I am not sure what the City of Westminster is doing at the present moment, but that authority, in whose area this tramway would be laid, showed its mind by not petitioning against the Bill in the other House.
  It is not as if this proposal of the County Council was being examined for the first time. My noble friend referred just now to a close division which took place on the Second Reading in the House of Commons, and he said the Bill was carried by the casting vote of the Speaker. But since the Second Reading the Bill has been examined and scrutinised most carefully in all its details by a Committee

  1003
  of the other House; and, further, when the Bill issued from the Committee it had, of course, to be read a third time, and there was no opposition in the House of Commons to the Bill as it comes before your Lordships to-day. There are cases, of course, in which the House oppose private Bills on Second Beading. There are cases in which great principles are involved which this House has a right to make up its mind upon before the matter is sent as an open question to a Committee, and there was such a Bill the other day—I think it was promoted by the Woolwich Borough Council—in connection with which a noble Lord moved that either a certain portion should be expunged, or that the Bill should not be read a second time, because it was a private Bill endeavouring to do away with provisions of a public Act. That is the sort of occasion on which this House generally interferes, and says it will not leave the matter as an open question to be sent to a Committee. But where is the principle involved in this Bill?
  My noble friend who has made a speech denouncing the provisions of the Bill has gone into details which, would be examined by a Committee when the case went before it. I have no doubt that some of your Lordships have received a long list of reasons for the rejection of the Bill. I have very carefully perused these reasons, and can only find one which can; be said to go to show that there is a principle involved in the Bill which would justify your Lordships in pursuing the course recommended by the noble Viscount; and that is this: that no tramway scheme should proceed until the House has had an opportunity of considering the Report of the Royal, Commission on the Traffic of London. I imagine that that reason was inserted before the Report of the Royal Commission was published; for what does this Royal Commission, which has been sitting two years, report on this matter? It has reported in favour of the very procedure which the County Council are adopting. Among the tramway lines suggested is one going over Westminster Bridge, down the Victoria Embankment and over Black-friars Bridge—the very proposal we are discussing here this
  1004
  afternoon. It is suggested that we should wait and consider that Report. Are we to allow all these tramway schemes to be hung up until Parliament has had time to consider the Report of the Traffic Commission? That Commission was I instituted for the very purpose of considering the details of this question, which the Government, in its wisdom, considered that Parliament was not so well adapted to deal with.
  The objections urged against this Bill are, as I have said, really matters that should be taken before a Committee. I do not put forward this view speaking absolutely without experience, because I have had some ten years experience before Committees of this House and the other House, and certainly all these points, which have been urged by my noble friend are points which one regularly hears discussed before Committees. One rather plausible argument was put forward by my noble friend—namely, that this is an incomplete Bill, and that next year the City of London will have to bring in a measure for the widening of Blackfriars Bridge. It is said that therefore we had better wait till next year. As a ratepayer in London, I hope your Lordships are going to consider the extra cost that would be put on London by pursuing such a course as that. This Bill would be introduced again next year, the same arguments would be given and the same evidence called, and counsel, solicitors, Parliamentary agents, and witnesses would be paid to reiterate the arguments which have already been established before the Committee of the other House. It is not as if those supporting this Bill are asking you to pass it as a Bill complete in itself, and which, if you support it to-day, will become an Act. All we are asking is that this great body, the County Council of London, should have the right to be heard in favour of these proposals before a Committee of your Lordships' House. I have carefully gone through the evidence in the other House and considered the reasons urged. This is really a case of balance of convenience and inconvenience, and on these grounds, and on the wider ground, that I think the rejection of the Bill on Second Reading would be conferring an unmerited slight on a

  1005
  great body which has done a considerable amount of good work for London, I appeal to your Lordships not to vote against the Second Reading.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I desire to associate myself with the noble Viscount in asking your Lordships to reject this Bill. The noble Lord who spoke last said it was an unusual course for the House to refuse to send a private Bill to a Committee. We have refused to send this Bill to a Committee for three or four sessions, and, as to the question of principle, surely a great principle is involved when you. propose to run a tramway down one of the few beautiful thoroughfares we have in London. The Embankment was built not only for the pleasure of the people of London, but for fast traffic to the City, and I tail to see why tramways should be allowed to run along there. Surely the object of tramcars is to pick up and set down passengers en route, and it, as the noble Lord says, 'bus companies have found it impossible to run 'buses along the Embankment, the London County Council will be unable to make a tramway service pay.
  I would point out that if this Bill passes in its present form, it really means that the tramway will run up the Embankment to Blackfriars Bridge and atop there. It cannot go over the bridge. One of the clauses gives effect to a compromise arrived at by the City Corporation and the County Council, and, except with the consent of the City Corporation in writing, the London County Council must not take the tramways over Black-friars Bridge until the bridge has been widened or a new bridge constructed. I consider, therefore, that it would be a waste of time and involve unnecessary expense to send the Bill to a Committee. Unless that proviso is entirely cut out, I do not see how the tramways are to get beyond Black-friars Bridge. If trams are to be taken across the Thames at all, I contend that there should be a tube underneath the river, or a new bridge between Waterloo and Blackfriars to the new Kingsway carried over the Victoria Embankment. This Bill has been fully discussed in several sessions, and the mere fact that the Embankment would
  1006
  be spoilt from an aesthetic point of view by tramways is, I think, in itself sufficient to justify your Lordships in throwing out the Bill. We have few such beautiful sights in London as the Embankment, and I hope your Lordships will decline to have it destroyed by tramways.
  *THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: My Lords, as I had something to do many years ago with the Thames Embankment and Westminster Bridge, I hope your Lordships will allow me to say one or two words on this subject. The Thames Embankment had been for many years more or less discussed, but it was not until the appointment by the House of Commons of a Select Committee, of which Sir Joseph Paxton was chairman, on which I had the honour of serving, that anything practical was attempted. It was as a result of that Committee that the Metropolitan Board of Works was authorised and provided with sufficient means to construct that which is the finest public work in London of modern times. I also happened to be First Commissioner when Westminster Bridge was built, and I can assure your Lordships that that bridge was not constructed by representatives of the ratepayers of London, but under Government supervision and out of funds which the State provided. Therefore, I say that the State has good reason to look after the maintenance of the Thames Embankment and Westminster Bridge and protect them against the attacks which year after year have been made by the London County Council—a body which had nothing whatever to do with the creation of either one or the other.
  The noble Lord who has defended the action of the County Council says there has been one instance in his recollection in which the House of Lords has taken the course of rejecting a private Bill on Second Reading, but he said that was only on the ground that the private Bill proposed to subvert that which had been established by a public Act. Well, that is exactly what this Bill is doing. Have not these two great works been initiated and completed by public authority, and is not this an attempt by a private Bill to materially interfere with and utterly spoil both? That is the

  1007
  reason why I have opposed, and why I shall continue to oppose as long as I can, the passsing of a Bill of this kind. It is vain to say that in Committee all these great questions can be considered. I do not believe a Committee on a private Bill of this sort can go into these larger questions, and I therefore ask your Lordships to take your courage in jour hands and reject the Bill on Second Reading.
  *EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am bound to say, as a member of the London County Council, that I listened to the speech of the noble Viscount who moved the rejection of this Bill and to the speech of Lord Mayo with great consternation. I would venture to impress on the House that this is not a Party question in any sort of way. I hope the House will look at it entirely on its merits, and as a member of the London County Council I can say that if this Bill, to the misfortune of London, should be rejected, we should regard that action with great regret and apprehension. The noble Viscount who spoke first described the Bill as objectionable and useless, and made a great point, which was cheered by the House, about the disfigurement of the Embankment, a matter on which the noble Duke who has just sat down also laid stress. I would remind the House that there is no great congestion of traffic on the Embankment. It is not very much used. Moreover, the Embankment is from sixty-five feet to eighty-five feet wide, and surely two lines of tramway running along the Thames side of the Embankment would not be any very great disfigurement, and it would, besides, be a great boon and advantage to the toiling millions of London.
  Viscount Ridley told the House that this tramway would be of no good to the public. I will deal with that point in a moment. He also spoke of the obstruction and congestion of traffic which would ensue if the Bill was allowed to pass. Your Lordships know the terribly congested state of the traffic at the tramway termini at Blackfriars and Westminster Bridges. During Ascot week the congestion at the Westminster terminus is positively dangerous. But that danger and difficulty would be to a great extent removed if the circle was allowed to be
  1008
  completed, and if the cars were permitted to run in a never-ending continuous line. The argument which the noble Viscount used as to the interference with trade by carriages not being able to get up to the shops is one which has always been used when trams have been proposed. We have had it in Tottenham Court Road and other parts of London, and I do not think I need detain the House by arguing that point. The noble Viscount went on to say that this scheme did not connect the tramway systems of the south and north of London. On that point I beg to differ from the noble Viscount. That is exactly what the Bill does.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I did not mean, to say that it did not connect the trams. What I meant to say was that it did not really connect the north of London with the south.
  *EARL CARRINGTON: The noble Viscount is correct in this, that there is no junction of line between the north and the south. That was in the Bill, but it was cut out by the Commons House of Parliament. There will be no absolute connection with the trams which serve the northern parts of the Metropolis, but the County Council have now acquired powers to run a tramway through a subway which they take powers to bring on to the Embankment, and to get from the tramways running to and from Westminster and Blackfriars Bridges to this line would only necessitate walking across about eighty-six feet of the Embankment and entering the subway. The noble discount, in his reference to the complexity of the traffic problem, omitted to state that the scheme proposed in the Bill has been recommended by the Royal commission in their Report published this morning. The noble Viscount said the proposed tramway would be of no good to the public. I venture to think that if the noble Lord's speech had been made to any South London constituency, whether as a Progressive or a Moderate, the seat would have been lost to that side.
  There are 43,000 men and women crossing each of these bridges morning and evening, wet or fine. That is to say, 86,000 people make the journey across

  1009
  the two bridges daily. Take the case of a young woman who lives at Brixton, and who goes to work somewhere in Holborn or the Strand, or further north. This young woman is able to reach the Blackfriars or Westminster Bridge terminus for a penny, and we propose to carry her the longer route. Just think what that means. It is three-quarters of a mile from the dead end on the south side of Westminster Bridge or from the dead end of the south side Blackfriars Bridge to the centre of the Embankment opposite where the connection will be to the north of London. If this scheme is not allowed to proceed, you condemn her to walk a mile and a half a day more than she need do. Taking 300 as the number of working days in the year, it means that she would have to walk 450 extra miles in the course of the year. I appeal to the House to think of this poor girl—it is only a typical case of thousands—who would have to walk an additional mile and a-half a day in all weathers all the year round. The working people are deserving of great consideration, and I urge your Lordships to keep their case in view in giving your decision on this matter. The City Corporation are in favour of the Bill, and, as my noble friend opposite said, twenty-one of the borough councils of the Metropolis are in favour of it, and the councils of the fashionable boroughs which have no tramways of their own, have not, to their honour, opposed the Bill. I most earnestly appeal to the House not to throw out on Second Reading a Bill which has been supported by both parties in the County Council and which is in the true interests of the toilers of the Metropolis.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, noble Lords who have addressed your Lordships on the question of the Second Reading of this Bill have for the most part devoted themselves to a consideration pro et con of the merits of the case. It is part of my duty to look very closely into all the private Bills that come before your Lordships, but I would say at once that I do not think I am in any way competent to express an opinion upon this Bill. That is a question which I
  1010
  think can only be decided after hearing the evidence which will be given and the pleadings which will be made on both sides before a Select Committee, and for that reason I venture to hope that your Lordships will not deny it the advantage of being treated in a manner which is usual in the case of all private Bills that come to your Lordships' House.
  I shall content myself this evening with pointing out to your Lordships the difference in the position now from the position when this Bill, or a measure kindred to it, was before your Lordships' House in 1903, and was rejected on the Motion of my noble friend Lord Newton. It was then said, and said with justice, that the tramway line ended in the air. It was not proposed that it should cross Westminster Budge, but should stop at that end of the Embankment. Now the proposal is that there should be a continuous line from the south side of Westminster Bridge to the south side of Blackfriars Bridge, making connection there with the tramways on the south side of the river. It was next said, with great truth, that there was no connection with the trams which served the northern parts of the Metropolis, but, as the noble Earl who has just sat down has pointed out to the House, the County Council have now acquired powers to run a tramway through a subway which they take powers to bring on to the Embankment, although not actually in physical connection with the tramways run from Westminster to Blackfriara Bridge. At any rate, it cannot be said, as it was in 19O3, that there is no provision by this Bill for enabling traffic facilities from the south of London to the north.
  It has often been said that we must wait for the Report of the Royal Commission on London Traffic. The Royal Commissioners have issued their Report. I will not trouble your Lordships with any extracts from it, but I do not think it has been contested by any of the noble Lords who have spoken in opposition to the Second Reading that the Royal Commissioners are unanimously in favour of trams across Blackfriars and Westminster Bridges. In. 1903 there was a very strong and serious opposition from a local authority which I think had great

  1011
  weight with your Lordships. I mean I the corporation of the City of London, but in the present case that corporation; has agreed to withdraw its opposition. They have done more: they have agreed to co-operate with the London County Council in carrying out, I will not, say the imposition, but, at any rate, the condition, which was placed upon the I promoters of the Bill in another place—namely, that the tramway shall not be constructed across Blaekfriars Bridge until that bridge has either been widened; or a new bridge constructed. I venture I to think that that puts a very different aspect on the case as presented to your Lordships this year.
  Lord Chelmsford drew your Lordships' attention to the fact that twenty-one of the Metropolitan borough councils are supporting the Bill, and that no local authority, up to the present at any rate, is opposing the Bill in your Lordships' House. That is a novel feature, and one which I think ought to weigh with your Lordships. There is another important, consideration. In 1903, the Second Reading of this Bill was not met by a direct negative as on the present occasion, but with an instruction to the Committee to which the Bill was to be referred that they should omit certain tramways from their consideration. The noble Viscount now proposes, however, that the Bill should be read this day three months. There are other tramway schemes in this Bill. There is one for the deviation of an authorised line in the south of London; another for the construction of a tramway to complete an existing line and to bring passengers up to the door of the Crystal Palace; and others, including one to work electrically a tramway which is now horse-drawn. If your Lordships throw this Bill out on Second Reading on account of your objection to the tramway coming over Westminster and Blackfriars Bridges, you will at the same time be destroying the prospects of those other proposals which have nothing whatever to do with the question in dispute.
  The noble Viscount said that another Bill had been presented to this House which was not allowed to proceed on the ground that it was incomplete. I think the noble Viscount has been misinformed on that point. It was a tube rail-
  1012
  way Bill, and the point was that, pending the Report of the Royal Commission on Traffic it was deemed inexpedient to allow any tube railways to be promoted. The noble Lord is right in saying that it will be necessary, if this Bill passes, to introduce another Bill into Parliament in order to enable the corporation of the City to widen Blackfriars Bridge; but I do not think that is any reason why your Lordships should depart from the well-established practice of this House. When a Bill is presented containing a number of provisions dealing with tramways in different parts of the Metropolis, it is not wise, simply because to a certain portion of it objection is entertained in certain quarters, that the whole Bill should be thrown out. I hope your Lordships will consent to send the Bill in the usual way to a Select Committee, where it may be thoroughly thrashed out.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY):My Lords, my noble friend the Chairman of Committees has been led to form a false impression as to the nature of the recommendation of the Commissioners. It is a mistake to say that the Commissioners are in favour of this scheme. They say no such thing. What they say is that they have gone with great care and minuteness into the matter, and they point out that the system of tramways might be so arranged as to be of great public advantage. They draw attention to the necessity of communication across the bridges, but only as a part of a general scheme; and it is quite a mistake to quote the Commission as in favour of this particular scheme.
  I confess I still entertain the view which I held when it was my painful duty to resist a similar Motion to that now before the House, when moved by the late Chairman of Committees, Lord Morley. It seems to me that a sufficient ease has not been made out for the Bill, and that it is proposed to create a very dangerous precedent. The London County Council in its own way has done a very good work, and I have never said anything adverse to that body; but it is a very different thing to ask that they should be granted these

  1013
  enormous powers and the enormous establishment that a scheme of this sort is intended to give them. The Royal Commissioners point out in their Report that within the County of London nearly the whole of the tramways are owned, and in great part worked, by the County Council, and that such tramways as do not belong to them already will be acquired within a few years.
  I ask your Lordships to consider what this means. If this scheme, which is admittedly only part of a greater scheme, were carried forward, the London County Council would be invested with enormous power and influence in connection with the proprietary interest which it would possess in an enormous area. I should regard such a situation with very considerable apprehension. I do not apply these remarks to the London County Council alone; I believe them to be applicable to any municipality placed in a similar position. It is undesirable to assist in putting any authority in that position. As to the contention that this Bill should be allowed to go to a Committee to have its merits inquired into, I think that is arguing on a false analogy. Often a scheme is put forward, and it is undesirable to reject it at once because its merits are not known, and until it gets before a Committee no one knows exactly what the scheme is. But we are here discussing a matter which everyone of us understands thoroughly. I am sure all who live in London, or whose business compels them to spend a considerable portion of the year in London, can have no doubt as to the great inconvenience attending the congestion of traffic. The London cabmen and others conduct that traffic with very great skill and temper, but when you are dealing with a tramway you cannot accommodate it to the traffic. It is run on fixed lines and interferes with the free movement of the remaining traffic. Over and over again you see the sort of difficulty there is in getting by when a block occurs among trams, and it would be a very serious matter indeed to add to the present difficulties by giving permission to such a proposal is this. I have thought it right to nake this protest against the notion that
  1014
  we are not to exercise our judgment on the matter. We know what the question is, and no points of detail can be brought before the Committee which would alter our views on the main proposal. I shall, therefore, support the rejection of the measure, and I hope your Lordships will adopt the Amendment by such a majority as will prevent the recurrence of these attempts on the part of the London County Council.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I desire to call attention to one or two points arising out of the speech of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack. I certainly think that the objection which the noble and learned Earl took to the great powers given to the London County Council in the matter of tramways comes rather late in the day. They already have the powers. The proposal in this Bill, more particularly that of bringing tramways across the bridges and along the Embankment, will add very little to those powers. They already have the control of the tramways south of the river, and they will shortly, when the leases fall in, have control of the tramways on the north of the river; and to say that giving them power to link up these two great systems by bringing trams over the bridges and along the Embankment would be a very serious matter is, I think, somewhat of an exaggeration. It is a statement which is not justified by the absolute facts of the case.
  The noble and learned Earl also passed entirely in silence the very great argument brought forward by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, who pointed out that the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount not only involved the loss of the proposed tramway across the bridges and along the Embankment, but involved also the loss of four or five other great tramway schemes which are of the utmost importance to London. I am sure that your Lordships' House does not wish that these other schemes should also be consigned to limbo. Then the noble Earl said this was a scheme of which we could all judge. Well, on certain broad lines I suppose we can all judge; and the two opposing lines of argument on which we have to

  1015
  judge are these. First, is it to the advantage of London that the tramway system should be extended, that it should be linked up and made as useful as possible? What are the objects of the bridges of London, and what are the objects of the Embankment? They are, I think, primarily for the good of London, and for the use of the people of London, and I contend that the proposals in this Bill increase the utility of the bridges and of the Embankment. Then there is what I suppose is the main ground on which these proposals are resisted—the æsthetic ground. It is thought that this tramway would destroy the view along the Embankment and the beauty of the bridges. I do not for a moment deny that a bridge without a tramway and an embankment without a tramway is a much more æsthetic thing than a bridge or an embankment with a tramway; but at the same time there is some measure of proportion to be considered between the amount of harm that is done to the beauty of a thoroughfare and the amount of advantage given to the people generally; and for my part I consider that the advantage proposed to be given to London by the proposals in this Bill far outweigh any damage that may be done to the beauty of London. We never see a block of traffic on the Embankment, and if there is one road in London more suited than another for a tramway it is the Embankment. I therefore trast that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Viscount Ridley in opposing this tramway over the bridges and along the Embankment; but I think there are many noble Lords who share the views of the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, that it would be a pity to sacrifice lines in respect to which there is no objection. I would therefore ask my noble friend Lord Ridley whether
  he sees any objection to altering his Amendment and moving an instruction to the Committee not to consider that proposal in the Bill which refers to this particular tramway.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I should be very glad to withdraw the Motion for the rejection of the Bill, as I have no desire to impede the other tramways. With, your Lordships' permission, therefore, I will substitute an Amendment that it be an instruction to the Committee not to consider—
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Surely we cannot deal with an instruction to the Committee until the Bill has been read a second time and notice of the proposed instruction given.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I should like to I appeal to the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack whether I can substitute an instruction to the Committee for my Motion to reject the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Motion before the House is that the Bill be now read a second time, and, until the Bill is read a second time, it will be impossible to give an instruction to the Committee, because the Bill cannot go to a Committee until it has been given a Second Reading.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: In that case I personally would wish to offer no objection to the Second Reading of the Bill, but to move an instruction to the Committee after the Second Reading has been agreed to. I understand that this will be in order. [Cries of dissent.] If that is not accepted, then I am afraid I must press my Motion.
  On Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Motion," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 64.

  CONTENTS.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Crewe, E.

  Falkland, V.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Hampden, V.

  Ancaster, E.

  Onslow, E.

  Selby, V.

  Camperdown, E.

  Russell, E.

  Carrington, E. [Teller.]

  Spencer, E.

  Herefrod, L. Bp

  Chesterfield, E.

  Westmeath, E.

  Oxford, L. Bp.

  Barnard, L.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Belper, L.

  Ludlow, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Burghclere, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Ormathwaite, L.

  welby, L.

  Coleridge, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  Shuttleworth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Waldegrave, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Hatherton, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) L. President.)

  Churchill, V.

  Hawkesbury, L.

  Cross, V.

  Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)

  Marlborough, D.

  Goschen, V.

  Heneage,, L.

  Northumberland, D.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough-more)

  Hindlip, L

  Portland, D.

  Hindlip, L.

  Rutland, D.

  Knutsford, V.

  James, L.

  Bath, M.

  Portman, V.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Errol.)

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Ridley, V. [Teller.]

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.).

  Dartrey, E.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Lawrence, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Allerton, L.

  Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby.)

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Alverstone, L.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Muskerry, L.

  Egerton, E.

  Ashcombe, L.

  Newton, L.

  Eldon, E.

  Avebury, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Feversham, K.

  Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)

  Robertson, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Barrymore, L.

  Rosmead, L.

  Ilchester, E,

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Mayo, E. [Teller,]

  Calthorpe, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Morton, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Stanmore, L.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Castletown, L.

  Torphichen, L.

  Scarbrough, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Crofton, L.

  Windsor, L.

  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Moved, "That the words' this day three months' be there added."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Bill to be read 2a this day three months.
  Great Northern Railway (Ireland) Bill. Reported, without Amendment.
  North British Railway (General Powers) Bill. Reported specially, with Amendments.
  Caledonian Railway t Bill; Liverpool Corporation Bill; South Barracas (Buenos Ayres) Gas and Coke Company Bill [H.L.) Reported, with Amendments.
  Midland Railway Bill. Read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  Thames Conservancy Bill. Brought from the Commons; read a; and referred to the Examiners.
  Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill. Moved, That the order made on the 16th day of March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 27th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]. House in Committee (according to order). The Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made. Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next.
  Local Government Provisional Order (No. 16) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 17) Bill. House in Committee (according to order). Bills reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a on Thursday next.

PETITIONS.
  PATENTS,DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS (REGISTRATION OF PATENT AGENTS) BILL [H.L.]
  Petition, that the Bill may be referred to a Select Committee; of Patent Agents signing; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  LICENSED HOUSES.
  Petition for the early closing of; of Reading and District Temperance Council; Stockport Lodge, No. 300, of the Independent Order of Good Templars. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

    TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
    No. 3440. France (Cherbourg).
    No. 3441. Russia (Moscow).

    MISCELLANEOUS SERIES.
    No. 634. Belgium (the diamond industry of Antwerp).

    LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887.
    Return of the number of eviction notices filed during the quarter ended 30th June, 1905.
    Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    COMPANIES (WINDING-UP).
    Fourteenth General Annual Report, by the Board of Trade, under Section 29 of the Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
    DRUNKENNESS (IRELAND) BILL.
    Reported from the Standing Committee without further Amendment. The Report of the Amendment made in Committee of the Whole House to be received on Thursday next.
    SHIPOWNERS' NEGLIGENCE (REMEDIES) BILL.
    Reported from the Standing Committee without further Amendment. The Report of the Amendment made in Committee of the Whole House to be received on Thursday next.
    COAL MINES (WEIGHING OF MINERALS) BILL.
    House in Committee (according to order). Bill reported without Amendment; and recommitted to the Standing Committee.

    MACEDONIA.
    LORD NEWTONrose "To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he was prepared to make a further statement with regard to Macedonia; and whether any further Papers would be presented to Parliament." The noble Lord said: My Lords, in recurring to this subject, which has been so frequently debated in this House, I should like to explain that I do so for several reasons. In the first place, there is considerable difficulty in obtaining time for a discussion upon this question in the House of Commons; in the second place, we are approaching in this House the period of the session when the annual congestion of business takes place, and it is impossible to devote much time to any subject, however important; and, in the third place, it appears to me that an opportune moment has arrived when the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs might well make a statement on the subject.
    The recent discussions upon this matter have taken the form of assertions by various speakers, myself included, that no actual improvement has taken place in the condition of that part of the world known as Macedonia since the introduction of the Mürzsteg programme; and the reply of the noble Mürquess has been to the effect that a slow but gradual improvement is in progress, and that, in fact, things are better than they would appear. As to my own view, I have never concealed the opinion that the slow progress which has attended the work of reform is largely due to the highly inefficient action of the two Powers— —Austro-Hungary and Russia—to whom this scheme of reform has been entrusted; and, although I have been censured by the noble Marquess for expressing these views, I am still quite unrepentant, and see no reason to retract from the opinion I have already expressed.

    1021
    I will not say anything about the position of Austria; but, when you come to think of it seriously, what can be more grotesque, what can be more absurd, than that at the present moment Russia should be entrusted by Europe with a kind of mandate for delivering the oppressed and of instituting improvement and more advanced methods of administration in any part of the world? This procedure really can only be characterised as one of those solemn and elaborate farces which diplomacy sometimes finds it necessary to countenance. On the last occasion that I spoke on the subject in your Lordships' House I pointed out that there was no essential change in the conditions prevailing in that country. I contended that life and property were just as unsafe and that the future was just as menacing; that the fury of the racial struggle was unabated, and that the massacres, assassinations, and atrocities committed by the rival Christian races upon each other were as frequent as ever.
    And with reference to those events, which are generally described vaguely as atrocities, I may mention that I constantly receive communications, alternately from Bulgarians and Greeks, furnishing me with long lists of persons who have been assassinated or otherwise maltreated. This is corroborated by impartial testimony from other sources, and, allowing for a reasonable amount of exaggeration, I think the main facts cannot well be disputed; and it is not unnaturally regarded as a scandal that such a state of things should be permitted by the Turkish Government. Possibly it is a scandal; but, on the whole, it is not so surprising as many people appear to imagine, because the authority of the Turkish Government has been so weakened in Macedonia, as in other parts of the Turkish Empire, that really one of the few methods that remain to them of maintaining their rule is by keeping up the divisions which exist between the Christian races.
    I have additional testimony as to the correctness of the views I have expressed with regard to the condition of Macedonia in a letter which I have recently received from a gentleman with whom I am acquainted, who has made an extended tour throughout the country,
    1022
    who is a perfectly impartial critic, speaking the language of the various races and who is intimately acquainted with the Balkan Peninsula. This gentleman wrote only a month ago—
    "There is as yet no marked or substantial improvement in the condition of the population resulting from the application of the Mürzsteg programme. Such advantages as have been gained are mainly of a negative character. There are now, for instance, fewer complaints with regard to the conduct of the Gendarmerie, and this doubtless betokens a certain alteration of the sufferings of the peasantry. The foreign officers stationed in the various districts are powerless to prevent the excesses and barbarities which frequently occur, but the moral effect of their presence is nevertheless considerable, and the recent increase in the number of these impartial and vigilant observers cannot fail to be productive of good. The Gendarmerie, however, cannot work satisfactorily until the judiciary of which it is the organ is thoroughly overhauled and subjected to European supervision. But judicial reform must wait until financial reorganisation is effected, and the financial scheme adopted by the Powers has not yet received the assent of the Sultan. There is consequently little positive progress to record."
    When I and other speakers pointed out these facts at the end of last March, the noble Marquess, doubtless from a loyal desire to do the best he could for his foreign colleagues, replied that there had been a gradual improvement in the situation, and he specified as instances of improvement that there had been a considerable amount of repatriation. He also stated that hopeful experiments were in progress with regard to the commutation of tithe; and lastly, he pointed out that the foreign Gendarmerie was a success.
    I admit cheerfully that the experiment of the foreign Gendarmerie is a success, although I think it is fair to add that it is only a somewhat partial success. Now, what is the reason why this one portion of the reforms—namely, that relating to the Gendarmerie—is a success? To my mind the reason is perfectly obvious. It is because it is international and is not under the exclusive influence of the agents of Austria-Hungary and Russia; and, with regard to the question of the Gendarmerie, it is extremely gratifying to us as a nation to observe the confidence which is displayed towards British officers by all sections of the population; and it is one of the most pleasant features in a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of things that all the more intelligent people in the

    1023
    Near East, whether they be Christians or Mussulmans, recognise that we only wish to do what is right, that we have no desire to annex territory, and, in short, that OUT motives are above suspicion. I may add, without wishing to boast, that the sentiments with which our representatives are regarded are very different from those with which representatives of other Powers are regarded, who, I regret to say, are frequently looked upon as the pioneers of an annexationist policy. But, to return to the question of the Gendarmerie, I must point out that it is really unreasonable to expect too much from this force.
    *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR. FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): Hear, hear!
    LORD NEWTON: I am glad to hear that the noble Marquess agrees with me. The Gendarmerie is a police force intended to deal with the country when it is in a state of peace. Nobody, however optimistic he might be by nature, could successfully contend that what is known as Macedonia is at this moment in a state of peace. It is much more correct to say that it is in a state, if not of actual warfare, at all events in a state approaching actual warfare; and it is perfectly plain, that a few thousand Gendarmerie, however well trained, well led, and well organised they may be, are quite unable to deal with the immense difficulties of the present situation. I will admit that they have done as much as could well be expected of them; but I gather, from information which I have obtained from persons who have been out there recently, that their task would be considerably facilitated if they could be made really independent of the civil authority, and if, in particular, they could be allowed to have control of the police in the towns and villages where police exist; because, as everybody who has any acquaintance with Turkey knows, the police are the greatest obstacles in many instances to the satisfactory government of the country.
    What is the moral of what I have recited? To my mind it is this, that whereas Austria-Hungary and Russia, represented by the civil agents, have failed nearly completely in their task,
    1024
    international control, as distinct from Austria-Hungary and Russian control, has at all events been to a great extent successful. From this it seems to me to follow naturally that the services of these civil agents should be dispensed with on an early opportunity which, as I shall point out, will shortly occur, and that a genuine European control should be substituted for that which now is actually in existence. I must plead guilty to having used somewhat hard words myself with reference to these civil agents, but on mature consideration I am inclined to think they are more deserving of pity than censure, because anyone who has carefully studied their functions will, I think, realise that they do not possess any real power; they are not responsible, so far as I can see, to anyone in particular. They are directed to draw the attention of Hilmi Pashi to anything which may occur to them, but they have no power of enforcing their opinions; and the result is that the role which they play is not much more important than that of an official or semi-official spectator.
    I desire to point out to the House that the noble Marquess, who, to do him justice, has shown much more interest in these questions than any other Foreign Minister, has a good opportunity before him. The mandate of these civil agents expires shortly Article 1 of the Mìrzsteg Programme says—
    "Lcur mandat expirera dans leydlai de deux ans a partir de leur nomination."
    That is to say, in a few weeks, or in a month or so, their mandate comes to an end. There cannot possibly be any wriggling out of this stipulation. It is perfectly clear that under the scheme the mandate of the two agents comes to an end in a short time; and although Austria-Hungary and Russia have apparently shown a disposition to cling to their exceptional position and have actually put forward a financial reorganisation scheme of their own, which was apparently to be carried out largely it our expense, I am happy to observe that the noble Marquess has intimated has the question has now reached a stage where all the Powers have a right to make themselves heard. And, really, in view of the present situation of Austria-Hun-gary and Russia, it would be an act of

    1025
    kindness to relieve them from this kind of responsibility and give them time to attend to their own domestic affairs.
    What I venture, therefore, to suggest to the noble Marquess is that these civil agents, who are the symbol, so to speak, of Austria-Hungarian and Russian predominance, should disappear, that their functions should be taken over by representatives of the Powers under the general financial reorganisation scheme to which all the Powers have agreed, but to which the assent of the Sultan has not yet been obtained. As the noble Marquess and others have pointed out, financial reorganisation is the basis of improved administration. It is, in fact, the first condition of success, and it is at the root of all judicial and civil reform. What I lam disposed to believe myself is that if a really genuine international control, in which each Power is equally represented, can be established, and if the representatives of the various nations are not merely financial experts but men who really understand the country with which they have to deal, then a considerable step will have been taken to avoid a conflict which I personally fear is almost inevitable in the future.
    What we have got in Macedonia at present is an unsatisfactory compromise. The Turks are not allowed to govern the country according to their own ideas, and we have nominally European control, which in reality does not exist; and things have now gone so far that it is perfectly plain that they are quite incapable, of their own accord, of re-establishing a proper state of things. If they were sensible—which most unfortunately they are not—they would agree to a genuine international control as the best means of preserving these provinces. Otherwise I think it is perfectly plain that they stand a very great risk of losing them altogether. Therefore I hope to hear from the noble Marquess that any further development which is contemplated in the direction of reforms will bear a strictly international charter; that, if possible, the Adrianople vilayet will be included in the new scheme; and I sincerely hope it will be effective, not only in the interests of the subject races but in the interests of the Turks.
    1026
    Out interests in the Near East, whatever some people may think, are not solely humanitarian. I think I may safely say that it is not to the interests of this country, nor to the interests of France or Italy, that one of the great military Empires should find any pretext for eventually establishing itself on. the shores of the Ægean. The interest of this country is that the Turkish Empire in Europe should continue, provided the rule can be made tolerable to its subjects; but the present state of Macedonia seems to me to justify the fears I have frequently expressed, and I cannot find any better excuse for my action this evening than in the words which were used by the noble Marquess on the last occasion, when he said that white the condition of the Balkan Peninsula remains what it is that state of things constitutes a standing menace to the peace of Europe.
    THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I think the House has reason to be grateful to my noble friend opposite for having brought forward this question which he so thoroughly understands, and I am quite sure that the noble Marquess himself will make no complaint of its having been raised once more. I am disposed to agree with what fell from Lord Newton that there is not much to be gained by merely abusing the Turkish Government. Things being as they are, and the Turkish Government being what it is, it is impossible to expect any very close or useful co-operation from that Government in carrying out reforms in Macedonia, Equally, I think there is no advantage in deriding the two Governments—the Governments of Russia and Austria-Hungary—who have undertaken the very difficult and thankless task of acting for Europe in this matter; but it is permissible to point out that, so far as can be gathered from the Papers on the subject, this dual attempt has been, on the whole, a failure.
    The noble Lord said that to some extent the Gendarmerie had been a success. I am not prepared to dispute that. I have no doubt that, as time has gone on, they have become somewhat more efficient, thanks to the measures described by the noble Marquess

    1027
    in the last debate; but they are a very small body, considering the extent of ground that has to be covered; and I think it would be reasonable to say that all that they have practically been able to do is to prevent by their presence outrages which might otherwise have taken place. But I find outrages have occurred. In one case at Kuklitch, referred to in a previous debate by the noble Marquess, some forty persons were murdered, and there were ten or twelve cases of outrage, children being included, and more than half the village was burnt with petroleum. I understand that our Ambassador at Constantinople has protested against that outrage and demanded that its perpetrators should receive punishment. I now beg to ask the noble Marquess whether any steps have been taken in the matter and whether anybody has been brought to justice; and, if not, whether he is prepared to take any action. Since the last debate there has been another outrage in which many persons were killed and a village destroyed. Perhaps the noble Marquess will tell us whether anyone has been brought to justice in connection with that matter.
    I do not wish to go over the ground covered by the noble Lord, and I will therefore merely ask the noble Marquess one or two Questions relating to the financial aspect of the situation. The financial scheme has been accepted, I think I am right in saying, by all the Powers; but it is the fact, as I understand, that the Sultan has not yet acceded to it. I should like the noble Marquess to tell us whether any provision has been made in the event of the Sultan not acceding to the desire of the Powers for this financial scheme. We know that Turkish methods are of a dilatory character, and it may be the case that the Sultan will not point blank refuse to agree to the scheme; but, in the event of the matter being put off from day to day, week to week, and month to month, perhaps the noble Marquess can tell us whether any provision has been made for applying to the Turkish Government that modified form of coercion which has been efficacious in similar cases. Time is running short, and the dual arrangement will automatically come
    1028
    to an end in the month of October. I do not know whether it would be pressing the noble Marquess too much to ask if any provision has been made for a modification of that arrangement. I find myself in general agreement with the noble Lord that it would be a disastrous thing, both for Macedonia and to some extent for Europe as a whole, if that dual system were allowed to continue; and I hope the noble Marquess, as this is the last occasion probably on which we shall have a chance of asking for information before October, may be able to tell us whether the Powers have arrived at any conclusion as to the modification of that arrangement, and what the views of His Majesty's Government may be on this very crucial point of the whole matter.
    *THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD: My Lords, I remember many years ago that unreasonable leniency was shown at school to a first fault, and I believe that a like leniency is shown to what well may be called a first fault, a premonitory symptom of a dangerous tendency—a first speech in your Lordships' House; and I would avail myself of that leniency to speak briefly of the reasons which make me anxious to associate myself with the appeal made by the noble Lord who has brought this subject before us. I always feel that there is a very serious responsibility resting on all who bring pressure in any way to bear on those who hold the helm in matters of public interest unless they are themselves well informed in the things of which they speak; and yet there are certain broad facts before us which do, I think, warrant us all in bearing our part and saying what we feel about this matter.
    Let me speak briefly of the two facts which seem to me perfectly clear. The first is that we have before us in Macedonia a state of things crying, with a great and bitter cry, for reform. We have been told, and we are very glad indeed to be told, that there has been some advance; but no one can look at the indisputable reports which come to us without feeling that the state of things in Macedonia is not only, as has been said, a menace to the peace of Europe, but that it also will have a tendency to

    1029
    familiarise us all with the spectacle of misrule and cruelty: and to be so familiarised is bad for every civilised country. So it is not merely in the interests of humanity and of justice, but for the sake of keeping up the right standard of sensitiveness to wrong-doing that we may, I think, bear our part in pressing for courageous methods of reform. That is one fact before us.
    The other, I am afraid, is not less clear It is that the position is one of extraordinary and complicated difficulty. The Powers to which we have turned for help are themselves embarrassed by their own difficulties; the people whom we would help are themselves divided—bitterly divided—by racial and ecclesiastical differences; so that those who should help, and those whom we would succour, alike present us with difficulties of a most serious kind. Now, what are we to do when we feel that the obligation to press for reform rests upon us and that the difficulty besetting the task of reform is incalculably great? May I point to an analogy? The difficulties of relieving poverty are familiar to us all. We have learnt the harm of indiscriminate charity. We know that it may often do as much harm as good. I think that indiscriminate agitation is like indiscriminate charity. But I also think in both cases that total abstinence is not the right course. We cannot abstain from charity. We cannot abstain from bringing what pressure we rightly may bring to bear for the solution of this question.
    We can—and this should be, I think, our main object—assure those who have the administration of affairs that in whatever venture they may make for the cause of justice and good government they will have a solid body of national feeling behind them, that they can rely on forces supporting them, that they may know that there is a large body of people in England who do greatly care about this terrible scene of misrule—a large body of people who are willing, whenever the opportunity is given them, to throw all the weight they can into the support of whatever pressure may be brought to bear to bring about a cessation of this disorder and misrule. A general, I suppose, feels strong if he knows
    1030
    that the force behind him is adequate; he feels more confident still if he knows that the force behind him is determined and resolute; perhaps he may act more boldly still if he knows that that force is restless to do something. We should like to assure those who administer affairs that they have behind them a body of public feeling not only strong and resolute but restless until something may be done.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSD0WNE: My Lords, my noble friend who spoke first referred to the recurrent debates on this subject and recapitulated the case as stated by him on various occasions, and as stated in reply by myself. I do not think that my noble friend and I differ as to the objects which it should be our endeavour to accomplish, and after listening to his speech I am tempted to add that I do not think we differ very much as to the means which should be pursued in endeavouring to arrive at those objects. I am always struck in these debates with the advantage which, if I may so put it, lies with the prosecution. It is so easy to wax indignant over the sufferings of these poor people. It is so simple to complain of the slow progress which I has been achieved, and apart from the skill with which my noble friend always handles matters which he brings forward in this House, he has a not very difficult task when he comes here to tell us that the international machine is moving very slowly, that it often sticks in a rut, and when he, so to speak, cracks his whip at us in the hope of making us move rather faster.
    My noble friend perhaps under-rates both the difficulty of the task with which the Powers are confronted and the measure of success which they have accomplished. As to the difficulty of the task, let me express the pleasure with which I listened to what was said on that point by the right rev. Prelate. May I be permitted to add that, if the speech which he has delivered to us to-night can be described, as he described it, as a first fault, we desire that he should become an habitual criminal? Well, my Lords, the position of the country we are discussing this afternoon remains,

    1031
    I am afraid, very far from satisfactory. Of late the complication has been added to by the appearance of a number of Greek bands, with whom, at first, the Turkish troops seemed to be quite unable to cope, although of late they have I shown more activity, and have achieved a greater measure of success. But, if I am to tell your Lordships anything of the general condition of the country, I prefer to rely upon the evidence of one whose testimony I should certainly I set against that of the unnamed informant I to whom my noble friend referred, although a great deal of what was said by that unnamed informant shows much knowledge of the facts, and a very sound appreciation of them.
    Sir Nicholas O'Conor a few days ago reported to us that, owing to the reforms, even so far as they have gone, there is a distinct improvement in the general situation, although the presence of Greek and Bulgarian bands continues to disturb the country. In another despatch he tells us that His Majesty's Consul-General at Salonika ascertained from the Vali of that district that, with the exception of one band, the Bulgarian komitajis had been quiescent for some I time in the Salonika province. The Vali also stated that there was a marked decrease in the number and activity of the Greek bands in his vilayet, and he trusted that the movement was coming to an end; although he said I that there was a great deal of bad blood between the Greeks and the Bulgarians and that there had been several murders within the last few days. His Majesty's I Vice-Consul at Uskub reported on July 4th that the comparative improvement in the situation continued during the month of June. The Bulgarians continued to keep quiet, and no news of any encounters between troops and Bulgarian bands had been received since the end of the month of May. I There were Servian bands showing activity in the Uskub district, but they were being rapidly split up.
    The noble Earl opposite questioned me as to the action which had been taken in consequence of the excesses committed by the Turkish troops on, I think, two occasions. One was the! deplorable massacre at a place called
    1032
    Kuklitch. As to that, I am able to tell him that a military commission was appointed to inquire into the conduct of the troops, and that those concerned in those outrages have actually received punishment of various degrees, of severity. The inquiry as to the outrages at the other place he mentioned is, I believe, still in progress.
    My noble friend, Lord Newton, has spoken to us to-night again of the failure of the Müzsteg scheme; and I am not here to assert that the numerous proposals embodied in that scheme have been carried out with any general degree of success. But I think it may be said of many of them that nobody could have seriously expected that such proposals could have been carried out to the full within the space of less than two years.
    One of those proposals was that there should be a new grouping of nationalities, and a sort of rearrangement of population. The sorting and shuffling of human beings in a country in the state that Macedonia is in is a task from which the most courageous reformers might well shrink. We have had, even in these islands, some experience of the difficulty of moving a population from one part of the country to another, and we know that such operations are not very easily conducted. But, my Lords, on other points I think we may fairly say that, something has been achieved. The work of repatriation has gone on and is still in progress. I have seen a complaint that the promise made in the Mürzsteg scheme that the inhabitants of some of the villages which have been burnt should be exempted from taxation for a year has not been kept. I have made some inquiry into that; and we have heard from our Consul at Monastir that as a matter of fact these people were exempted from taxation for a year, although, owing to the deficiency of funds in the hands of the local Governments, it is quite possible that the full measure of relief may not always have reached the persons for whom it was intended.
    There is another point to which I have always attached great importance. I mean the question of the reform of the tithe system. I do not believe there is any reform the execution of which will

    1033
    have greater practical effect on the well-being of the population than the commutation of the tithes. The experiment was tried in a certain number of villages and proved to be completely successful; and I am assured that it is intended to carry out the same reform in the whole of the three vilayets, and that in the case of seven cantons it will be put into operation at once. Then another point as to which criticism has been offered is the employment of Bashi-Bazouks by the Turks in connection with their Regular troops. As to that I am able to say that our remonstrances have not been without effect, that a proclamation was issued by the Turkish Government condemning any Bashi-Bazouks who might be found with arms in their hands to be shot, and that that proclamation has apparently had a very useful deterrent effect. Sir Nicholas O'Conor, at any rate, reports to us that of late the cases in which Bashi-Bazouks were employed have been exceedingly rare.
    My noble friend Lord Newton spoke of the reorganisation of the Gendarmerie; and I was very glad to notice that he attached importance to what is being done, and particularly to the manner in which the reorganised Gendarmerie in the district for which we are responsible has done its work. I think that is the more creditable, because in this case, although we speak of the reorganisation of the Gendarmerie, what was done was really the substitution of a brand-new force for the old, ill-paid, ill-fed, ill-armed, and ill-disciplined body which went by the name of the Macedonian Gendarmerie. It is perfectly true, as my noble friend told your Lordships, that in the British district the Gendarmerie, and particularly the British officers in command of them, have learnt how to secure the full confidence of the villagers; and outside our own district, although I will not contradict my noble friend when he claims that our district may be regarded as a model district, outside our district General de Giorgis and the international officers associated with him have been able to bring into operation a new scheme of distribution under which the country will be properly mapped out into districts, and posts attached to each district.
    1034
    I am also told that on the occasion of his recent visit to Constantinople General de Giorgis was able to obtain from the I Turkish Government approval for three I changes which he has always regarded as of vital importance. I mean the improvement of the status of the Turkish officers in command of the Gendarmerie, the addition to the Gendarmerie of a certain number of recruits drawn from the Turkish Army, and, thirdly, the arming of the force with the Mauser rifle. We are sometimes told that the surveillance exercised by these officers of the Gendarmerie over the Turkish troops has proved of little or no value. I do not agree with that. There have been, no doubt, cases in which regrettable excesses have taken place, in spite of the fact that international officers accompanied the Turkish forces; but the presence of these officers has been the means of obtaining authentic information with regard to these occurrences; and it is upon that information that we have been able to found our complaints and remonstrances, which, as I stated a moment ago, have led in some cases to the punishment of the culpable persons. But in other cases it is unquestionable that the presence of European officers with Turkish troops did prove the means of preventing excesses; and I may mention in particular what took place at a village named Smol, where an insurgent band was surrounded and overcome by the Turkish troops and where no damage was inflicted on the peaceable inhabitants.
    In the case of the Gendarmerie, as in almost all other cases, it is the want of funds which has been the real obstacle to more thorough-going reforms; and I wish to say one word with regard to that question of financial reforms upon which my noble friend touched in his speech. When I last spoke to your Lordships on the subject of Macedonia I mentioned to you that there were at the time no less than three schemes or proposals before the Powers. There was, in the first place, the scheme of reform put forward by the Turkish Government; in the second place and connected with it was the proposal of the Turkish Government that the Customs duties should be increased by 3 per cent, in order to provide the

    1035
    necessary funds; and, in the third place, there was the scheme put forward by Russia and Austria Hungary. With regard to the increase of the Customs duties I need only remind your Lordships that His Majesty's Government, having regard to our large interest in the commerce of Turkey, found themselves unable to agree to that proposal without further evidence that by an economical and honest administration of the Customs the necessary funds might not be provided without any increase in the scale of duties.
    With regard to the two schemes put forward by the Turkish Government on the one hand and by the Austro-Hun-garian and Russian Governments on the other, both of which were based upon the agency of the Imperial Ottoman Bank, we found on examination that both those schemes contained some admirable points, but that both of them were defective, in the first place because they did not contain sufficient guarantees that the requirements of the Macedonian provinces would form a first charge upon the revenue or that the sums allocated for different services would reach their destination. Both the schemes seemed to us open to that objection. Besides that, the Turkish scheme seemed to us inadequate because it did not provide for any external control over the execution of reforms, while the scheme of the two Powers was based on the assumption that that control should be exercised by Austria-Hungary and Russia alone. In our view it was essential that if these schemes were to be productive of good results they should be carried out under international control.
    That leads me to say a word on a point which figured conspicuously in my noble friend's statement—I mean the so-called mandate given to the two Powers less than two years ago. In the first Article of the Mürzsteg Programme it is said that the work of the civil agents being to watch over the introduction of reforms and the pacification of the population, their mandate would expire in two years from the time of their appointment. The Mürzsteg scheme was presented to the Porte in October, 1903, and the time is, as my noble friend told us, drawing near when
    1036
    that period of two years expires. We have had some discussion—discussion, I am happy to say, of a most friendly nature—with the two Powers in question as to the duration and attributes of the so-called mandate. We never regarded that mandate as conferring upon the civil agents, so to speak, a lease renewable at intervals for ever. On the other hand, we never contemplated that at the expiration of two years the two Powers should be abruptly ousted from the position which had been accorded to them as the Powers geographically and for other reasons specially interested in the fortunes of Macedonia. But I will not recapitulate the arguments which have been used, because I am happy to say that a satisfactory agreement has been arrived at between the Powers concerned, an agreement under which the control of the scheme of financial reforms will be put under what I think my noble friend called genuine international control.
    I think I can best describe the arrangement which has been accepted by giving your Lordships the substance of the Note presented by all the Powers to the Porte on May 8th last. In that Note the Powers have demanded the assent of the Porte to the following arrangement:— "The Powers are each to nominate a financial delegate to watch over the execution of the financial reforms and the application of the scheme, and to ensure its observance. These delegates will act in concert with the Inspector-General and the civil agents, whose duties have been defined in the Mürzsteg programme. The Commission thus formed will be given all the powers necessary for the accomplishment of their task, more especially for the supervision of the regular collection of the taxes, including the tithe. The budgets must be submitted to the Commission before being finally adopted. The Commission will have the right to modify any proposals dealing with the receipt or expenditure which may not be in conformity with the laws or with the economical and financial wants of the country. With a view to facilitating their mission, the Commission will have the right of nominating in each vilayet an inspector to superintend the agents

    1037
    employed in the various duties connected with the collection of taxes."
    I hope those who have listened to the document which I have just read will see that it involves what I think I may describe without exaggeration as a very long step in the direction of securing not only a more effectual control over the finances of Macedonia, but a control of an international character. It is really no exaggeration to say that upon the satisfactory introduction of such measures of reform depends not only the success of the Gendarmerie force, but the question of the reform of the local police, which is an urgent one, of the adequacy of the relief measures to be taken for the succour of the inhabitants of the country, and, above all, of the efficiency and purity of the Law Courts; because if these officials are not paid at all, or are inadequately paid, it is perfectly clear that we must expect to find them either apathetic or, worse still, not in-corruptible. So far as to the action of the Powers in this matter.
    I have been asked what about the attitude of the Porte. I will state, in the first place, the bare facts of the case. The Note I have read was presented to the Porte on May 8th. OnJune24th, not having received a reply, the Powers, through their representatives in Constantinople, demanded one. They received that reply a few days ago—on the 12th of this month—and I regret to say it was a refusal of our demands. As to that I cannot say more than this—that we have no idea of acquiescing in that refusal. And I may say with equal confidence that I do not believe any of the Powers concerned, any more than ourselves, have the slightest idea of receding from the very moderate and reasonable demands which they have put forward. I cannot, therefore, bring myself to contemplate that period of indefinite delay, running not only from week to week, but from month to month, of which my noble friend Lord Crewe spoke; and, although I cannot make any specific statement to your Lordships, I am satisfied that the Powers will insist upon an answer different from that which is at present in their hands.
    EARL SPENCER: May I ask the noble Marquess to declare the position of the two Powers in October, after the mandate has been concluded.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I daresay I did not make myself quite clear; but it is stated in the Note that the financial delegates appointed by the other Powers are to act with the Russian and Austro-Hungarian civil agents. On this Commission, which will control the finances and which will be concerned with all questions in which financial considerations are involved, the representatives of the other Powers will be on the same footing as the representatives of Austria-Hungary and Russia.
    THE EARL OF CREWE: I should like to ask whether I am right in understanding that in alt other respects the status of the civil agents remains unchanged.
    *THE MARQUESS OP LANSDOWNE: Yes; no change is made in their status. We do not dethrone them; we associate other delegates with them. I hope I have said enough to your Lordships to show that, despite the discouraging experience which I am afraid we have encountered, and which we may encounter in the future, we have at any rate accomplished enough to justify us in dismissing altogether from our minds the idea that this is a task to be abandoned in despair. I should regard such an abandonment as not only disastrous to the Balkan Peninsula, but as highly injurious to the good name of this country. Nor, again, are we prepared to dissociate ourselves in dealing with this question from the other Powers. It is sometimes suggested to us that we should strike out a line of our own, and pursue our own policy fearlessly and without regard to the action of others. In my opinion the adoption of such a policy would find us alone in our glory, and, I am afraid, also alone in our impotence. We believe that we have been justified in endeavouring not to break up the concert of the Powers, that we have done well to work with them so far as we could, to maintain the most friendly and confidential relations with them, to watch events in the. Balkan Peninsula, to denounce excesses and irregularities, and to press for

    1039
    reforms, and to induce the other Powers, as far as we could, to work up to the level of the standard which we had set up for our own guidance. That has been our policy. It may have been disappointing in its results; but I venture to express my opinion that it has saved us from worse things, and that it has not been altogether unsuccessful in bringing some benefit to the people of Macedonia.
    LORD NEWTON: I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether he proposes to lay any further Papers, and whether he an inform the House who is to be the British representative on the International Commission. I would venture to express the hope that this country will be represented by our present Consul-General at Salonika, who is admirably fitted in every respect for such a task.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am not yet able to make a statement as to the selection of our representative. The reply to the first Question is—Yes, we shall lay further Papers on the Table.

    RETIREMENT OF CAVALRY OFFICERS.
    LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I rise, in accordance with the notice standing in my name, to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War how many officers serving in cavalry regiments have resigned their commissions or sent in their resignations since the South African War; how many candidates have passed their examinations and received commissions in cavalry regiments during the same period; and what is the number of officers now required, exclusive of officers serving on the Staff or extra-regimental duty, to complete the establishment in all the cavalry regiments.
    THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DONOUGH-MORE): My Lords, in reply to the Question I have to say that 321 cavalry officers I have retired voluntarily or resigned their commissions since the South African War; 116 have in the same period received commissions in the cavalry— viz., seventy-nine from the Royal Military College, twenty-seven from the Militia, and ten from the Universities. The total number of vacancies at the present moment is sixty-five. To account for the apparent discrepancy in the figures,
    1040
    it must be remembered that when the war came to an end there was a large number of supernumerary officers throughout every branch of the service. I do not wish to anticipate the debate on this important subject which takes place next week, but I can assure the noble Lord that this is a matter which we consider of the highest importance. We have been, and are still, collecting evidence on the subject, and it is a question which is undergoing the earnest consideration of my colleagues on the Army Council.

    ACCIDENTS TO SEAMEN.
    LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I rise, in accordance with the notice standing in my name, to ask His Majesty's Government whether, having regard to the recommendations of a Departmental Committee to consider the extension of the Accident Compensation Acts, they have now framed their Bill extending accident compensation to seamen which the Merchant Service Guild have been informed by the Board of Trade was under consideration; and whether, in view of the fact that the master, who is subjected to similar risks, is the only member of a ship's crew who in the eyes of the law is not a seaman, and that the Merchant Shipping Act already adopts the principle of a shipowner's liability when a master is injured in the service of the ship, they have included, or will include, masters in the benefits arising from the Bill when sanctioned by Parliament.
    THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Duke of MARLBOROUGH): My Lords, I can assure my noble friend, in reply to his Question, that the Board of Trade recognise the importance of this matter. The Bill concerning which he has asked for information has not yet been drafted, but the principle of dealing with the question by amendment of the Merchant Shipping Act has been approved of. When the measure is prepared the question of applying its provisions to masters as well as to seamen will be carefully and sympathetically considered.
    House adjourned at ten minutes before Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.