Sitting of 18 March 1890

NEW WRIT.
For County Down (Eastern Division), v. Richard William Blackwood Ker, Esquire, Chiltern Hundreds.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
  By Order.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. BAUMANN: Before this Bill is read a second time I desire to record my protest against the manner in which the Measure has been drafted and presented to Parliament by the London County Council. On the title it is described as—
  "A Bill for the improvement and alteration of abridge over Bow Creek, at Barking, and the acquisition and management of Brock-well Park, and to confer further powers on the London County Council."
  This is an innocent, even an attractive title, but I find that behind a bridge over Bow Creek and the acquisition of Brockwell Park are inserted clauses of a highly controversial and objectionable character, which we are to discuss as a sort of pot pourri of legislation. Among the numerous proposals of the Bill is one contained in Clause 72, that no building shall be erected of a greater height than 70 feet without the consent of the Council. There are others to alter the time of calling the meetings of the Council, to change the arrangements for signing cheques, to change the law of rating in regard to the Metropolis, and to exempt members of the Council from the liability of serving on juries, and to give them power to administer oaths. Having regard to the notice which has been placed on the Paper by the President of the Local Government Board, I do not propose now to discuss these clauses further, but I will merely say that this is the first time in the Municipal history of London that the Metropolitan Municipal Authority has attempted, under cover of schemes of local improvements which we all desire, to smuggle through this House—[Cries of "Oh!"]—clauses of a highly controversial and objectionable character, changing not only its own constitution, but the law of the land. Observe the cunning—certainly not of a very high order—with which

  1103
  this Bill has bean drawn. In the vanguard of the clauses of the Bill is placed the acquisition of Brock well Park, which the County Council know very well all the Metropolitan Members are desirous of securing. They have calculated that we South London Members in particular would not dare to vote against a Bill for the acquisition of Brock well Park, and, miscalculating upon our cowardice, they have thought proper to insert in a Bill which is nominally for the acquisition of Brock well Park all sorts of objectionable and dangerous clauses. I have no doubt that the London County Council think they have done a very clever thing in drafting a Bill of this kind, but it is a piece of sharp practice worthy only of the office of Dodson and Fogg. I am quite sure that the right hon. Member for the University of London and the other hon. Members whose names appear on the back of the Bill, are unconnected with this proceeding, and, therefore, I do not hesitate to describe it as a disreputable manœuvre, an unscrupulous stratagem, of which the Metropolitan Board of Works, with all its faults, was incapable. The Metropolitan Board of Works always treated the House of Commons, in regard to its public and private Bills, in a straightforward and above-board fashion, and if the London County Council chooses to depart from the recognised methods of transacting public business, it cannot be surprised if its Bills meet with opposition, and are received with suspicion by this House. I feel so strongly upon the matter that T hope the House will reject the Bill.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member make the Motion which stands in his name?
  MR. BAUMANN: I think the best course I can adopt is simply to record my public protest. [Ironical cries of "Hear hear."] If that is the spirit in which I am to be met by hon. Members opposite, I will move as an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time on this day six months.
  MR. J. KELLY: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," in order to have the words "upon this day six months,"—(Mr. Baumann,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  SIR J. LUBBOCK: The hon. Member has, I think, almost exhausted the vocabulary of abuse, and I must say that I feel somewhat indignant with being charged, in conjunction with my Colleagues on the London County Council, with being guilty of an attempt to smuggle a Bill through this House, in a manner described by the hon. Member as exhibiting low cunning.
  MR. BAUMANN: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I excepted in the most express way the right hon. Gentleman and the other Members whose names are on the back of the Bill.
  SIR J. LUBBOCK: I cannot accept the apology of the hon. Member. My Colleagues and I are responsible to the House, and I think I shall be able in a few words to show the House that the Bill is not open to the accusations which the hon. Member has thought fit to make against it. Indeed, I should feel more indignant than I do if I could believe that the hon. Gentleman really himself believed the charges he has made. What are the grave matters which the hon. Member considers we have brought forward in this Bill, and which he says we have attempted to smuggle through the House? The first is that the London County Council are to have the power of administering oaths. With regard to the administration of oaths, I quite admit that it is not usual for an Administrative Body to have the power of administering oaths; but the London County Council think it is desirable to have that power, because the duty of licensing has been transferred to the Council, and in all other cases Parliament has considered that Licensing Bodies ought to have the power of administering oaths, and no reason has been shown why London should be an exception; but if this House thinks that as regards Londoners it is sufficient to believe the men who apply for licences on their simple word rather than upon the administration of an oath I have nothing more to say. Passsing to the second point, that the exemption to serve on juries has also been conferred on other Municipal Bodies,

  1105
  whose duties are by no means so arduous as those of the London County Council. We only ask an exemption which is in force in all other large cities. Then, as regards the third objection, I believe the House would wish that power should be given to prevent buildings being raised to a greater height than 70 feet. Hon. Members must have observed the tendency in London to erect buildings of a gigantic height, and I think the majority of the House will consider that it is desirable to compel them to be within a moderate height. Then, again, as to the mode of making payments, I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board has put on the Paper a Motion to exclude that clause of the Bill. It was drawn up by Lord Lingen, who is, of course, one of the very highest authorities in the whole country on such a subject. Practically the present system is found to be almost unworkable. It leads to most inconvenient and unnecessary delays. There may be a little matter affecting a building, which nobody objects to, and against which there is no opposition. As the law stands a notice has first of all to be given, then it has to go before the Building Committee; there is then another notice required, and it has to go before the Finance Committee, then it is necessary to give a third notice in order to bring it before the Council. If this clause is to be excluded, I hope the people of London will feel that if are there unnecessary delays, the London County Council have done their best to prevent them. The only other objection raised by the hon. Member was to the clause which raises the important question concerning the law of rating, on which much may be said; it is drawn to carry out the recommendations of the Committee of this House which sat in I860, but if the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept that provision, it will not be pressed. I hope that the House will assent to the Second Reading of the Bill. I have dwelt upon the provisions which the hon. Member opposite has declared to be of a wicked and abominable character, but I hope the House will feel that there is no justification whatever for the severe manner in which he has thought fit to condemn the conduct of the London County Council.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has dealt with the Bill as if the whole of the proposals in it were in themselves perfectly unobjectionable, and were in some cases necessary to the proper performance of the functions of the London County Council. But there are two questions to be considered: first of all whether the proposals in the Bill are themselves not open to grave objection, and secondly, whether, even if they are not, they ought to be dealt with in a private Bill. I gather that my hon. Friend behind me feels strongly about the latter of these two points. For my own part, I think that the House, as a whole, has a strong objection to important alterations in the general law being introduced in a private Bill. The main object of the Bill is to acquire Brockwell Park, and the question is whether such a measure should be made the medium of carrying out other improvements. I must say that I entirely agree with my hon. Friend in that view. I do not go so far as to say that no provision of the law should ever be altered in a private Bill, but I think it is a great mistake to introduce provisions into a private Bill largely altering the general law. If this were done, not only would the time of the House be largely taken up with discussion on such points, but there would also be a largely increased amount of labour in searching through, private Bills to find out what the law was on certain points, If this were done in the case of the London County Council there is nothing to prevent every County Council in the kingdom from introducing alterations, so that the law might materially differ in every county. One point is the question of exemption from service on juries. I am not at all sure that I ought not to have included that among the clauses which I propose to ask the House to instruct the Committee to omit, but I have regarded it more; as an application of a law that is universal throughout the country than an alteration of the general law, and I cannot but recognise that London ought to have the benefit of what other municipalities have, although perhaps I weaken my argument by allowing that

  1107
  clause to remain. Yet I think that in this respect there is much to be said for it. Then, again, there is a clause inserted which amends the Local Government Act with regard to the chairmanship and vice-chairmanship of the Council. Of course, if the Bill contained any proposal that either of these gentlemen should take an active part, such as voting, I should strongly object; but as far as I understand there is no intention of altering the Local Government Act in that respect. As it is a matter almost personal to my right hon. Friend and Lord Rosebery, I do not feel myself justified in pressing my objection. Then comes the question of oaths. The proposal in the Bill distinctly is to repeal that section of the Local Government Act which expressly states that there shall be no transfer of power to administer oaths.
  SIR. LUBBOCK: Only so far as licensing is concerned.
  MR. RITCHIE: Under the Act there is no transfer of power to the Council enabling them to administer an oath. It is true that the Council can administer an oath to the coroner when he is swearing to the correctness of his accounts, but that is a totally different thing to what is proposed in the Bill, which is nothing more nor less than to convert an administrative into a judicial body? It gives them the power of examining witnesses on oath. The right hon. Gentleman said that the bodies which have hitherto exorcised these duties have had the power to administer an oath. That is true, but they were judicial and not administrative bodies. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman may say that it would facilitate the duties of the Loudon County Council if they had the power to administer an oath. But if that be so let a Public Bill dealing with the subject be brought forward. It may very well be that the Council might propose to administer an oath when a magistrate was present, but this general power, I think, is objectionable in an administrative body. At all events, it is a very large and important question, dealing with an important principle, which certainly ought not to be introduced in a Private Bill. Then comes the question of finance. I have myself told Lord Rosebery that I should be very glad if opportunity arose for
  1108
  dealing with that question. We shall have to deal with the whole question of London finance this year; we are almost under a pledge to the House to do something to put an end to the Annual Money Bills which used to be introduced on behalf of the Metropolitan Board of Works. That is altogether an unsatisfactory system of dealing with the finance of the London County Council, and the Government are prepared to introduce a Bill putting the finance of the Council on a different footing, which would very likely put some kind of relaxation in the conduct of the finance of the London County Council. But I cannot hold out hopes that I shall deal with them in anything like the drastic manner proposed in this Bill, which practically places an unlimited amount in the hands of the Chairman, Deputy Chairman, or Vice Chairman, and an officer of the London County Council, in the interval between two meetings, which in the summer vacation would mean a long interval. This clause gives power to any one of these gentlemen, along with the Comptroller of the London County Council, to spend an unlimited sum of money without any order from the Council. Those who know the procedure in municipal Corporations know that no such power is possessed by them, and there are safeguards which prevent anything like what is now proposed from occurring. I understand, however, that my right hon. Friend does not propose to move this clause. Another important question is that of the computation of time. If any inconvenience is felt it must be experienced throughout the whole country, but I have heard no such complaint. If there is any such inconvenience I do not see why it should not be dealt with as regards the whole country, and not with reference to London only. With regard to the question of the reduction of a quorum from five to four, here again I have not heard of the London County Council suffering the smallest inconvenience, or that there is any inconvenience felt throughout the country. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there are many Town Councils which, though not approaching the size of the London Council, are yet very large; so I would say again that if there is any grievance we should proceed to alter the general law, so that everybody might participate

  1109
  in the benefit. Then comes a very important and astonishing proposal. By the Municipal Corporations Act three clear days' notice must be given of a meeting, and of the business to be done, so that all the members may be informed in due time as to the business to be transacted. But this Bill proposes to reduce the time of notice to 24 hours. I would ask the House whether, if there is one Council where more notice should be given, it is not the London County Council, inasmuch as large and important questions are constantly arising to be dealt with by it, and I would be the last to consent to any modification of the time of notice to be given. But the Bill goes much further than that; it proposes that at any meeting, without notice being given, the Council may, by a majority of two-thirds of those present, take up and dispose of any important matter. I cannot think that the House would consent to any such proposal as that. Section 75, again, contains one of the most astonishing proposals I have ever seen in a Private Bill, or in any other. It proposes that all contracts between individuals with regard to the payment of rates are to be subject to any future legislation. That is to say, that in the case of contracts for leases in which one party agreed to pay the rates, the contract is to be binding on the landlord, but the payment of rates is not to be binding on the tenant. Can any proposal be more unfair or more ridiculous than to insert in a. Bill of this kind a clause with such, an effect, sandwiched in between one clause dealing with bye-laws and another dealing with trespassers in sewers? The noble Lord who presides over the London County Council has accused me of pedantry because I cannot agree to all these changes. The House will judge of what kind of pedantry I have been guilty in not consenting to give these powers to the London County Council. The statement issued by the London County Council with reference to this Bill contained a misrepresentation of facts with regard to the Local Government Board having refused assistance to the London County Council. That statement is of a piece with Lord Rosebery's "pedantry" speech. The application to the Local Government Board asked them to set aside all the rules and legal principles
  1110
  by which they are governed, and the Local Government Board replied that they had no power to do anything of the kind. I do not think the House will be of opinion that we have been guilty of pedantry in not sanctioning the powers asked for.
  MR. LAWSON: Whatever there may be in the objection of the right hon. Gentleman, I am quite sure the House will have appreciated the difference in the tone of his speech, from the very abusive, exaggerated, and unnecessary language of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Baumann). The House will recognise that the Council have had a work of vast magnitude to accomplish, and have approached that work with a sincere desire to solve difficulties in local administration such as have faced no other newly created Governing Body. The right hon. Gentleman appears to me to be a little too thin-skinned, in regard to what he imagines to be an interference with his handiwork as contained in the Local Government Act of 1888. There is no intention to alter the general law. The Council merely desire to suit the application of the general law in the case of London to the special local circumstances and necessities of their position. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, as a matter of fact, that the general law has been altered in favour of nearly all the great municipalities of the country. It has been altered in Birmingham, in Manchester, in Liverpool, and none of the great towns now work under the form of procedure prescribed by the Municipal Corporations Act. Only last Session a Bill of this nature was passed at the instance of the right hon. Gentleman himself, and this year his private secretary has introduced another Bill to incorporate in a public Statute certain provisions of sanitary law already applied to particular districts.
  MR. RITCHIE: By a Public Bill.
  MR, LAWSON: Yes, but introduced in Private Bills adapted to special cases. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Council are striving to obtain judicial powers. Why should they not have judicial powers if they have judicial duties to perform? The licensing work of the Council is heavy and difficult; yet they are bound to accept mere assertion in cases where magistrates performing similar duties

  1111
  had the power of taking evidence upon oath, and of sifting that evidence. It is whispered that the right hon. Gentleman intends to bring in a general Bill dealing with all the County Councils. This Bill deals only with the London County Council, who seek to obtain the powers which those whom they have succeeded did possess.
  MR. RITCHIE: I have not the slightest intention of doing anything of the kind.
  MR. LAWSON: Then I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not going to remove some of the anomalies of the Act of 1888. With regard to the financial propositions contained in this Bill, I believe they have been adopted on the advice of Lord Lingen, who for years was head of the Treasury, and has had immense experience in connection with financial questions. It is only an endeavour to clear away some of the difficulties and anomalies which have been created by [jutting London on all fours with all the rest of the counties. I hope that tin; right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Lubbock) will, in any case, take a Division.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I rise to express a hope that the hon. Member for Peckham will withdraw the Amendment. I quite feel with the President of the Local Government Board that there are some clauses in the Bill, to which exception can be justly taken, and which had better not have been incorporated, but they may be considered in Committee, and improved or expunged. The Bill is one which will confer benefit in some quarters of the Metropolis, and I hope my hon. Friend will not consider it necessary to press the Amendment to a Division.
  MR. BARTLEY: I regret that the Amendment should have been introduced in a somewhat intemperate manner, because the case against a Bill so bad will not be strengthened by the use of hard words. I agree with the hon. Member for Peck-ham that the Bill as it has been brought in is a most objectionable one in various ways. It deals with half-a-dozen things, some of which I agree with, but it deals also with other large Constitutional questions which ought to be dealt with by themselves in separate Bills. It even has a little fling at constables, for I see that the Council wish to have the power of swearing
  1112
  in its own servants as constables, and it proposes also to deal with the question of military drill—a matter which certainly might have been left alone. Then, again, Clause 73, which establishes inquiries as to water supply and markets, is a very important one, and it authorises an expenditure of £5,000 in such inquiries. We know that is the beginning of a scheme which the Council have at heart, to supply London with water [Opposition cries of"Hear, hear."] Hon. Members on the other side of the House always cheer a proposal of that nature, but it is a remarkable thing that some 10 years ago they did not cheer it when there was a practical way of carrying such a scheme into effect at much less cost than is now possible. What I say is that this question of water supply ought to be discussed per se, and not dealt with by a side wind in a Bill of this sort. Another provision of the Bill is to enable the Council to do anything however startling without having given any previous notice of their intention to members of the Council on the Agenda Paper. That is a power which, I think, the ratepayers ought to resist to the utmost. Then, again, the question of the height of building's in London is a very important one. I believe that in future it may be necessary to erect buildings in London higher than in the past, and that it would be unwise to say that they are to stop at 70 feet. Another provision is that no building shall be erected at a less distance than 20 feet from the centre of the roadway; and the rating-clause is also most material. The measure also raises questions as to the Thames Conservancy and other large questions, which ought to be considered as a whole by the Government of the day, and not in this measure. The, hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson) said that the financial arrangements of the Bill have been under the charge of Lord Lingen. No doubt Lord Lingen is an excellent financier, but I would not trust him in every possible way in drafting a measure of this kind. I do not look upon him as an immaculate financier; and if he had happened to be a Tory instead of a Radical, I do not think we should hear much of his praise from the other side. I think the Bill ought to be rejected in order to teach the London County Council the lesson

  1113
  that a Private Bill should deal with a specific subject, and not mix up a large number of great Constitutional questions in the same measure.
  Mr. H. H. FOWLER: The hon. Member who has just sat down recommends that in regard to legislation for the County Council of London, we should adopt a course dissimilar to that adopted towards other County Councils and Municipalities. Is the hon. Member aware that in regard to Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, and other large provincial towns, omnibus Bills have been brought in in order to meet the requirements of the great Municipalities from time to time upon a vast variety of questions which, from want of time, and sometimes owing to the expense involved, would not be dealt with at all if it were necessary to introduce a Bill each year dealing with each separate matter? I am glad that the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has somewhat repudiated the extreme language used by the hon. Member for Peckham with reference to the Council. I think it very unwise for the House to assume an attitude of antagonism towards a body which is representative of the great City of London. I think the House ought rather to raise the dignity and increase the power and enlarge the efficiency of the County Council. There has been no greater public service which the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) has ever rendered to the country than in raising the whole tone of municipal life in that town, and I now ask the Government to treat the London County Council in precisely the same way as they have treated Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, and Leeds. Wight years ago we consolidated the law relating to municipal Corporations. I was a young Member of the House at the time, and I ventured to suggest that amendment should take place cotemporaneously with consolidation. I was told then that it was unwise ever to attempt to combine amendment with consolidation. It was admitted that our Municipal Law was antiquated and unworkable, and that it ought to be altered. We were promised a measure of Reform, but, although we have now reached the year 1890, that measure has not yet come. Scores of Bills have been brought in by
  1114
  municipalities, each instituting a separate Code, and they have all, according to the practice of the House, been referred to a Special Committee. I maintain that there has been an admission that the general law requires to be altered in a great variety of instances in order that we may carry on the work of our municipal life. I can quite understand the position taken by the President of the Local Government Board. There is a clear and divided line between administrative matters and questions affecting great changes in the principle of the general law. In some of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman I fully agree, especially when he said that there are further changes in the Municipal Law which ought to be carried out by general legislation. In regard to the financial question I think the mode in which the Local Government Board proposes to meet it is fair and just on the whole. I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Bartley) speak disrespectfully of Lord Lingen.
  MR. BARTLEY: I did not speak disrespectfully of Lord Lingen. I said I knew him too well to accept him as a financial authority.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The hon. Member said that Lord Lingen's authority ought not to be accepted in all parts of the House.
  MR. BARTLEY: Certainly not,
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I regard Lord Lingen as a high financial authority, and anything that has received his approval is certainly worthy of consideration. To reject the Bill before the House would be to treat London very unjustly, and as we have never treatedany other municipality. The Bill should be read a second time and referred to a Select Committee, and disputed points, if any remained, might be discussed afterwards on the Third Reading.
  MR. BRISTOWE: I only rise for the purpose of joining in the appeal which has been made to my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham not to press the Amendment. I believe that most of the difficulties which have been referred to in connection with this Bill can be dealt with in Committee, and I am sure that neither he nor any other Member on this side of the House would like to create such an irreparable amount of mischief as would

  1115
  be brought about by defeating the measure.
  MR. BAUMANN: I made the Motion for the rejection of the Bill on account of the provoking manner in which my very mild remarks were received on the other side of the House. As the Bill is proposed to be emasculated by the Motion of the President of the Local Government Board, I believe that it will be rendered much less objectionable, and, therefore, if the House will allow me, I will withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to omit Clauses 55, 56, 57, 58, and 75 from the Bill."—(Mr. Ritchie).
  MR. COURTNEY: I cannot go entirely with the President of the Local Government Board when he proposes the removal of all these clauses from the measure. I agree with him in regard to some of them, but not with regard to all. Clause 55, which would empower the County Council to administer oaths should, I think, be struck out, for it would introduce a variation from the general law, and a change of that kind ought to be reserved for introduction in a Public Bill. It would place the London County Council in the anomalous position of undertaking what are really judicial functions, and the same thing would apply to all County Councils which possess licensing powers. I therefore agree with my right hon. Friend that Clause 55 should be struck out of the Bill, I am further of opinion that Clause 61 should be omitted from the measure. It proposes to exempt County Councillors from the jury service, and is a clause which would more fitly find a place in a Public Bill. As to Clause 75, I understand that the Council have consented to omit it, and therefore I will say nothing further about it. But I think that Clauses 56, 57, and 58 ought to be allowed to go before the Committee for consideration. One of these clauses deals with the question of the length of the notice that should be given of the agenda. Having regard to the frequent meetings of the London Council it is imposing upon
  1116
  that body an onerous obligation to require that three days' notice of the agenda should be given. In the House of Commons only 24 hours' notice is required, and in a city like London the proceedings of any public body are always watched with vigilance by the Press and by the electors. I therefore think that there is a case for allowing the Council to go before a Select Committee and make out a case for exemption. The same remark will apply to the clause providing for a petty cash fund, for it is impossible to conceive that the County Council can go on without a petty cash fund, out of which to make payments, to be ratified at subsequent meetings. The language of the clause is, perhaps, too wide, but that is a matter that could very fairly be considered by a Committee upstairs. The clause relating to the question of urgency also appears to me to be worthy of consideration. I therefore move to omit from the Motion of the President of the Local Government Board Clauses 56, 57, and 58, and to insert in it Clause 61.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the numbers "56, 57, 58."—(Mr. Courtney.)
  Question proposed, "That the numbers '56, 57, 58' stand part of the Question."
  MR. RITCHIE: The clause which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to insert is really more an application of the existing law than an alteration of the law. By the Jury Act members of Town Councils are exempt from service on a Jury. It cannot be maintained that the work of a London Councillor is less arduous than that of a member of an ordinary Town Council. In London the meetings of the Council are more frequent than those of a Town Council; in fact, there are meetings almost every day. Clause 56 deals with the finances of the Council. I have already stated that I shall be quite prepared to consider the question of finance when the Government introduce their Bill dealing with the whole question. But I could not recommend the House to assent to such extraordinary propositions as are contained in the financial clauses of this Bill. The subject is one which might be dealt with in the London Financial Bill. I understand the right hon. Gentleman

  1117
  who moved the Second Reading to say that the course which I have shadowed out is not unacceptable to the London Council. I am not in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means on the question of notice. I do not think the 24 hours' notice in this House affords a parallel to the County Council, as we meet every day in the House. But I admit that the question requires consideration. It would, however, best be dealt with in a Bill affecting not London only, but all the large Corporations in the country. On these grounds I feel that I must adhere to the Amendment which I have proposed.
  SIR J. LUBBOCK: As the right hon. Gentleman has promised that he will himself bring forward a measure to carry out our suggestions with reference to Clause 56, I would suggest that Clauses 57 and 58 should be omitted and 56 retained. The Council pay a great deal of money in wages, and it is necessary that some clause of this kind should be inserted in order to enable us to carry on the business, and prevent those whom we employ from suffering during a period of holiday. The Chairman of Committees has given good reasons why Clauses 57 and 58 should go to a Committee upstairs. I hope my right hon. Friend opposite will accept this compromise.
  MR. CAUSTON: After the speech of my right hon. Friend (Sir J. Lubbock), I hope the House will agree to the suggestion I have to make, namely, that the Bill should be allowed to go to the Committee upstairs without any alteration at all. To discuss the clauses here is a most inconvenient course, and the three right hon. Gentlemen who have addressed the House have all taken different views of the subject. If we are to discuss the details of the Bill here, I do not see why we should not take the same course in regard to all other Private Bills. I trust that both the Motion and the Amendment will be withdrawn.
  MR. BARTLEY: I hope the President of the Local Government Board will not give way. I fully agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken that the difficulty has been brought about by the way the Bill has been brought in.
  MR. CAUSTON: I did not say so.
  MR. BARTLEY: There are a number of questions raised in the Bill which ought not to be in it. It is called an Omnibus Bill, but that title ought not to be applied to a measure which raises a number of difficult principles of great Constitutional importance, and does not merely deal with questions of detail.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I have no desire to say a word against the London County Council. No one knows better than I do the difficult and arduous task they have to perform; but at the same time I agree with what has fallen from the President of the Local Government Board, that principles of this kind ought to be dealt with by a public rather than by a private Bill. It would almost appear that the Council have put in these clauses at the suggestion of different members of their own body, and have made a sort of olla podrida of the Bill, instead of waiting until these important questions affecting the general law should be dealt with in a public measure.
  (4.30.) The House divided:—Ayes 167; Noes 137.—(Div. List, No. 30.)
  (4.40.) Main Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 185; Noes 133.—(Div. List, No. 31.)
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to omit Clauses 55, 56, 57, 58, and 75 from the Bill.

LONDON STREET (STRAND IMPROVEMENT) BILL.—(By Order.)
Order for Second Reading read.
SIR J. LUBBOCK: The object of the Bill is to enable the London County Council to widen the Strand between the Churches of St. Mary-le-Strand and St. Clement Danes. It will be generally admitted that this would be a great improvement, and I need not occupy the time of the House by dwelling on this point. The Second Reading has, however, been objected to on account of the 28th clause, which is known as the "betterment" clause, and the objection is based on two grounds. First, that such a proposal ought to be made in a Private Bill; and, secondly, that it is unjustifiable in itself. As regards the first point, I would only

1119
observe that there are many precedents for such a course. The Infectious Diseases Notification Act of last year was founded on clauses originally inserted in a Private Bill affecting a single borough. The same might be said with reference to many of the provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, and there are many instances in which provisions introduced in the first place in Private Bills, and only affecting a particular district have been found to work well, and have afterwards been extended to the whole country with great advantage. The most formidable objection, however, is the second. We are told that the principle of betterment is wrong, unjust, and impracticable. Now, let the House for a moment contrast it with the old system. Under previous Bills, local improvements have been paid for, half by the Metropolitan Board and half by the district. The result was that those in the locality had to pay both the general rate and also the special local rate, although not in any way benefited by the improvement. In the present case the Strand district comprises an outlying area around Soho Square at some distance from the Strand. The ratepayers there would, over and above their contribution to the general Metropolitan rate, be again rated to carry out an improvement in which they are not specially interested, and by which they would not be benefited more than many other districts which would not have so to contribute. The London County Council propose, on the contrary, that those only shall be called on for any special contribution who are benefited, and only in the proportion in which they are benefited. Surely the plan in the present Bill is fairer and juster than the old one. The Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes have an important paragraph in their Report bearing upon this question. They say the principle which is known by the name of "betterment"
"Is the principle that rates should he levied in a higher measure upon the property which derives a distinct and direct advantage from an improvement, instead of upon the community generally, who have only the advantage of the general amelioration in the health of the district. American legislation has adopted the principle that where public improvements are effected by the Local Authority they ought to be able to bring, in aid of the cost of the improvement, any additional value conferred on
1120
the adjoining property by reason of the improvement."
We have evidence on this point given before the Commission, amongst others by Mr. Forwood, ex-Mayor of Liverpool, and now Secretary to the Admiralty, who says, speaking of the "betterment "system, that it "works admirably in America." I may also quote the authority of Sir Hugh Owen, Permanent Secretary to the Local Government Board. He was asked "Do you approve of that principle?" His answer is "Yes; I think it is quite equitable." So we have some of the highest authorities in the country approving of the principle, which is found to work well in America. The principle is by no means novel as applied to London improvements, for, as Mr. Vicary Gibbshas pointed out in the Times, we find it recognised in improvements made in King Street in the City as far back as the time of Charles II. The Commissioners on the Housing of the Working-Classes say, moreover—
"The principle has, to a small extent, been adopted in the Acts of 1879 and of 1882."
Thus, I submit, it is shown that the principle is not altogether new to this country, and has been found to work-well. I will go further, and say that some such action had been almost forced upon the London County Council by a recent decision in the House of Lords. Not long ago the Board of Works built a new bridge at Putney, a short distance higher up the river than the old bridge, and a publican who had a house in the main road leading to the old bridge, but which ceased to be the road to the bridge, claimed and obtained from a jury £1,031 as compensation, solely on the ground of diversion of traffic. In giving judgment in the House of Lords, Lord Herschell stated—
"The only question that the House had jurisdiction in that particular case to entertain was whether there was jurisdiction in the Sheriff and jury to entertain the claim to compensation and to award some damages in respect of it. If there were such jurisdiction, and if any evidence was before the jury to warrant any damages, then in such an action as that the plaintiff must recover, however excessive the amount of damages, however erroneous the law laid down to the jury, however wrong the principle which they adopted."
This, then, being by the highest authority declared to be the law, if any metropolitan improvements are to be made,

1121
and if the London County Council are to be liable should the change lower the value of property, and yet are to derive no advantage when they raise it, the prospects for the rate-payers are very gloomy. The House of Lords has introduced the principle of "worsement," and "betterment" is surely the necessary correlative. If we are to pay when a property is damaged, and to have no claim when another is bettered, metropolitan improvements are rendered almost impossible. I quite admit that the question is surrounded with great difficulties, but I do not think it is right for me now to go into these at length. I have confined myself to showing very shortly the grounds upon which the London County Council have introduced the "betterment" principle into this Bill. I do not now ask the House to assent to any of the details, nor finally even to adopt the principle. I have attempted to show that it has net been adopted lightly or without consideration by the London County Council, and if the House will assent to the second reading we are quite willing that the Bill should then be referred to a Select Committee, arid after that Committee has dealt with it the Bill will receive the final judgment of the House. The House will remember that the Committee of this House which sat in 1866 reported that the present incidence of the charge for permanent improvements was far from satisfactory. Yet nothing has been done to remedy this state of things. The subject is, no doubt, one of great difficulty. I do not say that the clauses may not be susceptible of improvement, but the present Bill is an honest endeavour to introduce a better and juster system, and I beg respectfully to commend it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. AMBROSE: Although I have given notice to move the rejection of the Bill, and am still strongly opposed to the principle contained in it, it is right that I should say it is not my intention to move the rejection of the Bill. I have not, however, changed my opinion; I take this course because it occurs to me, as it has occurred to others
1122
to whom I have mentioned the subject, that this would not be the right time to insist upon our objection. The object of the Bill is commendable in itself. It is for the improvement of the Strand, and I think most of us will agree that that is highly desirable. But taking into consideration that it is a Private Bill, asking for exceptional legislation upon exceptional grounds, I cannot but see that the House before dealing with it should have before it evidence of the exceptional grounds upon which this exceptional legislation is asked for. Therefore I think it is better to let the Bill go before a Committee to be thoroughly inquired into, and when it conies back to us we can discuss it and deal with it on its merits. True, we might deal with the clauses to which objection is taken by instruction to the Committee to eliminate such clauses, but I think it is better to submit them to inquiry. The right hon. Baronet who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill has passed without challenge some of the points which are open to grievous objection. The right hon. Baronet has said it is only right that property improved at the expense of the community should be paid for in proportion to the expense to the community; but he seems to forget that the improvement of a property has always been, so to speak, one of the assets of the property, and is so considered by every purchaser. Just as a property may be injured by the election of shops or manufacturing works, so, on the other hand, we take into consideration the fact that property may be required for the widening and improvement of the streets, by which the adjacent property may be materially enhanced in value. All these considerations are invariably taken into account in the sale and purchase of property. Speaking from my own experience in matters of compensation, there appear to be two points which are generally put forward by valuers by way of increasing the value of the property. First of all they take the present value of the land and buildings, as ascertainable by the market rates at the present moment, and this being done, they proceed to add an item which they describe as the prospective value; and I have known cases in which this item of value has been dealt with, by the

1123
valuers on both sides and by the arbitrator on the allegation of excessive charge. After all, the prospective value of a property is only a part of the present value, in the same way as the liability to injury by now works forms a necessary consideration. I trust, therefore, that I shall not be misunderstood in the course I am taking when I say that having, in concert with other Members, given notice that I should move the rejection of the Bill, I do not intend to persist in that course at the present stage. This is not because we do not intend to oppose the measure, hut because we are not unwilling to have the Bill read a second time, in order that there may be a thorough inquiry into the facts, and that a Vote given in favour of the Second Beading may not be misconstrued and used in Committee as a general approval of the measure. We think it better to fight the Bill on the facts being ascertained than to contest it on an abstract question. Under these circumstances I shall not move the rejection of the measure.
MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I quite agree with those who think that in the main this Bill is a good Bill—that is to say, I think it desirable that sooner or later the portion of the Strand to which it relates must be altered and improved, but the clause to which I object most strongly, and which I intend to ask permission to move an Instruction, in order that the Committee may strike it out of the Bill, is Clause 28. That clause deals, as has been pointed out by the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Lubbock), with the principle described as betterment. The hon. Baronet and others who support the Bill seem to think that in no shape or form can the London County Council injure property with which it may deal. They seem to believe that whatever they do in any part of London must be for the good of the district. But I will put this case. Suppose a man had property both on the south and the north sides of the Strand, near where a road is run which causes a diversion of the traffic, he may lose £20 a year in rental on the one side, while, on the other, he might have to pay on the principle of betterment a similar sum back to the ratepayers on account of improvements effected on the other side. The Bill also provides that
1124
the value of the property taken is not to be assessed by a jury, as in all other cases, but by an arbitrator, and in one of the sub-sections the County Council reserve the right of re-considering the decisions of the arbitrator, while the individual whose property is taken is to have no such power. Moreover, the clause decides for all time what is to be the value of the property on the betterment principle. But is it not in the know ledge of the House that property in London frequently is seriously diminished in value by its desertion as a fashionable quarter Supposing that 100 years ago a street was made by some local body near some fashionable square and had improved the value of the property, and that that quarter had since ceased to be fashionable, the present owners, taking into consideration the then value of the property, would really have been mulcted of a heavy amount, for which they would receive no consideration. This Bill, in my opinion, affords a proof that the County Council are a body of gentlemen who, having apparently some ideas respecting political matters, are determined to put them forward in a manner injurious to the interests of the ratepayers. I would, therefore, move that this Clause 28—
MR. SPEAKER: I would point out that the hon. Member cannot move an Instruction without notice.
MR. R. G. WEBSTER: Very well; I shall reserve to myself the right on the Report stage to move that Clause 28 be struck out if it still remains in the Bill after coming from the Committee.
MR. CREMER: The hon. Member for the Harrow Divison of Middlesex (Mr. Ambrose) has contended that there should be exceptional reasons for exceptional legislation. I fully admit that contention, and I do not think it would be difficult to prove that in this case there are exceptional reasons for the exceptional legislation proposed. I would, therefore, direct the attention of the House to what I conceive to be the best illustration afforded us of the necessity for the principle of betterment, which has hitherto come under my notice. Not many years ago that portion of London which runs along the neighbourhood of the Thames Embankment, was a filthy reeking mudbank, and the property abutting upon it was, compara-

1125
tively speaking, valueless, so that on account of its unhealthiness few people cared to live in its neighbourhood. This Embankment was constructed by the ratepayers, at a cost, if I remember rightly, of nearly a million of money; that money was of course found by the Metropolitan ratepayers. Now, if any hon. Member will walk from this House by Charing Cross, the Strand, and Fleet Street to Bridge Street, Blackfriars, he will notice the effect the Embankment has had in improving the property in its neighbourhood. I can assort, from my own personal knowledge, having had an office within that area for 17 years, that the rental value of the property comprised in that district has been increased by from 25 to as much as GO per cent, solely in consequence of the Thames Embankment. This fact alone is, I think, sufficient to prove that there are exceptional reasons for the exceptional principle contained in this Bill, because if the County Council had been in existence when the Embankment was made, and this principle had been acted upon, the result would have been that the unearned increment which has taken place during the period I have refered to would have been taken into account, and the debt which has hang so heavily round the necks of the Metropolitan ratepayers in consequence of the construction of the Embankment would at this moment have boon very nearly wiped out. I have never been able to understand why the landlords or the leaseholders should be permitted to derive so enormous an advantage from the construction of that Embankment. That advantage really belongs to the Metropolis, and some authority in the Metropolis ought to have seen that it was appropriated for the benefit of the entire ratepaying community, so as to have enabled us to discharge our obligations. This fact, I think, is a sufficient answer to the statements of the hon. Member for the Harrow Division. My own rental has been about doubled during the period I have referred to, and I am satisfied from my acquaintance with what were the rents some 25 years ago that nearly every owner of property in the neighbourhood of the Thames Embankment has had the value of his property almost doubled in consequence of that improvement.
MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I will explain in a word or two the course which Her Majesty's Government recommend the House of Commons to adopt. But before I say those few words may I be permitted to refer to the discussion which took place on the last Bill? I used some words with reference to some of the provisions objected to, which seemed rather hard upon the County Council. I said I thought the statement which had been made was a monstrous myth. I do not wish to say one word in disrespect of the County Council or of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Lubbock). I did not know the statement emanated from the County Council. I withdraw the words I used, and say the statement in the Paper is incorrect. With reference to the Bill before the House the Government recommend the House to allow the Bill to be read a second time and refer it to a, Hybrid Committee. The principle involved is, no doubt, of very great importance, but it is one not unknown to the law at the present time, although only to a very limited extent. The cost of removing obstructive dwellings may be placed either partially or entirely on the remaining houses in the particular areas which are benefited by the removal of the obstructive dwellings. That is a betterment that does not apply to the whole of a town like London, or even of a locality. However, so far as it goes, the principle of this Bill is recognised, although the Government consider that a sound principle may be so applied as to become oppressive and unjust. While not prepared to express approval of this Bill, they think it is advisable that the proposal should be examined and inquired into by a Select Committee, and, therefore, we propose to recommend the House to give assent to the Second Reading, and allow the Bill to go to a Hybrid Committee, so that the whole matter may be thoroughly threshed out and closely inquired into.
MR. C. J. DARLING: Mr. Speaker, I would not have troubled the House if my hon. Friend, who has a notice of Motion on the Paper for the rejection of the Bill, had not taken the opportunity of putting before the London constituencies the statement that he acted in this matter with the approval of a consider-

1127
able number of the Metropolitan Members. If he had gone to a Division, my vote would have sufficed to show my view. One reason why I particularly approve of this Bill is Clause 28. The law allows persons to be compensated out of the public funds if their property is damaged by improvements. And it is only fair, if property is increased in value by improvements, that they should be paid for by the owners, and not entirely by other persons. And this clause provides that whatever improvement may be made, the burden that can be laid on the property shall never, in any event, exceed half of the capitalised value of the improvement. Though there may be faults in Clause 28—I have no doubt there are—the Committee will put them right. The principle of the clause is perfectly justifiable, and I will even go so far as to say that it is moderate. If it had been a question of passing the Bill without that clause, I really do not know that I should have thought of doing it. I am not particularly in favour of what are called improvements of the Metropolis. These improvements, for the sake of making wide thoroughfares, have swept from the centre of Loudon houses where working people might dwell near their work, until the wonder has become, how on earth you are to house the poorer people of London. It is this pulling down of houses to broaden streets which has led to many of the difficulties which harass the working classes.
EARL COMPTON: Sir, it is the object of the London County Council that this matter should be thoroughly threshed out. I may inform the hon. Gentleman that this Bill would not have passed the Council without the limitation imposed by Clause 28. As far as I understand, the majority of the County Council are not inclined to enter into any very important schemes in London until the incidence of taxation is in some way altered, and until some change is made in the compensation to be paid. I do not think the, statement should be passed that some of our streets do not require widening. I think the majority of Londoners are certainly of opinion that very decided improvements are required in the Metropolis, particularly in the poorer districts. But I believe the majority of Londoners also think—this
1128
is not a political question—that the time has come when the question of payment for improvements should be put on the shoulders of those who have hitherto escaped payment indirectly or altogether. That is a point which the London County Council are anxious to bring forward, and I am exceedingly glad that the matter is to be threshed out in Committee.
MR. LAWSON: As the Government have agreed to the Second Reading of the Bill it is unnecessary to answer the arguments adduced. On the question of the constitution of the Committee, there are two notices down, one in the name of the hon. Member for Peckham and the other in the name of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green. I trust the regular course will be followed, and that the Committee which is to be appointed will consist of five Members nominated by the Committee of Selection, and four Members by a majority of this House.
MR. RITCHIE: The ordinary course is that five should be selected by this House and four by the Committee of Selection.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
MR. BAUMANN: I propose that five; Members be nominated by a majority of the House and four Members by the Committee of Selection. I cannot accept the Amendment that stands in the name of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green. On a question of such importance as this I think it very desirable that the majority of the Committee should be nominated by the House.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of mine Members, live to be nominated by the House and tour by the Committee of Selection."—(Mr. Bunmann.)
MR. PICKERSGILL: I quite agree with the reference of this Bill to a Hybrid Committee, though I have the strongest objection to the proposition of the constituent elements of that Committee. I object to the proposition as unfair, and I think hon. Members will see that as the House has allowed the Second Reading of this Bill to pass with very little discussion, the constitution of the Hybrid Committee

1129
acquires additional importance. The nomination of five Members by the House in my opinion means nomination by the Government Whips and by the Opposition Whips respectively. In the present case its operation will be this; the Opposition Whips would nominate two Members, and the Government Whips, claiming their privilege, would nominate three hon. Members. I am sure I am only doing bare justice to the Government Whips when I say that they would take very great care—and from their point of view I could not blame them—to nominate Gentlemen who entertain prepossessions against what is new and contentious in this Bill. The result of the proposal of the hon. Member opposite would be that this Committee at the outset would be unfairly weighted against the proposal. I distinctly traverse the statement that the proposal of the hon. Member for Peckham is in accordance with the usual practice of the House. Last Session the Committees relating to the Waltham Abbey Powder Factory Bill and the City of London Police Bill consisted in both cases of an even number of Members nominated by the House and the odd Member nominated by the Committee of Selection. My hon. Friend (Mr. Law-son) reminds me that that course was taken in regard to the Committee upon the London Coal Dues. It is quite true in the cases I have mentioned the number was seven, and in this case it is nine; but that is a perfectly immaterial difference. The real point of analogy is that in those cases it was the even number which the House appointed, whereas it was left to the Committee of Selection to appoint the odd Member. For those reasons I think it is very desirable that the proposition of my hon. Friend should be reversed; therefore I beg to move—
"That the word 'four' be substituted for the word 'five,' and the word 'five' for the word 'four.'"
MR. RITCHIE: I understand that the practice is for the odd number to be nominated by the House and the even number by the Committee of Selection, and that is exactly the course we propose to take on this occasion.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "Five," and insert the word "Four."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
Question, "That the word 'Five' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Ordered, that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Nine Members, Five to be Nominated by the House and Four by the Committee of Selection.
Ordered, that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.
Ordered, that Five be the quorum.

QUESTIONS.

  H.M.S. VICTORIA.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if it is a fact that one of the 110 ton guns of the Victoria was proved to be defective when shipped?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): One of the 110-ton guns originally placed on board the Victoria had developed defects at proof, and as it was contended by the makers that these were due to tile unsuitability of the proof mounting at Woolwich, it was agreed that the gun should be further proved on the proper mounting on board the ship. The result of this further proof was that the gun was returned to the makers as not being a perfect weapon.

  EDUCATION OF THE BUND AND DEAF.
  MR. WOODALL: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education when the English and Scotch Bills for the education of the blind and deaf will be in the hands of Members?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): The English Bill is now under the consideration of the Government, and it is hoped it will be possible to introduce it into the House of Lords shortly. My right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate gave a similar answer yesterday in regard to the Scotch Bill.
  MR. WOODALL: I will now ask the Attorney General for Ireland when the Irish Bill for the education of the blind and deaf will be in the hands of Members?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The subject of the education of the blind and deaf is an important one, and has the careful attention of the Irish Government. I am, however, unable at present to state when it will be possible to propose legislation in the matter.
  MR. WOODALL: Have not the Government practically decided to adopt the recommendations of the Committee?
  MR. MADDEN: I am not in a position to make a definite statement at present.

  FASTNET ROCK LIGHTHOUSE.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the condition of the lightkeepers on the Fastnet Rock; whether it is a fact that those men were left for days in peril of their lives owing to the vessel in attendance on the lighthouse being unseaworthy; whether the light keepers were signalling for aid during those days, and they were ultimately rescued from their perilous position by a local fishing vessel; and whether he will have a sworn inquiry instituted into the circumstances referred to?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The Commissioners of Irish Lights inform me that they have inquired into the circumstances referred to in the hon. Member's question, with the following result:—(1) That it is not a fact that the keepers were left for days in peril of their lives owing to to the attending vessel being unseaworthy; (2) communication with the rock was cut off between January 10 and 24 through severity of weather, and during that period the keepers signalled that food would be required in a few days; (3) on January 24 the rock was communicated with by a local fishing vessel, but the attending boat also went to the rock on the same day. I have directed further inquiry to be made as to the system of provisioning the Irish lighthouses and the manner in which it was carried out in this case.

  IRELAND—THE LAND PURCHASE ACT, 1881.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the report in the Belfast Northern Whig of the 10th inst., of a meeting of farmers held at Upper Bellahill, near Carrickfergus; whether he is aware that these farmers purchased their holdings during 1883 and 1884, under the Land Purchase Act of 1881, and were obliged to pay over to the Land Commission one-fourth of the purchase-money; and whether, considering the complaints of these farmers, that they had purchased "too soon," and at extremely high prices, he will take into consideration their present difficulties, and the request of the meeting to have refunded to the farmers the one-fourth of the purchase-money paid to the Land Commission at the time of purchase?
  MR. MACARTNEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the event of his giving a favourable answer to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the Government will also consider the case of the landlords who purchased too early and at extremely high prices?
  MR. MADDEN: I think my hon. Friend will see that the very interesting matter to which he has directed attention does not arise on the answer I am about to give. The purchases referred to in the question on the Paper were made under the Act of 1881, under which no more than three-fourths of the purchase-money can be advanced. There is no power to adopt the suggestion contained in the concluding paragraph of the question.

  THE CASE OF CORNELIUS CONNOR.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that a labouring man named Cornelius Connor, who was engaged in distributing leaflets relative to the strike at Messrs. Perrott's ironworks, was arrested by Constable Brennan in Hanover Street, Cork, on Monday, 3rd March, and was bound over to keep the peace by Mr. Gardiner, R.M.; whether it is a fact that Messrs. O'Sullivan, Secretary of the Labour Union, and Whelar, Secretary

  1133
  to the strikers, distributed the same leaflets in the same place during the remainder of the evening in question without any interference from the police; and whether au inquiry will be made into the circumstances of the arrest and sentence on Connor?
  MR. MADDEN: The Constabulary Authorities report that O'Connor was arrested for persisting in causing an obstruction in a public thoroughfare after being warned. He was brought before the Court which was then sitting, ordered to find bail, and having done so, was at once discharged. The other men referred to caused no obstruction and were not interfered with.
  DR. TANNER: Was not O'Connor alone, and is it not true that he said nothing, and did nothing, beyond distributing the few leaflets in question? Also, is it not a fact that the other two men went and did what O'Connor had done in the same place, many times in the course of the same day?
  MR. MADDEN: I gather that O'Connor was warned several times to desist from causing an obstruction in the public thoroughfare. He did not obey the warning, and was ordered to find bail.
  DR. TANNER: Why, when policemen behave so outrageously are not their names and numbers given? Would the Government act in the same way in England in the case of a strike?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  THE STATUTE OF EDWARD III.
  DR. TANNERhad on the Paper the following Question:—To ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to a letter, signed "James O'Lanerty, P.P., M.R.I.A.," on the Statute of Edward 3, which appeared in the Belfast Morning News of 7th instant?
  MR. MADDEN: My attention has been called to the letter referred to—
  DR. TANNER (interrupting): I beg pardon. I told tin.1 clerks at the Table I wished to have this question expunged from the Paper; but, to my surprise, it appears here.

  THE CANADIAN HOUSE OF COMMONS.
  SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the
  1134
  loyal Address to Her Majesty, unanimously adopted by the Dominion House of Commons, declaring the unswerving determination of the Canadian people to maintain the political connection between Canada and the rest of the British Empire, has been presented to Her Majesty; what reply has been graciously made by Her Majesty to the Address; and whether both the Address and the reply will be printed and circulated to Members?
  THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): The Address has not yet been received. It would not be in accordance with the usual and Constitutional practice to present to the House of Commons here an Address to the Queen adopted by the House of Commons of another portion of the Empire. Loyal Addresses embodying similar sentiments are frequently received from the Colonial Parliaments, and Her Majesty's Government would exceed their functions if they were to call the attention of Parliament here to the proceedings of another British Parliament, unless under exceptional conditions such as this case happily does not present.

  HOSPITAL DUES AT CONSTANTINOPLE.
  COLONEL HILLI beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, instead of the reduction in the Constantinople Hospital dues of one penny to one halfpenny per ton, as ordered on the 16th January, 1888, affording a relief to the shipping frequenting that port of 50 per cent., as was apparently intended, the relief has, in consequence of a change in the mode of collection, only amounted in some cases to 15 per cent.; and whether he will cause such instructions to be issued as will ensure the enjoyment of the full reduction?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FER-GUSSON,): Representations have been received complaining that the reduction has not benefited the shipping to the extent anticipated. A Report has been called for from the Consul General at Constantinople, and the matter is being thoroughly investigated.

  COPYRIGHT IN THE UNITED STATES.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, having regard to the fact that a Copyright Bill is at present under consideration of the American Congress, Her Majesty's Government will endeavour to arrange, by friendly representations, international agreement, or otherwise, that the benefits of International copyright should be secured to British authors and publishers free from any conditions or restrictions that might seriously injure the printing trade in this country?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I am afraid that no representations in favour of an extension of the provisions of the Bill in question would be attended with any success.

  RABBIT COURSING AT DOVER.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Minister for Agriculture whether he is aware that, at the rabbit coursing meeting held at the Big Meadow, near Dover, on Wednesday, 12th February, dogs were used unmuzzled, and were taken to and from that and other rabbit coursing-meetings unmuzzled, notwithstanding the existence of the Muzzling Order in the County of Kent; and whether such dogs so used are held by the Board of Agriculture to come under the exception in the Order as "dogs used for sporting-purposes?
  MR. H. T. KNATOHBULL-HUGESSEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether there has been a single ease of rabies within 40 miles of Dover during the last two years?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): I must ask the hon. Member to give notice of his question. With regard to the question on the Paper we have no information on the subject, and I have no knowledge of the facts referred to in the first part of the hon. Member's question. With regard to the second part, I apprehend that dogs used for coursing would be held to be "dogs used for sporting purposes" within the meaning of the Order.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider rabbit coursing
  1136
  to come under the description of sporting purposes?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I have tried a good many sports in the course of my career, but I do not remember to have ever tried rabbit coursing. In fact, I cannot claim to be an authority, nor am I competent to express an opinion with regard to a, question on which the hon. Member is probably a better judge than myself.

  SCOTCH LOCAL ELECTIONS.
  MR, D. CRAWFORD: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate when the Bill for extending the Corrupt Practices Act to local elections in Scotland, promised at an early day, will be introduced; and whether the Second Reading will be taken before Easter, with the view of sending the Bill to a Grand Committee?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): This Bill is in a forward state of preparation, but I am unable at present to name a day for its introduction. I hope, however, to do so before long, but I do not think it probable that the Second Reading will be taken before Easter.

  POOR RATES AND SCHOOL RATES.
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. J. H. Smyth, of Partick, who, on the 6th instant, tendered payment of his poor rates at the office of the Parochial Board for the Govan Combination, but the collector refused to accept payment unless Mr. Smyth paid his school rates at the same time; whether such refusal was according to law, and whether, considering that payment of poor rates, but not payment of school rates, was a condition of the exercise of the Parliamentary Franchise, he will take any steps to prevent electors from being improperly disfranchised by the action of collectors?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I am informed that there was recently a case of the nature referred to by the hon. and learned Member, although there appears to be some doubt as to the name. The phraseology of Section 44 of the Education Act makes it somewhat doubtful whether it is not necessary to collect the two rates together. Personally, I think that, as the right to the Franchise depends on the payment of the one rate and

  1137
  not of the other, a ratepayer may demand a separate receipt; but, in the absence of any legal decision on the point, I do not desire to speak too positively.

  SWAZILAND.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanarkshire, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if he would object to lay upon the Table of the House the Instructions given to Sir Henry Loch for his interview with President Kröger and Mr. Rhodes at Blijnants Point on the Vaal River; if he knows and can say by whom Mr. Rhodes was accredited; if he will lay before the House any correspondence which has taken place between the Cape Government, the Orange Free State, the British South African Company, and the South African Republic, with reference to the construction of the railroad from Kimberley to Warrenton; whether it is true that President Kröger has expressed himself as favourable to the extension of the railroad from Bluem-frontein to Johannesberg; whether it is true that the natives and missionaries in Swaziland have repeatedly protested against being placed under the Government of the South African Republic, as have also the concessionaires of mining-rights and the persons interested in the Sorowann Bay Railway; for what reason the benefits of a British Protectorate that have been extended to Makololo and Nyassaland are refused to Swaziland; and whether the House will be afforded an opportunity of discussing Sir Francis de Winton's recommendations respecting the fate of Swaziland before they are actually carried out?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to answer him. I will reply to the questions categorically: (1) There are no Instructions which can be given to Parliament. We have only telegraphic communications on the subject of this meeting. (2) President Kröger suggested that Mr. Rhodes should be present. (3) Portions only have been received of this correspondence, which must be voluminous, and probably could not in great part be given to Parliament. (4) We have no information which can be added to the statement to that effect
  1138
  contained in the Press telegrams. (5) The natives have urged that the independence of Swaziland should be maintained, and many such protests as are referred to in this question have been made by white residents and others, but there has been "considerable difference of opinion on the subject among the whites." (6) It would be a breach of Article 12 of the Convention of 1884 to establish a British Protectorate in Swaziland without the consent of the South African Republic. (7) It has been repeatedly stated this Session that Her Majesty's Government cannot undertake to delay action until Sir F. de Winton's Report has been discussed. I do not know whether I may take this opportunity of making an appeal to the hon. Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool on this subject. He has a notice on the Paper this evening with reference to the future government of Swaziland. As Her Majesty's Government are still in communication with the Transvaal Government with a view to effect a settlement of this question, I venture to appeal to the hon. Member not to proceed with his Motion, as it would considerably embarrass Her Majesty's Government if any statement were made in this House with reference to the negotiations which are still proceeding. I am in hopes that the result of these negotiations will be one satisfactory to all parties, and at the present moment I think it would be most unwise to discuss the question.
  MR. O. V. MORGAN: When will the Report of Sir F. de Winton be in the hands of Members?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am unable to say when it will be possible to present the Report to the House; it is impossible to do so during the progress of negotiations.

  ULSTER CANAL.
  MR. P. O'BRIMN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that John Wall, who served under the Board of Works for 50 years as lock keeper on the Ulster Canal at Magherarney, Smithboro, County Monaghan, was dismissed by the Board of Works, without pension or other compensation, on the 31st of March, 1889, when the Ulster Canal was transferred to the Lagan Company; and

  1139
  whether, in view of the assurance which was given on the part of the Government when the Ulster Canal and Tyrone Navigation Bill was in Committee, that any existing interests in respect of pensions should not be lost or injured by reason of the transfer of the Canal from the Government to the Lagan Company, he will see that this man receives compensation?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): Particulars of the service of all men formerly employed by the Board of Works on the Ulster Canal and Tyrone Navigation are being submitted to the Treasury, in order that any gratuities to which the men are entitled may be settled and paid.

  ALLEGED MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanark, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can now state what he intends doing in the case of the man convicted of robbery from a public house in the east of London about a month ago, which case he has had under his consideration for some time owing to the alleged perjury of some of the witnesses?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): The case is under the consideration of the Home Office, and I have thought it advisable to ask the advice of one of Her Majesty's Judges. No decision has yet been arrived at.

  METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether it is a fact, as stated in the Minutes of the London County Council, that the Vestry of St. Margaret and St. John, Westminster, has been offered a strip of Kensington Gardens between Alexandra Gate and Queen's Gate; and whether he proposes to obtain the sanction of Parliament by an Act before giving effect to this offer?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): I submitted some time ago a proposal to the Treasury for setting back the Alexandra Gates with a view to making egress and ingress at the point more easy; and at the same time I sub-
  1140
  mitted an offer on the part of the Vestry of St. Margaret and St. John, Westminster, to widen the road between Alexandra Gate and Queen's Gate, where the traffic is at present inconveniently congested, if the Crown would consent to set back the railings of Kensington Gardens at that point some 15ft. The space so separated from the park would be used as a pathway, and would not, I believe, in any way detract from the enjoyment of the park by the public. The space is at present under grass, and enclosed by railings. I recommended that this offer should be accepted, as I believe it would greatly facilitate traffic, and be no injury to the park. The Treasury have not yet given their decision. If they sanction the plan, it is not considered that an Act of Parliament would be necessary to enable the arrangement to be carried into effect. There have been several precedents for proceeding in such cases without legislation—e.g., the widening of Park Lane in 1866, the widening of Bayswater Road near the Marble Arch, 1869, and Hyde Park Corner improvement, 1882. In all these cases a Royal Warrant was considered sufficient.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, when a precisely similar proposal in regard to this very road was made, Mr. Ayrton, who then filled the office now held by the right hon. Gentleman, brought a Bill into the House of Commons and that Bill was thrown out by the House?
  MR. PLUNKET: I do not think the case was exactly similar, but I will look into it.

  ENTERIC FEVER IN INDIA.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if he has any information to show whether the steadily increasing death-rate from enteric fever among European troops in India occurs in an exceptionally high ratio among those recently re-vaccinated; whether he is aware that there was a large increase in the number of cases of enteric fever when the children who were vaccinated in 1853, in consequence of the compulsory Vaccination Act of that year, began to come forward as recruits and be re-vaccinated in 1871 and the following years; and whether he will, as an experiment, arrange for the

  1141
  abrogation for a suitable time of the present Regulation for the compulsory re-vaccination of recruits, which is now applicable even to those pitted with smallpox, so that a statistical test may be afforded as to whether those recruits who may elect not to be re-vaccinated thereby reduce their liability to enteric fever?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Secretary of State has no information on the points raised in the first two paragraphs of the question, nor does he consider himself responsible for the medical treatment of recruits.

  THE SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has seen the following statement in the Diamond Fields Advertiser—
  "The Queen's Envoys are conveying a letter from Her Majesty's Government to Lobengula announcing that Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to grant a Royal Charter for the development of the interior, and asking him to give it and the Rudd Concession, on which it is based, all the assistance in his power;"
  whether this is correct; and, if so, should Lobengula withdraw or amend the Rudd Concession he is to be constrained into giving full effect to it, and restrained from giving any further concessions which may conflict with it; whether he is aware that Colonel Carrington is actually engaged in recruiting men for the service of the chartered company, and that the inducement held out to men to join this force is that, in addition to their pay, they will receive "claims" to dig for gold, or shares in companies established to dig for gold, and civil appointments in Matabeleland under the company; whether, in the event of this force coming into collision with Lobengula, any aid is expected from Her Majesty's Government to either party; whether he is aware that the one million sterling, which by the terms of the Royal Charter has to be subscribed within one year of its being granted, has already been
  1142
  syndicated, and that the right to apply for the £1 shares of the contemplated issue has been sold for £4 per share, thus showing that a present of the value of £3,000,000 has been made to the gentlemen to whom the Royal Charter has been granted; whether, in view of this fact, he will consider the expediency of throwing upon these gentlemen and their nominees a portion of the Imperial expenditure in South Africa; and whether he will in future put up to public competition all Royal Charters which it is intended to grant?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: A letter has been sent to Lobengula as stated. I have repeatedly explained that the Rudd Concession is one only of numerous concessions which have been brought together under the Royal Charter. There is no reason to suppose that Lobengula would attempt to withdraw or amend any such concession, or to issue further concessions conflicting with it, and any declaration as to the steps to be taken in such case would be premature. Colonel Sir F. Carrington has been permitted to assist in organising the British South Africa Company's Police Force. Her Majesty's Government do not know whether the question correctly describes the inducements offered to recruits. Her Majesty's Government have been informed by telegraph that Lobengula has sanctioned the occupation of Mashonaland by the British South Africa Company. No collision with Lobengula is therefore anticipated, and Her Majesty's Government cannot state what they would do in the hypothetical ease stated in the question. We have no knowledge of the details of the company's finance, except that some time ago £750,000 of the share capital had been subscribed. The company has already expended very large sums on railway and telegraph construction, and on police. This relief of Imperial expenditure has been among the principal reasons for granting the Charter. The reply to the last paragraph of the question is, certainly not.
  DR. CLAKK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Colonel

  1143
  Carrington's advertisement is headed "O.H.M.S.," and is an officer on Her Majesty's Service to be allowed to recruit men for a filibustering company?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: I cannot admit that it is a filibustering company. Colonel Carrington has been authorised by the Government to inspect the police about to be employed by the company, in order to maintain order in the new territory.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Is Colonel Carrington not paid for this service by the Government?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Certainly he is paid by the Government.

  THE SEVERITY OF PRISON PUNISHMENT.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the results of the punishment of two years' imprisonment, as shown in the last Report of the Prison Commissioners for England and Wales, from which it appeared that during the year ended March 31, 1889, four persons who were undergoing this punishment died in prison, two became insane during their imprisonment, and five had to be released before the expiration of their sentences on account of disease; and whether, having regard to these facts, he will take steps to stop or at least to modify this punishment, which was lately characterised by the Lord Chief Justice as one of "terrible severity?"
  MR. MATTHEWS: It is not correct to say that the cases referred to show the results of a long term of imprisonment. For instance, of the four deaths one was from typhoid fever, one from ulceration of the intestines another from strangulation; and of the two men who became insane, one had a weak mind on admission, and the other suffered from an old injury to the head, and their insanity was developed after 18 and 11 months' imprisonment. The hon. Member will find an interesting memorandum on this subject by Dr. Gover,
  1144
  printed as an appendix to the Report of the Directors of Convict Prisons for 1887–8, to which I beg to refer him. The punishment of two years' imprisonment is, no doubt, severe; but that is taken into account by Judges in awarding punishment, and a constant watch is kept on the health of prisoners by the medical officers, upon whose Report the Home Office frequently remits part of the imprisonment on medical grounds.

  THE LONDON SCHOOL BOARD.
  MR. S. BUXTON: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether there is any legal power to authorise the expenditure by the parishes of Fulham, Kensington, and others, in opposition to the London School Board, on questions under the Act incorporating them; and whether such expenditure by the parishes is, or not, ultra vires?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WKBSTER,): I regret I cannot give an answer to the question. It could not possibly be answered without a statement of facts which the question does not contain, but if the hon. Member will communicate with me I will give what information I can.

  THE DURATION OF THE SESSION.
  MR.H. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the strong expression of opinion last week by the House of Commons in favour of the House rising every year in the month of July, and of greatly curtailing the Debate on the Address, the Government will take steps for bringing about those changes?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I recognise, of course, that there is in the House a strong feeling in favour of an earlier adjournment, but I should hesitate at once to do what the hon. Member suggests, as the Government are of opinion that the question should be very carefully examined. I hope to be able to make a proposal to deal with the subject either by the appointment of a Commit-

  1145
  tee or in some other definite proposal in the direction indicated.

  DISASTERS IN COAL MINES.
  MR. EVANS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that over £5,000,000 are paid annually in this country as royalties on coal, and having regard also to the frequency of disasters and accidents to workers in coal mines, and to the wide-spread distress caused thereby, the Government will give facilities for the passing of a short measure through Parliament to provide that royalty owners shall contribute a small percentage, say? per cent., out of the royalties they receive, towards establishing a national fund for the relief of such distress?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government have no statistics which corroborate the figures given by the hon. Member, nor are the Government prepared to give any pledge with regard to a Bill which might seriously affect the relations of masters and men, and which might also have the very serious consequence of stopping the spontaneous generosity which has hitherto successfully dealt with distress arising from these calamities.

  THE EMPLOYERS LIABILITY BILL.
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Second Reading of the Employers' Liability Bill will be taken before Easter?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am unable to hold out much hope that the Bill will be taken before Easter, but next week I will make a definite statement on the subject.

  THE BERLIN LABOUR CONFERENCE.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury for what reason the British plenipotentiaries to the Berlin Labour Conference have been exclusively chosen from persons occupying an official position or being employers of labour; why no representative working man has been selected as a plenipotentiary; and why a Member of this House has been appointed to the inferior position of an expert delegate?
  MR. CREMER: Before the First Lord answers that question I wish to ask if ho can state whether the French Government or any other Government represented at the Conference has divided its representatives into two classes, and why Her Majesty's Government have made I such a distinction in the case of the British representatives?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I regret that the question on the Paper appears to imply that there has been a distinction made between the classes of persons representing this country at the Berlin Conference. No such distinction was intended by Her Majesty's Government, nor has any such distinction been drawn by them. The gentlemen who have been appointed as plenipotentiaries, so called, are appointed because they have a general knowledge of all the questions to be dealt with. The gentlemen appointed as experts, so called, are appointed because they have a special knowledge of certain trades and interests with which they are identified. But there is no distinction drawn which implies any sort of difference between the gentlemen appointed in one capacity and in another. I much regret that any such suggestion should have been made in this House.
  MR. CREMER: I will put another question on the Paper to-morrow.
  DR. TANNER: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury why no working man representative has been selected?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I should have thought my answer would have been satisfactory to the hon. Member. The gentlemen appointed to represent this country are capable of dealing with all the questions which will come before the Conference. Representative working men, so called, are representatives of particular trades and interests, but the gentlemen we have selected are qualified to give valuable information to the Conference with regard to all trades.

  LADY REPORTERS.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I desire, Mr. Speaker, to ask you a question, whether, in the event of a vacancy occurring in the reporters' gallery, there is any order of the House which would prevent the enter-

  1147
  tainment of an application from a lady for a place there as reporter?
  MR. SPEAKER: There is no order of the House against a lady being admitted as a reporter to the reporters' gallery. Within the last two or three days an application has been made to the Serjeant-at-Arms by a lady, stating that she was the representative of a journal which advocated the political and social rights of women. The Serjeant-at-Arms, as T think, very properly replied that he had no authority to depart from the existing practice, nor would it be right for me to intervene in any way, unless I have the the direct and express sanction of the House, in a matter possibly leading to consequences which it would be difficult at this moment for the House to foresee.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. PICTON: I would ask whether the First Lord of the Treasury will say that the Tithes Bill will not be taken on Thursday, as the Employers' Liability Bill is not to be taken on that day?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Tithes Bill will not be taken before the 27th inst.

MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT, 1887, COMMITTEE.
Ordered, That Mr. Broadhurst be discharged from further attendance on the Select Committee on "The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887."
Ordered, That Mr. Mather be added to the Committee.—(Mr. Arnold Morley.)

POSTPONEMENT OF MOTION.

  SWAZILAND.
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: The following Motion in my name stands first on the Paper for to-day:—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it would be unjust to the British mining community located in Swaziland, in reliance on the Convention of 1884, to surrender that country to the jurisdiction of the Transvaal Government,?whose fiscal system and franchise are opposed to British mining enterprise, and, if the independence of the Swazi Nation cannot any longer be maintained, the credit of this country will suffer loss in the estimation of the natives by the creation of a Protectorate over them than it will by surrendering them to the Transvaal:
  "And that, in the present condition of the other South African States, it is undesirable to
  1148
  promote the aggrandisement of the Transvaal State by giving it a seaboard."
  After what has fallen from the First Lord of the Treasury as to the undesirability of debating the question at this moment, I will postpone my Motion. I hope that, having regard to the importance of the question, the Government will take an early opportunity to give a day for its discussion, or will so arrange the Estimates that the matter may be early discussed.

MOTIONS.

  TOWN AND COUNTY COUNCILS (ABOLITION OF ALDEEMEN BILL).
  On Motion of Mr. James Rowlands, Bill to abolish the office of Aldermen on Town and County Councils, ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Rowlands, Mr. Picton, Mr. Halley Stewart and Mr. Burt.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 192.]

RIGHTS OF WAY (SCOTLAND).
MR. BUCHANAN: I desire to call attention to the constant encroachment on and the frequent loss of public Rights of Way in Scotland and the insufficiency of the existing Law for the protection and vindication of these rights, and to move—
"That it is expedient that the duty of maintaining and protecting Rights of Way in Scotland should he intrusted to the County Councils, and that the law should be amended so as to secure a cheaper and more expeditious method of settling cases relating to Rights of Way than the procedure now in use provides."
In bringing this Motion forward I will endeavour, for more reasons than one, to be very brief. I am, I think, required to prove two things—first, that the grievance is real and substantial; and, secondly, to show that the grievance is at least in some degree capable of a remedy by the action of the Legislature. I do not think I need detain the House by expatiating upon the value to the country of keeping up footpath Rights of Way and drove roads. And I need not, I think, go into detail as to the character of the legislation that should be passed, believing that such a proposal as I am making is of the nature of a suggestion for legislation on the part of a responsible Government, and that it is not required of me to sketch out a skeleton of a Bill. Last year, in the discussion of

1149
the Scottish Local Government Bill, we had an opportunity of dealing with this question, and there were various Amendments suggested which would have carried out to a very large degree the objects I have in view. It is more or less with the view of suggesting legislation on similar lines that I now bring forward this Motion. On the Scotch Local Government Bill the Solicitor General for Scotland opposed an Amendment which I brought forward in reference to rights of way, on the ground that there was no real grievance, and that the establishment of a right of way was a popular action which could be raised by anyone. First of all, as to the argument that there is no real grievance. No one who knows Scotland can have any doubts on the subject. In the Lowlands of Scotland we are not so happily situated as you in England, where in some countries have footpaths almost through every field. It was a saying of Lord Cockburn that we ought to have a pathway through every field, in order to enjoy the beauties of our country. In Scotland that is long past praying for, I am afraid. In the Lowlands the footpaths are quickly passing away from us, and in the Highlands also the people are in danger of losing, from various causes, their footways and paths. It was pointed out last year that the Society in Edinburgh, which has been very active in connection with this question, had reported no less than 40 cases in a single year of infringement of right of way in Scotland. I was looking through, the Minute Books of this Society the other day, and, taking a single meeting of Directors at haphazard, I found, as a matter of ordinary business, it had before it seven or eight cases of attempts to shut up rights of way. I found on this occasion that besides what the Society was then mainly occupied with, namely, the case of the Glen Doll road, and matters of immediate interest to Edinburgh, it was dealing with the intended shutting up of a right of way in the Trossachs with another case in Sutherlandshire, one at Ardgour, one near Dunfermline, one in Perthshire, one near Stirling, and one case of a footpath leading to the falls of the Glomach, the highest waterfall in the United Kingdom, and one of the most remarkable sights in the country. This
1150
waterfall a few years ago was open to all tourists, travellers, and the public generally. Well, these are some of the cases which have come before that Society—a Society which does not pretend to extend its researches and work over the whole of Scotland. I have here a copy of a map showing the rights of way that have been closed during the last half-century in a single parish in the Lowlands. There have been many church roads and public footpaths closed there. As hon. Members may have noticed recently in the Scotch newspapers, the matter has been taken up by the Teviotdale Farmers' Club, although farmers themselves are often as inimical to rights of way as proprietors. This Club was appealed to by the Galashiels Farmers' Club, and at one of their meetings the chairman insisted on the importance of doing what they could to prevent the blocking up of footpaths, and of doing all in their power to get their fellow-farmers to assist them in the matter. He said that these roads could not be closed if farmers only used them. I may further illustrate the early recurrence and the reality of the grievance by a correspondence that appeared in yesterday's Scotsman. That correspondence has reference to two rights of way; one in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh and the other near Crieff. The latter case created considerable sensation, and last Sunday a number of the inhabitants went up the road and demolished the obstruction, afterwards proceeding to the parish church of Monzie, where at the conclusion of his service the minister, the Rev. James Taylor, referred to the unusual attendance, and, while expressing himself pleased to see them, hoped they would keep within the bounds of the law. I think that incident in itself shows how strong the feeling is in localities where there is an interference with such valuable rights as are the rights of way in Scotland. The causes of shutting up rights of way are undoubtedly of a varied character. Some of them are remediable by the action of this House, and some are undoubtedly altogether outside the action of this House. No doubt in the Lowlands a vast number of rights of way which existed 30 or 40 years ago, have been extinguished in consequence of

1151
large farming operations, and I am afraid no attempt could now be made with any chance of success to re-open them. No doubt, owing to the great extension of railways, cattle are now largely transported by railway instead of by road; but the old drove roads still continue to be the means of communication between one large district and another. In respect of the interference by the Railway Companies with footpaths and old drove roads there is a very special grievance, and one which is quite capable of being set right by legislation. It is, I think, within the knowledge of the House that a Railway Company which wishes to make a railroad in Scotland is not obliged to give any formal intimation to any public authority respecting its interference with footpaths, drove-roads, or any roads that are not under the jurisdiction of the Road Trustees. Consequently, a Railway Company may come forward and interfere with footpaths or drove roads, and alter them or close them, and there is no public authority whose leave it has to ask, or who is bound to see that it carries out its promises. There is one well-known instance to which I will call the attention of the House. One of the most beautiful pathways near Aberdour, on the Firth of Forth, was attempted to be closed by a landowner many years ago, and it was only through the efforts of an Edinburgh Society, and by the expenditure of several thousand pounds, that the public rights were vindicated. What has since happened? The North British Railway Company got power to make a line of railway from the Forth Bridge to Aberdour and Burntisland. They had to ask no Local Authority for the power of interfering with the footpath, and it was no one's duty to examine the plans or character of the interference. They have taken possession of the footpath and have cut down the trees, so that now that most beautiful footpath is irremediably destroyed. It is quite possible for Parliament to provide in the future for the prevention of such destruction as this. There is, undoubtedly, in the Highlands a very large increase in the strict preservation of game, and larger and larger tracts of country are being turned into deer forests. Not only
1152
is this done by the proprietors, but it is very often done also by the tenants. I am certain that the common opinion of Scotland is shared by hon. Members of this House, and that there is a strong feeling that the length to which this practice has been carried in Scotland in recent years is an abuse of all honest and fair sport, and is likely to bring very serious consequences indeed upon those who have, during recent times, indulged in it. In those parts of Scotland the population is, undoubtedly, very sparse; and therefore, no doubt, public attention is not so speedily drawn to any encroachment on rights of way as would be the ease in a populous part of the country. More than that, the estates in the Highlands are of vast extent; and in some cases the inhabitants of large districts, are all the tenants of a single landlord. It is hardly to be expected that, under such circumstances, the tenants are likely to take action for the defence of public rights against a man who, as it were, holds them body and soul in the hollow of his hand. The right of action alluded to by the Solicitor General for Scotland (Mr. Stormonth Darling) last year as a right held by everybody, is, in such a case, a vain privilege, which they are utterly unable to exercise. Again, it is very frequently the case that when a proprietor in the Highlands wishes to shut up a right of way, he does so only as against the public, and not as against his own tenants; and we then have, as we have so often in the Highlands, the rules of an estate substituted for the law of the land. This is, undoubtedly, a very serious evil, and one which we should do our best in every way to check. I will now give the House a single instance of how exceedingly difficult—in fact, how impossible—it is for the poor inhabitants of a Highland parish to challenge an infringement of a right of way, however strong their case may be. I refer to the well-known Glendoll case. Glendoll is a valley in Forfarshire, and the Glendoll road leads from the valley to the upper waters of Deeside. It was much used in former times as a drove; road, for the conveyance of cattle and sheep from Deeside down to the markets of Forfarshire. It is, undoubtedly, less used now,

1153
if used at all, for the conveyance of cattle; but it is the only means of communication for foot-passengers between the upper waters of Deeside and the lower country. A new proprietor bought the estate five or six years ago and proceeded to shut up the road. This was in 1885. The case was brought under the notice of the Rights of Way Society in Edinburgh. They devoted much deliberation to it, and it was not till the summer of 1886 that they issued a summons against the proprietor of Glendoll for shutting up the road. On the 20th of July in that year Lord Kinnear, the Lord Ordinary, ordered the case to be tried by a jury at Edinburgh. The proprietor appealed against that judgment, on the ground that it ought to be tried before the Judge himself. The Second Division of Court of Session reversed Lord Kinnear's decision, and ordered the trial to be held before his lordship without a jury. The Lord Ordinary gave judgment in favour of tin public, and his decision was affirmed by the Inner House, and finally by the House of Lords; but the case was protracted for more than two years, while the costs incurred in the litigation amounted to £4,500. The taxed costs of the Rights of Way Society were nearly £l,300, and, although they won in every Court, they had to pay £650 for extra costs out of their own pockets. It is therefore idle to say that any individual is at Liberty to enforce public rights of way unless he is also prepared to incur considerable pecuniary loss even in cases in which he is successful. Surely here we have not a satisfactory legal method of settling such cases. All the evidence had to be got in the locality itself; and surely, therefore, the case is one which ought to have been tried in the locality itself. Again, if you desire to obtain a decision on matters of fact you generally submit them to a jury. Then I say that, inasmuch as what is everybody's business is nobody's business, in a claim like that set up by the proprietor of Glendoll to a right of way which had been well-known for generations, it ought to be the duty of a public authority—some one like the Procurator Fiscal, for instance—to take care that such grievous wrongs are not inflicted on the public as
1154
would have been inflicted if he had succeeded in stopping this right of way. We want to do more than simplify and cheapen the procedure in cases that arise. We want to secure that Glendoll cases shall not arise in the future. With this object in view, what we desire to obtain is that which I brought before the House last Session on the Local Government Bill, namely, that the responsibility of looking after footpaths and rights of ways, especially in the Highlands, inasmuch as they personally concern the welfare of the inhabitants, should be put upon those whom they elect as their representatives in the County Council. We have already transferred to the County Council all the former duties of Road Trustees, and why should we not transfer to them the duty of looking after rights of way? I would respectfully urge the Members of this House to consider whether there are any valid objections to a proposal like this. Last year we had the support of four-sixths of the Scottish Members. Every Scottish Liberal Unionist Member who was present, and several Scottish Conservative Members, voted for my Amendment on the Local Government Bill. If there was at that time any fear on the part of Members opposite in entrusting these duties to the County Councils they must surely have been re-assured by the elections which have shown that the men who have hitherto managed county affairs in Scotland have retained their full share in county management. There is no reason to apprehend for a moment that any revolutionary work can be undertaken by the County Councils if these powers are conferred on them; and it is undoubtedly the case that we shall not be able to settle this question satisfactorily until we put the duty upon the County Council altogether. We want to secure that, instead of its being easy for a proprietor to shut up a right of way, it shall be difficult to do so and easy to defend the rights of the public in the matter. I beg to move the Motion of which I have given notice.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That it is expedient that the duty of maintaining and protecting rights of way in Scotland should be intrusted to the County Councils,

1155
and that the law should be amended so as to secure a cheaper and more expeditious method of settling cases relating to rights of way than the procedure now in use provides."—(Mr. Buchanan.)
MR. BRYCE: I shall endeavour, in the few minutes which are all I mean to occupy, to state to the House, first, what I believe to be the nature of the wrong and grievance under which we in Scotland have so long suffered, and then, the character of the remedy we propose. Hon. Members know that this question of rights of way is serious in England, but it is far more serious in Scotland. My hon. Friend very properly pointed out that there were always fewer rights of way in Scotland than in England, and that the circumstances of Scotland have been less favourable in Scotland for the retention of the rights which exist. There has been greater depopulation going on, especially in the hilly districts, in Scotland than in England, and therefore there is a much smaller number of people interested in rights of way, and the difficulty both of preserving rights of way by frequent user and that of obtaining evidence in regard to them is far greater in Scotland than in England. My hon. Friend has dwelt upon the tendency of Scotch sporting proprietors to endeavour to close roads. I desire to call attention to another difficulty in the matter, and that is to be found in the character of Scotch legal proceedings. In England these cases have always gone before a jury who very laudably tempered the extreme rigidity of the law with consideration for the public interest Within the last 10 or 12 years the Court of Session has begun to refuse to allow cases of this kind to go before juries, and has insisted upon their being tried before Judges. That has had two unfortunate effects. In the first place, it has led to a more strict and exact construction of everything in favour of the proprietor against the public than has taken place in England. Anyone who is familiar with the trial of these cases in both countries will see that the attitude of the
1156
English juries is more liberal and more indulgent to the rights and claims of the public than has generally been the action of the Judges in Scotland; and, in the second place, there is this very serious difference, that trial before a jury in Scotland means a complete and final determination of the case; but trial before a Judge means a series of appeals which run on until the unhappy litigant is landed in the House of Lords. Therefore, the fact that these cases in Scotland are tried before Judges and not before juries has the effect of making the assertion of public right a far more difficult and costly process than it is in England. I am also bound to say that the Scotch, proprietors have shown less regard to public rights, feeling themselves less amenable to public opinion, than the English landowners. It may be asked what are the remedies we propose? We proposed to create a Local Authority, whose duty it should be to protect the rights of the public. My hon. Friend suggests the County Council, but we are quite prepared to consider any other authority. It is all very well for the Lord Advocate to say, as he said last year, that anyone can bring an action. It is quite true that anyone can bring an action to enforce a right of way if he is prepared to spend a sum of money which may run from £500 to £600 or upwards if he succeeds, and which may mean several thousand pounds if he fails. In the case of Glen Doll, a Society with very limited funds, took up the matter, and although they succeeded they were obliged to pay £650 of extra judicial expenses in addition to expenses they recovered from the defendant. We, therefore, want to have power given to the Local Authority and we also want a cheaper process, and that cheaper process is by sending the cases before a jury. At the same time, it is not the function of my hon. Friend or myself to suggest remedies for evils that exist; it is the function of the Government to do that if they admit the grievance. My hon. Friend brought in a Bill last year, and I brought one in the year before last, but the Government did not favour either of those Bills; in fact, neither measure overcame up for discussion in the House. We now ask the Government if they do not deny, as they cannot venture to deny, that these rights of way are being

1157
lost, and that people suffer by the loss themselves to take up the matter. If the Government are dissatisfied with the remedies we suggest, let them suggest other remedies of their own. The case is urgent. The difficulty of preserving evidence becomes greater every year, as the depopulation of hilly districts becomes greater every year. These rights have become of less value to one class of people, namely, the cattle drovers, because of the great railway systems. But they are rights which have become far more valuable to the nation than they were formerly. Scotland is now a great recreation ground for the people of South as well as of North Britain. While hon. Members go there in the autumn for their sport, very large numbers of their less wealthy fellow-subjects go there for recreation and the enjoyment of nature and solitude. I ask the House to preserve for the people the means and opportunities of enjoying nature and solitude in this beautiful mountainous country of ours, and to secure to them a heritage which has become in this busy and unquiet age more than ever precious.
MR. MARK STEWART: I can understand hon. Gentlemen who have a grievance as to right of way wishing to remedy it, but, at the same time, in most parts of Scotland the grievance is almost nil. In the Lowland counties, of which I more particularly speak, there is very little grievance in this matter. I cannot help thinking that the statement as to the law which my hon. friend (Mr. Bryce) made is not quite correct. He said it is customary for cases of right of way in England to go before juries, while in Scotland they go before Judges. On the contrary, it is the rule in Scotland that such questions go before juries. It is only cases in which there are exceptional circumstances which go before Judges.
MR. BRYCE: I said that within the last 10 or 12 years the Court of Session has invariably sent these cases before Judges.
MR. MARK STEWART: I cannot help thinking it would be most unwise
1158
to overburden the new County Councils with work. Certainly it would be especially unwise to saddle them with vexatious questions of this kind. The best remedy, after all, is publicity. There are proprietors and proprietors, and I maintain the majority of the proprietors would be far more willing to give way in matters of this kind than to incur costs in a Law Court.
MR. A. ELLIOT: I should like very much to hear, before the debate is much further advanced, whether or not the Government see their way to propose legislation in the direction wished for. I do not deny there may be something in what my hon. Friend (Mr. Mark Stewart) has just said, namely, that when you are starting a new system it is well not to overburden it. I should not be inclined to press the appeal on the Government if the Lord Advocate will indicate that they will favourably entertain the matter on some future occasion with a, view to retaining the rights of way to the Scottish people. Having said this, I must add that no one feels more strongly than I do the desirability of retaining these valuable rights to the country. The country has very much changed its character, and villages are becoming great towns; and in many ways there is much greater necessity than formerly for preserving rights which, in old days, very much preserved themselves. These rights are becoming endangered in many ways in many parts of the country. There is no proposal to take rights away from anybody. There is no desire to take from any landlord or tenant-farmer, or anyone else, any right he at present enjoys. The intention of my hon. Friend (Mr. Buchanan) is to protect rights of the public where they exist; and I should like to remind the Lord Advocate that during the Election of 1886, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking at Edinburgh, said he considered guardianship of public rights was essentially one of those matters which might very well be entrusted to County Councils. At all events, we have on our side the good wishes of an important Mem-

1159
ber of the present Government, and, therefore, I am fondly hoping we shall have some indication from the Lord Advocate that at no distant time the Government will deal with the subject. If we receive such an indication, I personally would not be inclined to press the Motion to a decision.
MR. R. T. REID: I hope the Lord Advocate will see his way to agree to this Resolution, and in any case I trust hon. Gentlemen who represent English constituencies will observe that in this case most of the Scotch Members are at one. It is not unreasonable in us to invoke the assistance of English Members under such circumstances. Let me remind hon. Gentlemen that this is a question upon which Scotchmen and residents in Scotland must of necessity know more than others. It has not been disputed that a grievance does exist. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcudbright (Mr. Mark Stewart) says he does not know of any grievance in his own part of the country; but, in a part of the country not many miles removed from the hon. Gentleman's constituency, there exists a very great grievance. In many parts of the Lowlands, by reason of changes in farming, there have been grave infringements of public rights. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Mark Stewart), who spoke against the Motion, has given us as one reason why this remedy should not be applied that the County Councils are overburdened with work and should not have this additional labour cast upon them. Why, Sir, the County Councils in Scotland have to deal with a two penny or three penny rate only. I am far from denying that County Councils are an excellent institution, for which the Conservative Party very properly claim full credit; but they have as yet little work to do, and it is our hope that before long not only this duty, but other duties of an important character will be laid upon their shoulders. Another reason put forward is that there is no general desire on the part of proprietors to infringe these public rights, and the hon. Member thinks that no remedy for the evil that does exist should be provided until it is shown that the
1160
necessity exists all over the country, that all proprietors have this desire. But that is not my view, liven if we have not a grievance in our own district, we ought to recollect that it undoubtedly exists in other parts of Scotland, and we should co-operate with our friends who represent northern constituencies. But I say the grievance does exist in the South also, and I sincerely hope we shall be gratified by learning from the Lord Advocate that the Government intend to apply some remedy or to give us facilities for bringing in remedial legislation.
MR. FINLAY: It should be borne in mind that though the interests of the public in rights of way are, as a whole, very great, the interest of each individual is very small relatively to that of the proprietor who desires to abolish the right of way, and the result is that proprietors occupy a position of great advantage owing to the disinclination of any individual to undertake the expensive task of asserting the right of way and defending it in the Law Courts. Such rights of way are generally of most importance to the poor, who are just the persons who can least afford to do battle for such rights. Under the circumstances, I think that some public authority ought to be entrusted with the duty of defending these rights of way; and I hope that if the Government cannot accept the Motion, they will at least express their willingness to consider the subject with a view to devising some machinery by which the matter can be satisfactorily dealt with in the public interest.
MR. C. S. PARKER: The hon. and learned Member for Dumfries has made an appeal to a class of Members usually small in number—I mean English Members—who care to hear what Scotch Members have to say on a Scotch question before voting against them. The great majority of Scottish Members are on one side, but unfortunately we cannot appeal to the majority of English Members, who will come in

1161
when the Division is called and knowing nothing of the merits of the question will vote as the Government tells them. I think it is more to the point to appeal personally to the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate, who represents the Government just now and to throw upon him the responsibility of repeating that which happened last Session. Is Scotland again to be shown that although her members in a majority of five or six to one support a moderate proposal urged with remarkable absence of anything like sensational language or exaggeration, and although that majority includes Conservatives and those Liberal Members who usually vote with them, yet nevertheless, because the Government have come to a different conclusion, the general opinion of Scotch Members must be overruled? Surely it is a serious scandal that we should have this exhibition of the relations between the Parliament of the United Kingdom and Scotch Members charged with attention to Scottish affairs. I am not one of those who have encouraged the idea of a Scottish Parliament—on the contrary, I have voted twice against it—but I must say that if there is anything calculated to bring about some radical change of (hat character it is to find all the moderately reasoned arguments of Scotch Members, in favour of a moderate proposal, overruled in the Division Lobby by Members from England, who have not heard the debate, merely on the authority of the Government. I hope that the Lord Advocate, if he cannot accept this Motion, will, at least, inform us what the Government propose in substitution to meet the widespread feeling in Scotland.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The appeal just made to English Members relieves me from the diffidence I felt at intervening in a Scotch debate. But I may point out
1162
that English Members have an almost equal interest with Scottish Members in a settlement of this question. Scotland has already sent us very good precedents in reference to some matters which we have been glad to follow, and I hope in this matter Scotland may first obtain legislation which will afterwards be applied to England. I join in the appeal to her Majesty's Government to give a favourable consideration to this Motion. The objections that have been made to it so far have been very feeble. It is said that the grievance is not a serious one, and that, such as it is, there exists a remedy for it in the Courts of Law. But the answer to this is that in the great majority of cases in which rights of way are interfered with the persons chiefly interested are not the sort of people who can afford to contest the question in the Law Courts. It is the really poor class who are most injured by these abuses. These people ought to be protected by some Local Authority. Then it is said that the County Councils are new and ought not to be overburdened. But when the County Councils were established it was not because it was thought merely that they would discharge the old routine duties better than the magistrates, but because there were a number of public interests which might be advantageously entrusted to the new bodies. This is one of the matters which might well be placed in the hands of the County Councils, and I hope the Government will see their way to giving the Motion their favourable consideration.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): I admit the moderation with which this Motion has been supported. I acknowledge the friendly tone in which the Government have been appealed to, but I desire to point out that the Motion does not merely assert that there is a case for some change in the law, or at least

1163
a case for inquiry, but declares the remedy which ought to he provided. This subject was discussed twice over when the Local Government Bill was passing through the House, and it is scarcely wise when the County Councils are still on their trial to impose on them new duties. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, in some of the statements he has made, has been misinformed. It is not true that these cases with regard to rights of way are ordinarily tried without juries. On the contrary, the ordinary course is for such cases to be tried by juries, and it is only in exceptional instances that this course is departed from. I mention this because I cannot help thinking that the House ought to be well assured of the soundness of its information before making certain requirements. It has not been shown that the invasion of rights of way in Scotland is of frequent occurrence. In many cases, when the facts are carefully considered, it turns out that though there was a primâ facie case of a right of way there is in reality no such right. It ought also to be borne in mind that the result of the present state of feeling on the subject has the effect of deterring proprietors from allowing privileges to the public for fear that these would after some time be claimed as of right. I know parts of the country where the hills are practically open to all the world, but where no legal right of way exists. In certain counties the landlords have thrown open the whole of their hills to the public. The question arises whether the public will be benefited if this state of matters is interfered with and an assertion of public rights is made. There is an observation I wish to make, and that is that I regard public rights of this character as rights of the utmost value to the community and as of a most sacred character. The spirit of Conservatism is not opposed to the assertion of
1164
such rights; on the contrary, it is of the essence of Conservatism that popular rights and privileges of this kind should be preserved and protected. For my own part, I should be against any system by which the access of the public to rights of way should be prohibited. The Motion, however, asks that the protection of public rights of way should devolve upon the County Councils. If such a duty were cast upon popular representative bodies like County Councils a great temptation would be offered them to neglect their more useful but less obtrusive work, and all sorts of litigation might arise. Last year the hon. Member for Aberdeen and his Colleagues introduced a Bill into the House dealing with this subject, but that Bill did not propose to entrust the duty of defending those rights to any elective body. It was proposed that the Sheriff or Sheriff depute of the county, on the application of two or three householders, if satisfied that there was a primâ facie case, should permit an action to be taken, the cost of which should be borne by the rates. The very fact that a proposal of that kind was made—a proposal diametrically opposite to the suggestion now put forward—confirms me in the conclusion at which I have arrived. I had expected that those who supported this Motion would have brought forward a very strong primâ facie case. But I must own—whether it is due to insufficiency of materials and facts, or because hon. Gentlemen do not think it worth while, I do not know—in my opinion, no hon. Member has brought such a case forward. I will now tell the House the view which Her Majesty's Government take of this subject. Although we cannot accede to the Motion, Her Majesty's Government are perfectly willing to take into their consideration any representations to the effect that to a substantial extent public rights of way are being infringed or are in danger of being lost, and they will see that every means that can

1165
be devised are taken for their preservation and protection. Further than that I cannot go, and Her Majesty's Government cannot agree to matters of this kind being placed in the hands of elective bodies like County Councils. I shall vote against the Motion, and I trust that, for the reasons I have stated, it will be rejected by the House.
(7.20.) The House divided:—Ayes110; Noes 97.—(Div. List, No.32.)
Resolved,
"That it is expedient that the duty of maintaining and protecting Rights of Way in Scotland should he entrusted to the County Councils, and that the Law should he amended so as to secure a cheaper and more expeditious method of settling cases relating to Rights of Way than the procedure now in use provides."

FOREIGN AND COLONIAL MEAT.
On Motion of Mr. Yerburgh, Bill to regulate the Sale of Foreign and Colonial Meat ordered to be brought in by Mr. Yerburgh, Mr. Carew, Mr. Rankin, Mr. Mahony, and Mr. Howell.
Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill.]

PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Ordered, That the Select Committee on Public Health Acts Amendment Bill do consist of Seventeen Members.
The Committee was accordingly nominated of,—Sir Archibald Campbell, Dr. Farquharson, Mr. Henry H. Fowler, Dr. Fox, Mr. Edward Hard castle, Mr. Hastings, Mr. Kendrick, Mr. Long, Mr. Francis Powell, Sir Albert Rollit, Sir Henry Roscoe, Mr. John Talbot, Dr. Tanner, Mr. Wharton, Mr. Whitmore, Mr. Henry Wilson, and Mr. Woodall.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to I send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL.
The Select Committee on Statute Law Revision Bill was nominated of,—Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Elton, Mr. Whitley, Mr. Ambrose, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Asquith, Mr. Howell, Mr. Francis McClean, and Mr. T. M. Healy.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)

EMIGRATION.
Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into various Schemes which have been proposed to her Majesty's Government to facilitate Emigration from the congested districts of the United Kingdom to the British Colonies or elsewhere; to examine in to the results of any Schemes which have received practical trial in recent years; and to report generally whether, in their opinion, it is desirable that further facilities should be given to promote Emigration; and, if so, upon the means by and the conditions under which such Emigration can best be carried out, and the quarters to which it can most advantageously be directed.
Ordered, That the Committee do consist of Twenty-one Members.
The Committee was accordingly nominated of—Mr. Ritchie, Sir George Baden-Powell, Mr. Gerald Balfour, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, Dr. Clark, Sir John Colomb, Mr. Munro. Ferguson, Sir James Fergusson, Mr. Hobhouse, Mr. Loder, Mr. James Maclean, Mr. William M'Arthur, Mr. Mahony, Colonel Malcolm, Mr. Osborne Morgan, Mr. Rankin, Mr. Rathbone, Mr. William Redmond, Mr. Schwann, Mr. Seton-Karr, and Mr. Wodehouse.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  DIRECTORS LIABILITY BILL (No. 60.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. WARMINGTON: In moving the Second Reading of this Bill I only wish, in the few observations I propose to make, to explain the particular matter at which it is aimed, and upon which there is a general concensus of opinion. It is certain that the amendment in the law which the Bill proposes has excited considerable attention. I have received notices from 50 or 60 different newspapers, and there has been in almost all of them—except in those commonly

    1167
    called financial papers—an agreement that the Amendment I desire to see introduced ought to form part of the law of the country. Speaking generally, the principle of the Bill is that every person who is responsible for the issue of a prospectus shall be bound by the statements therein contained, and upon this ground—that it is commonly considered that the persons who issue a prospectus have a knowledge of the subject it deals with. One knows that in ordinary life the motive which mainly induces persons to embark in joint-stock enterprises is that the statements contained in the prospectus are backed or warranted by respectable names. Whatever doubt may have been felt up to a few months ago, it is now certain that a person may make a false statement in a prospectus and yet not be civilly liable to persons who relied on him if only he can say, "I did not take any steps to see if the statement was or was not true, and you cannot prove that I fraudulently made it." I think that that is not a desirable position. I have reason to believe that the Government will not oppose the measure. But I am not in any way wedded to the particular form in which it appears, and shall be willing to accept any suggestion as to its remodelling which the experience of the Law Officers of the Crown and others may induce them to make, or I should be willing even to accept an assurance from the President of the Board of Trade that his Bill as to the winding-up of public companies will be so extended as to render unnecessary the measure before the House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSIER,): I do not deny that there is a good deal of force in the observations of
    1168
    my learned Friend as to the necessity of some amendment in the law, but I can only consent to the Second Reading with a good deal of reservation, because some expressions in it, and especially in the 3rd clause, are very wide indeed. For instance, it proposes that every person who is a director of a company at the time the prospectus is issued shall give to it a warranty, as it were, of the statements contained in it. I quite agree, after the recent case in the House of Lords, that very probably some amendment will be required. The Bill of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade no doubt contains proposals to some extent similar to those in this Bill, in the matter of attaching responsibility to directors, but even those proposals have excited much opposition, and the Government may have considerable difficulty in carrying out that amendment of the law. I would suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman should let his Bill—the provisions of which go much further than that of my right lion. Friend the President of the Board of Trade—be read a second time, but should then not prcoeed with it till it is seen what is done with the other measure. I think it would be inadvisable to have one Bill dealt with in this House, and the other, which contains many cognate matters, by a Committee sitting upstairs. Under these circumstances the Government will not object to the Second Reading of the Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Tuesday next.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being found present—
    House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock.

EARL MOUNT CASHELL.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor, that the right of Charles William Earl Mount Cashell tovote at the Elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
EARL OF LONGFORD.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor, that the right of Thomas Earl of Longford to vote at the Elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
COLONIAL COURTS OF ADMIRALTY BILL.—(No. 29.)
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order); further amendments made; the Report thereof to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 44).

INDIAN COUNCILS BILL.—(No. 40.)
Read 3a (according to order); an Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.