Sitting of 25 July 1893

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (by Order).

    LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
    Lords' Amendments considered.
    Amendment in Preamble, page 1, line 3, to leave out from the word "Council," to the word "and," in line 26, the first Amendment, read a second time.
    MR. J. STUARTsaid, that in rising to propose "That this House do disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," he wished first to express the regret with which the Representatives of London in the House were obliged to ask the House to act in contradiction to the House of Lords on this London question. They had, however, no choice but to do so. Here was a Bill which had been passed with some Amendments, and after mature and exhaustive inquiry and deliberation before a Select Committee, which, after it had come from that Committee, had been adopted without opposition by the House, and which now came down from the Upper House in a form which he was justified in describing as mutilated. The London County Council asked for no unnecessary or unusual powers in the clauses of the Bill which the Lords had struck out. They simply asked for powers which other towns possessed, and in asking for
    432
    which they had been supported by an overwhelming majority of the House of Commons, and, no doubt, would be so supported again. But with that request of theirs the House of Lords flatly disagreed, and had sent down the Bill with some of its most important clauses struck out. He felt sure that the House generally would agree that the London County Council had unusual circumstances to face. They had a huge unorganised population to deal with, and it was only natural that they should wish to have powers to inquire into what might have a bearing on the welfare of those they represented. To come to the Amendment with which they had first to deal, it was his duty to move that the House disagree with the alteration which the Lords had made in the Preamble. It was convenient that the Division should take place on the Preamble instead of on the clause; and he believed that there was a general disposition, in order that Divisions might not be multiplied, to accept in the matter the decision that might be taken on the Preamble. The part of the Preamble which the Lords had struck out, and which he moved to restore, was that which affected the representation of the County Council of London upon the Thames Conservancy and the Lea Conservancy Boards. The London County Council held that they ought to have some say in the management of the Thames. The Thames Conservancy Board consisted of 23 persons, and not one of them was in any sense directly or indirectly a representative of the 4,500,000 people of London who were so vitally interested in the conservancy of the Thames. That Body, on which the London County Council had not a single voice, had, by its action, the most far-reaching effect on the health, and the trade, and even on the recreation of London. The River Thames had the most varying influence upon this vast population. For instance, the discharge of impurities into the Thames was in a large measure under the supervision of the Thames Conservancy, and that was a matter which affected the health of London. Then, take another point—the water supply of London. The condition of the river depended naturally on the quantity of water in it. They had had evidence before Committee after Committee that upwards of a third of the whole water of the Thames was

    433
    abstracted unnecessarily for the privy purposes of London. No one could tell what surplus water, if any, was in the Thames, and the whole question of the supply of water to the Water Companies had frequently been the subject of agreement between the Thames Conservancy and the Water Companies, thereby one of the most vital questions with respect to the health of London being decided by a Body upon which the 4,500,000 Londoners had absolutely no representation. The London County Council approached the Thames Conservancy in no hostile spirit. They recognised what that; Body had done and had endeavoured to do. They wished to make it better able to fulfil its functions, and they believed that it would be better able to fulfil its functions if the 4,500,000 people of London had some representation upon it. The arguments in favour of the representation of the County Council on the Lea Conservancy were of a similar character. But on the Lea Conservancy they already had one member, and they were able to acknowledge that that representation, though very limited and inadequate, had a very advantageous effect on the circumstances of the River Lea, which was also of great importance to the population of the more limited district through which it flowed. He understood the London County Council were to be opposed in this matter by the representative of the County of Surrey, and by other riparian counties. He would say at once that the London County Council had signified, in the evidence given before the Select Committee, that they did not oppose the representation of these counties upon the Conservancy of the Thames. They had no desire to injure them, and they did not think they injured them by their proposed representation on the Board. The question of the representation of these counties on the Board might, indeed, be brought forward in the near future by Public Bill or otherwise; and he felt sure that in that event the London County Council would offer no opposition, but would content itself with discussing the amount of the representation. Even the Report of the Select Committee of the House, on which the case of the County Council was most legitimately founded, was based upon the idea that other counties might get representation on the Board, because, in proposing to give the London Country Council four representa-
    434
    tives on the Board under the present Bill, the Committee indicated that the reason they gave this, as they considered, insufficient representation to the London County Council was that it might not stand in the way, on an early date, of a solution of the question, by which other counties might be represented without increasing the Board to unwieldy proportions. It was evident that the claim of the London County Council for representation was much stronger, more immediate, and more pressing, because out of the 6,250,000 of people who lived in the basin of the Thames from its source to the sea there were in London no less than 4,500,000, or upwards of two-thirds; and, again, of the water supplied from the Thames four-fifths went to the people of London. In fact, the River Thames was vital to the very existence of the people of London. Their trade and health depended upon it as the trade and health of no other Country did, and the close-packed character of the population was one of the most urgent reasons for having representation of the Conservancy of the river which flowed through their midst. Their claim, therefore, they regarded as urgent, immediate, and imperative. And while the London Country Council admitted, and were willing to consider, the claims of other counties, they could not for a moment think of giving way before this—he did not like to call it dog-in-the-manger policy, but it might be described in that way—for though the claims of the London County Council had existed for many years, the claims of other riparian counties had been urged only from a very recent date. Some of these counties were actually represented at present by four members on the Thames Conservancy, and though that representation might not be of as direct a kind as they required, yet it was of as direct a kind as could be given at the time, and they represented a population infinitely smaller and infinitely less important than that which the County Council were seeking representation for. This was no new claim on behalf of the County Council. From the day of its creation the Metropolitan Board of Works had urged this claim for representation on the Thames Conservancy; and in 1867 the Board of Trade, in a most important, letter addressed to the Conservancy Board, urged that four or five members representing London should be placed on

    435
    the Board, instead of the very quasi-representation then and now existing. It might not be in the knowledge of Members generally that the Metropolitan Board of Works had left to their successors, the London County Council, a document, carefully drawn up, instructing them to continue to urge as strongly as they could the claim of the people of London to representation on the Governing Body of the Thames which they themselves had always so consistently advocated. In sending the Bill back to the House of Lords, he ventured to hope, and even almost to expect, that the House of Lords would not again take such a hostile view of the matter; that they would take some account of the wishes and needs of London citizens; and that they would give way on this small modicum of self-government which was contained in the clauses which had been struck out of the Bill. The House of Lords had struck out these clauses with something like ignominy. But the London County Council would appeal to them again, and ask them to allow London that self-government which every other town possessed in like circumstances. They approached the House of Lords in an humble, but not in any servile spirit, remembering that the opposition to which they were subjected was not such as to cause weakness to their knees. He hoped the House of Lords would be able to receive the clause again, and do something to ease a situation which was injurious to all parties concerned; which was injurious to London; which was injurious, he believed, to the House of Lords itself in bringing it into sharp conflict with the people of London in an unnecessary opposition to the attainment of their legitimate desires.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. J. Stuart.)
    SIR F. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, he had listened attentively to the speech of the hon. Member for Hoxton, and he had not heard a single argument urged which could induce the House to disagree with the Lords' Amendments. The only argument brought forward was that, as operations of the Thames Conservancy were inside the field of the County of London, the London County Council had a right to interfere with them. If that
    436
    argument were good, what about the House of Lords and the House of Commons? The two Houses of Parliament met within the County of London; and the next claim of the London County Council would be that their august delegates should be allowed to sit in both Houses, if, from their point of view, the proper authorities were not doing their duty? The hon. Member for Hoxton appealed to the House in strong terms, and said the present state of things was injurious to London—that the health, trade, and amusement of London entirely depended on the Thames, and that they could only be saved from danger by the London County Council having representation on the Conservancy Board. But what was the fact? They knew the manner in which the Thames Conservancy had for years discharged its duties, and under its present most genial Chairman, Sir Frederick Nicholson, and its able Secretary, Mr. Gough, it had won the admiration of everybody. Great tact had been shown, and now there was no difficulty whatever in the management of the river by the Conservancy Board. He went more over the Thames than probably any Member of the House. Week after week he covered many miles of it; and he believed it was the positive opinion of all parties—riparian owners, the people who had the navigation, and the Water Companies—that the management of the Thames by the present Board was of a most admirable character. He should like to refer to statements made on behalf of the London County Council itself to show that this urgency in the matter of representation did not exist. In 1890, before Sir Joseph Bailey's Committee, the late Mr. Haggis, the Deputy Chairman of the London County Council, stated that he had no charge to make against the Conservators, and he could not lay his finger on a single thing in which the Thames Conservancy were not doing their duty. Again, in 1891, before Sir Matthew White Ridley's Committee on the Metropolitan Water Supply, Sir Thomas Farrer gave the Thames Conservators every credit for taking all the pains in their power, and that from his knowledge of the Thames Conservators he was satisfied that they had done whatever was in their power. Again, Mr. Binnie, the engineer to the Council, stated that, instead of wishing to impeach or say

    437
    anything against the Conservators, he was often surprised that they had been able to do so much. In addition to this, Mr. Freeman, the counsel for the London County Council, stated before the Duke of Richmond's Committee that he was not there to make any allegations whatever against the Conservators. There was a Royal Commission now sitting to report on the water supply of London. That Commission would report next year, and why not wait until they had reported? In the House of Lords, when Lord Hobhouso moved to reject the Amendment which had been made in the Bill, the Government did not support the Motion; Lord Morley, the Chairman of Committees, spoke against it; and, eventually, it was withdrawn without a Division. Lord Morley said that the London County Council ought to have representation on the Board, but that that ought not to be done by Private Bill, as the constitution of the Thames Conservancy Board had always been altered by Public and not by Private Bills. Speaking on behalf of the Conservators, they had no objection to the subject being inquired into, and proper representation being given, if it did not exist, but they said that should be done by a Public and not by a Private Bill. But if the County Council were to get four members now, who could say that would be the extent of their demand? When they got their member on the Lea Conservancy Board they were not satisfied; but they wanted to got more, because they said that they were not adequately represented. Speaking on Friday night at Battersea, the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets said the object of the County Council was "to have the control of the river." The Conservancy Board objected in toto to any scheme which was only promoted by the London County Council. They wanted a Board that was properly balanced, as the Conservancy Board was at present. It was balanced at present because they had one interest standing out against another, and there had been nothing unfair. Suppose the London County Council should wish to buy up the Water Companies, if they had a majority on the Conservancy Board what was to prevent them from giving notice to the companies that by a particular day they must stop the supply or furnish it from another source, and so when the value of the shares had
    438
    fallen buy up the property at a ruinous loss to the companies? Then, again, the London County Council was the only Body that had power to pour sewage into the river, and directly they got the majority on the Board they could treat the river as a sewage farm. The Conservancy Board had no objection to the principle that the County Council should be represented; what they did object to was that that should be done piecemeal and by Private Bill. The Board consisted of 23 members, of whom seven were given to the City, because in ancient times the Thames belonged to the City, and it gave up certain tolls and certain rights on condition that these seven members should be put on the Conservancy Board. But at the present moment a Committee was sitting with regard to the amalgamation of the City and the London County Council, and if the amalgamation of the City Corporation and the London County Council was carried out, the joint Body, if four members were now given, would have 11 out of 23, which would be entirely too largo a proportion. Why should other counties interested in the Thames, such as Middlesex, Surrey, Bucks, Berks, Oxfordshire, and Wiltshire, be entirely cut out from the representation? That all the counties interested in the river should be represented could only be carried out by a comprehensive scheme which would give the London County Council their fair share. To that the Conservancy had no objection. In 1890 the late President of the Board of Trade made the following remarks:—
    "As far as I am concerned, I should be glad to see the interests of the London County Council fully represented on the Conservancy Board, but I cannot admit that this question has been fairly considered, if by that term is meant the kind of consideration which Parliament in former years bestowed on it. This was to be done by an ordinary Private Bill by a Committee, before whom only one witness was examined, and not a single word was heard from the rival interests of the Upper Thames, which probably did not even know that the matter was being dealt with by Parliament. … I think the wisest course will be for the House to decline to adopt the proposal contained in this Bill relating to this matter, and next year to appoint a Select Committee to consider the whole question of the Conservancy of the Thames. In that way the House would have all the riparian and other interests fully awake to the necessity of taking care of themselves; complete evidence would be given in regard to the whole subject, and it would be able to arrive at a fair conclusion on a subject

    439
    which has hitherto been treated as a public matter, and one which ought not to be dealt with by a Private Bill."
    MR. Ritchie, the late President of the Local Government Board, spoke in a similar strain, and he hoped the House would agree that this matter should be raised by a Public and not by a Private Bill, and that all interests should be considered.
    MR. BENN (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)said, the case for the London County Council had been so fully stated by the hem. Member for Shoreditch that he need not detain the House long. The hon. Member for Middlesex had charged the Council with an attempt to destroy the balance of the Board. He would invite the House to look at the balance of the Board as it at present existed. Of the 23 members of the Board, 11 might be said to represent 2,000,000, but outside that representation there were, roughly speaking, 4,000,000; and if they wanted to destroy the balance of the Board, instead of asking for four members, they would ask for 22; in asking for four members they were mainly following a precedent which dated back from the commencement of this Body. The hon. Member for Middlesex seemed to think it necessary, in order that the County Council might establish its position, that it should go about finding fault with the Thames Conservancy Board and saying that it did not do its work properly. He submitted that no such contention was necessary. The Thames Conservancy Board was established in 1857. In 1864 it was found that it did not adequately represent the people of London; and, in consequence of that, in 1864 six members were added, and that addition did not in any way indicate that the 12 members who had preceded them had neglected to do their duly. Again, in 1866, another five members were added, and the House would observe that it, was nearly a quarter of a century since any alteration had been made in the constitution of the Board. During that time London had advanced by leaps and bounds; and he submitted that this proposal, that they should have four members, was ridiculously inadequate to the circumstances of the case. The hon. Member for Middlesex contended that this matter ought to be brought in by a Public Bill rather than by a Private Bill. But he would
    440
    draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that the Thames Conservancy was founded by a Private Bill, and in three cases since its formation it had increased powers given it by Private Bills. It was impossible for the London County Council to carry out the work which had been committed to them by the Legislature unless they got this additional representation. The Legislature had thrown upon them certain responsibilities. They had 10 bridges over the river, representing £2,500,000; they had the care of the noble Embankments on both sides of the river and the control of the banks in respect of the prevention of floods; they had ferries over the river, and were making tunnels under, and it was impossible for them to do their work unless they had a proper representation upon the Body which had control of the river. With regard to the question of the purity of the water, he hoped he was not speaking disrespectfully of the persons who resided in the district of the Upper Thames when he said they had attempted to use the river as a drain, and had compelled other people to drink the water. He was grieved to hear the hon. Member for Middlesex attribute to the County Council a desire to dirty the river. That Body and its predecessors had spent £1,000,000 in order to get sewage out of the river, and if the hon. Member would examine the foreshore at Barking he would be delighted to see the cleanliness of the foreshore. Indeed, he hoped in a short time that if they obtained this representation they might be able to offer hon. Members on both sides of the House a little fly fishing from the Terrace. The principal argument which had been made was that other County Councils had an equal right with the London County Council. They had never disputed that; but they desired to see some attempt to join hands with them in this business. Up to the present they had met with nothing but opposition.
    MR. BOULNOISsaid, he desired to say at the outset that his hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch did not represent the whole of the London County Council upon this matter, and that at all events there was a minority which was opposed to the Council approaching Parliament in this manner. He recollected when the matter was mooted in the Council that they were warned not only by the Members of the

    441
    Moderate Party, but by others of the section to which the hon. Member belonged, that if they attempted to put into a Bill of this kind a clause giving them representation on the Conservancy of the Thames and the Lea they would probably wreck their Bill. It had been repeated in the House that afternoon that this was not a proper way to come to Parliament for an increased representation. The proper manner for them to approach Parliament was, he would not say by a Public Bill, but by a separate Private Bill, and not by an Omnibus Bill of this character. The Bill was called a General Powers Bill. He believed that when the additional power was given by Parliament to the Metropolitan Board of Works it was never contemplated that they should put into their Bill a lot of minor Bills. He undertook to say that in this General Powers Bill there were 16 or 17 clauses which might very properly constitute Private or separate Bills in themselves. There was a clause in the Bill to alter the representation, which they were discussing now, on the Thames Conservancy Board and the Lea Conservancy. There was also a clause, which might well be a Bill, to alter the law as to the building of low-level lines, and to establish a Court of Appeal; a clause to alter, to a great extent, the procedure of the County Court itself, and other important clauses. If the hon. Member would take the trouble to go through the Bill, he would find that, there were a great number of contentious clauses that might constitute separate Bills in themselves. It was, therefore, not very surprising that the House of Lords should think that it was too wide-reaching a Bill, and that some limit should be put upon the powers asked for by the London County Council. They were not so squeezable as the Committee that dealt with the Bill. He did not know whether it would he in Order if he called it a partisan Committee; but it was clearly a Committee of strong bias in one particular direction. He held that it would have been much better to have sent it to an absolutely impartial Committee, such as their Select Committees were. The House of Lords Committee naturally struck out the most contentious clauses of the Bill, feeling that the interests of other Bodies were not in any way considered by the London County Council. The
    442
    London County Council was an ambitious Body—he had almost said a covetous Body; and it showed a great disposition to meddle with matters with which it had at present no authority from Parliament to deal. The Council desired to obtain the property of the Water Companies at the price of old iron. They wanted all the Tramways, and only the other day they were rather sweet on building a rival palace within a stone's throw of the House of Commons. He thought there were reasons why the County Council should be represented on the Thames Conservancy, but he thought they had not approached Parliament in the proper way in order to attain that object.
    SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, that, the hon. Member began his speech with an admission which really cut away the ground from his own contention. He expressed his opinion that London ought to be represented on the Thames Conservancy, and his main objection really was that the other counties were not represented. He was not correct as regarded the upper counties, which did have four representatives. As regarded Surrey and Kent, the London I County Council had no power of including I them in this Bill; but if they brought: in one of their own, he should be happy to support it. The hon. Member spoke of the Council turning the river into a sewage farm. There was no fear of that, and he was glad to inform the House that the condition of the lower river was far better than it used to be. The banks were cleaner, vegetation was beginning to grow, and bathing was indulged in where not, long ago it was impossible. Surely the people of London ought to have a voice in the management of the Thames, and he hoped the House would support the moderate proposal now before it.
    SIR G. RUSSELLdesired to say a few words as representing a constituency greatly interested in this question. Many hon. Members would know that there were instances in which great portions of the population of certain districts were entirely dependent upon the proper conservancy of the Thames. That being so, he should be the last man in that House to take exception to any course which had for its aim and object the real improvement of the conservancy of the Thames.

    443
    He carefully listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Shoreditch, and it appeared to him that the hon. Gentleman had adopted his tactics from the right hon. Baronet who sat below him (Sir C. Dilke), and who, when he was desirous of altering the mode of appointment of Magistrates, took no exception to the existing Body, but desired to add certain friends of his own. The hon. Member for Shoreditch had not one word to say against the conduct of the present Conservators of the Thames, but he seemed to think that the London County Council had some special right to come in and dominate with regard to the Thames interests, as if the River Thames were the back of a lady at the Aquarium, over which the London County Council desired special jurisdiction. Speaking as one interested in the conservancy of the Thames, he did not stop to inquire whether or not the London County Council should be represented on that Body. What he was going to say was this: that he considered that all the interests should be fairly, adequately, and proportionately represented on that body, and that could only be decided by a Committee of that House taking evidence, or by some method in which the public interests should be fairly and publicly known. Through this Private Bill it was sought to give four seats—originally seven was the number proposed—upon the Thames Conservancy, without any of the other interests involved having an opportunity of being heard with a view to proportionate representation. He should, in the interests of his constituents, and, as he believed, in the interests of the Thames Conservancy at large, oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for Shoreditch, on the ground that fair and proportionate representation was only to be arrived at by a Committee of that House taking evidence on the question.
    MR. GROVEobserved that, in voting against the Motion of the hon. Member for Shoreditch, and in favour of the Amendment of the Lords, he should be dividing against his natural allies. But he should do so, because on this occasion it seemed to him that the House of Lords had drifted into an exceptionally just mode of proceeding. His hon. Friends, on the other hand, had drifted into an unequal, unjust, and unexpected
    444
    mode of proceeding. He based his objection to this Bill on the ground that it denied all outlying districts of London what they on that Bench had been taught during the present Session, with somewhat weary reiteration, to regard as a sacred right—the right of self-government and Home Rule. The London County Council had fulfilled their duties, as a rule, with extraordinary justice, and great wisdom, so far as their Metropolitan duties were concerned; but of late a movement had been noted in their midst, to which the hon. Baronet opposite had called attention. That movement had been in the direction of the octopus—with greedy, restless, nervous fingers to try and snatch the property of other people outside London. He, for one, speaking as a Representative of a great constituency on the borders of the London County Council, felt it his duty to try and cut off those nervous figures when they came and tried to touch his property. His two hon. Friends near him had spoken about the rights of self-government, and his hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch spoke in the most pathetic terms of how it was denied to the London County Council to rule their own affairs. But why did the hon. Member not mete out the same justice to other people he desired to see exercised for himself? Why did he not give West Ham the right to manage its own affairs? Why did the hon. Member and the London County Council a few days ago so bitterly oppose the West Ham Corporation, who wanted to drain their own borough? West Ham was about the fifth largest provincial borough in the Kingdom, numbering some 250,000 souls, and yet the London County Council did not think it big enough to manage its own affairs. On the ground of the right of a great borough like West Ham to manage its own affairs he should most certainly oppose this measure. They were told that the London County Council would be quite ready to concede eventually to West Ham these rights which they were now wanting for themselves. But the London County Council was like other Corporations. It had no body, no soul, and alas! very little conscience; and, in his opinion, if the London County Council once got their feet in this Body, they would take very good care to keep such

    445
    humble children as West Ham and the neighbouring constituencies out of it. His hon. Friend talked about proportional representation. That was a charming philosophic subject which was very often only applied to illustrate the point of view of himself (Mr. Grove). His hon. Friend spoke about the inadequate way in which the London County Council were represented. He thought he was going to have 220, or was it 22, members eventually upon that Body? But he might point out that, so far as the law was concerned, the outlying districts had only a right to send one member on the Conservancy Board. There were 16 districts embracing such a locality as West Ham, and they had only the right to send one member on to the Conservancy Board, but the modest London County Council wanted to send three. The district of the London County Council contained a population of over 4,000,000, and West Ham a population of over 250,000. Yes, but look at the proportion. They in West Ham ought to have the right to 1–17th of the representation of the Lea Conservancy, but the County Council wished them to be contented with 1–48th of that representation. They thought, under these circumstances, that the members of the London County Council had a right to come down there and talk about just and fair proportional representation! He would point out one fact which very deeply interested his own constituents. Seven miles of the Thames and Lea ran through Stratford and neighbourhood. They were in a low-lying part of the district, and it was of most vital consequence to them that they should be properly represented on the Conservaucy of the Lea. ["Hear, hear!"] Then, why did not the County Council help them instead of saying, "Help us, and when we have got on ourselves we will help you." These were the grounds on which he ventured to oppose this measure, and he thought he was not wrong in supposing he should have the majority of the Members of the House with him. He should have the support of hon. Members opposite, because, of course, they must approve of anything that such an immaculate Body as the House of Lords recommended, and he should have the support of the wise on his own Benches, because they knew the London County Council was
    446
    getting a little beyond itself. He thought the Radical Members would also oppose this measure; and as for the Irish Members, the advocates of Home Rule, he had no fear regarding them. They would be acting directly contrary to all the principles they had so eloquently supported during the present Session if they were now to allow London, through the hands of its County Council, to oppress the poor little island of West Ham.
    MR. BONSORas the only Representative of the Surrey County Council in that House, wished to say one or two words in the Debate. With reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Tower Hamlets as to the position which the Surrey County Council took up in opposition to the present Bill, if the hon. Gentleman had read the report of the deputation of the Surrey County Council, he would observe that their only reason for opposing the representation of London on the Thames Conservancy was that they considered if London were represented Surrey should also be represented. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London had been good enough to give to the House a picture of what the Thames was to-day. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman could have given a stronger proof that this question did not re-quire urgent or immediate settlement. If the Thames was improving so rapidly under the present Conservancy, why should they not have a proper Representative Body to look after the whole of the Thames instead of proceeding by patchwork? It appeared to him they were all agreed on two points. In the first instance, he thought it was absolutely agreed that there ought to be an inquiry. In the evidence before the Committee which considered this subject the members of the London County Council admitted that some inquiry was necessary. Again, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade on the 17th June, 1893, in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Cirencester, said—
    "Yes, I think there ought to be an inquiry by a Select Committee; but it is a question whether at this period of the Session a Committee could be invited to enter on such an inquiry, but I will confer with my hon. Friend on the subject."
    Nearly all the Members of the House were, therefore, impressed with the idea that some inquiry should be held as to

    447
    the formation of the future Thames Conservancy. The second point on which there seemed to be agreement was that every county having an interest in the River Thames should be represented on that Body. There being a practical agreement upon these two points he really could hardly understand why the House of Commons could not in a businesslike way come to a decision on the matter. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board whether, as the guardian of Local Government in that House, he could not suggest some arrangement by which the House could at once proceed to that inquiry and allow next year a proper Bill to be brought in giving London its full and fair representation, which no county denied them, and giving to the counties and all the interests concerned their fair and proper representation?
    MR. J. ROWLANDSthought the House had got a little way from the real position of this question. In reply to the observations of the Member for North West Ham, he might say that he was on the Committee which sat to consider this subject; he was one of those responsible for the Report; he had gone carefully through the whole of the evidence, and he thought it would have been of great advantage if the hon. Member had quoted the Report so far as it affected West Ham. The Committee was not a partisan Committee in its consideration of this question. The members of it conducted an inquiry extending over several days; they had witnesses before them on behalf of the different interests affected, which were represented by the ablest Parliamentary counsel, and what was the result? Not that a partisan vote carried this question as to giving the London County Council representation on the Thames Conservancy, but that the whole Committee, irrespective of political opinion, arrived at the decision after several days' consideration, that London had made out its case and was entitled to representation on the Thames Conservancy. The only point of difference was as to the amount of that representation. The County Council, it was true, asked for seven members on the Conservancy Board, the same number as was now allotted to the Corporation of the City of London. When the Committee came to
    448
    consider the question of the number, some members were in favour of five, but by the casting vote of the Chairman four was fixed. A case was made out so clear on behalf of the County Council that the unanimous vote of the Committee, with the hon. Member for Sheffield in the chair, conceded their claims.
    MR. GROVEsaid, that in a document which at that time was issued by the London County Council it was asked—
    "What reason can there be for the representation of the London County Council on the Conservancy Board, which does not equally extend to the Councils of other counties on the Thames?"
    MR. J. ROWLANDSwas much obliged for the interposition, by which the hon. Member had completely given himself away. The Members of the Committee were so impressed with the case made out by the County Councils for Middlesex and Essex and for the representation of West Ham that the whole Committee requested the Chairman to draw up a special Report, in which they not only guarded themselves against condemning the contention of these Bodies that they should have representation, but clearly expressed the opinion that they had a right to representation, but stating that, owing to the position they were in as a Committee, they had no power to give them that which they should have asked for instead of wasting the money in fighting the County Council. The Committee had only one point put before them, which was that these various counties objected to the County Council having this representation because they had not got it themselves. The policy adopted by these Bodies was a dog-in the-manger policy, and nothing else. Mr. Wrorsley Taylor, the counsel representing the County Council for Middlesex, asked the following question of Mr. Binnie, the engineer for the London County Council:—
    "Is not that question of the relative user of the river and well-water within Middlesex one of the greatest interest in Middlesex?—Undoubtedly"
    What had the County Council of London Middlesex done in order to secure direct representation upon the Thames Conservancy? They had done nothing, because they were satisfied with the state of things which existed now. He (Mr. Rowlands) was so impressed

    449
    with this that he put the question (reading from evidence)—
    "MR. Rowlands: Your argument is that you are entitled to representation; could you tell me whether the Middlesex County Council have taken any action in approaching this County Council in any way since the last inquiry to obtain representation on this Board?
    "MR. Worsley Taylor: You mean with regard to the water?
    "MR. Rowlands: Representation on the Conservancy Board in the General Powers Bill; have you approached the County Council of London for joint action, or taken any action on your own part?
    "MR. Worsley Taylor: No; I understand our case is as it was on the last—leave things as they are; do not disturb them.
    "MR. Rowlands: But have that Body taken any action to get an inquiry as you suggest to take place for entire legislation on the subject and the re-construction of the Lea Conservancy Board?
    "MR. Worsley Taylor: No; we are not the people who want to move; we say if the London County Council is desirous to move, let them move in the right way.
    "The Chairman: You are satisfied for things to remain as they are?
    "Mr. Worsley Taylor: Yes.
    "Mr. H. C. Richards: The position of the County of Essex is very similar in opposition to the Bill."
    If the House threw out the recommendation of the Select Committee what would be the result? There was no promise from the Government that they were prepared to institute an inquiry for the re-constitution of the Board. He admitted that there was a re-constitution required of both the Thames and the Lea Conservancy Boards, especially in the case of the Lea Conservancy Board. While the Corporation of the City of London had one member and the London County Council had also one to represent the ratepayers and the consumers, two Water Companies had four representatives on that Board to see how much water they could get out of the Lea. In conclusion, lie would appeal to the House to uphold the unanimous decision of the Committee.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: I wish, Sir, to say a few words, and at the outset I would point out that the opinions which I represent are those held by the County of Middlesex. The great objection to the proposition before the House is that an attempt is being made to make an improper use of a Private Bill in order to alter the composition of a Public Body. Not long since, when advocating the Second Reading of a Bill of great interest to the
    450
    County of Middlesex, it was my fate to have the doctrine laid down by the President of the Local Government Board (MR. H. H. Fowler) that, he could not assent to the public law of the land being altered by Private Bill. That is the situation here to-day. I fully recognise the responsible work which the London County Council has to perform, and I should be the last to stand in the way of a due performance of its duties; but not one piece of evidence has been produced to show that this change would in any degree assist the County Council. No complaint has been made of the work done by the Conservancy Board, though the County Council wish to have a certain representation upon it. I agree that, in the abstract, the County Council, as well as other Local Bodies, ought to have representation on the Board; but the Select Committee had no power to make a representation in favour of Middlesex, Surrey, and other Local Bodies. Therefore, it is clear to me that the London County Council have made a somewhat unfair use of their right to promote Private Bills by embodying this proposal for representation. It is of the greatest importance that the London County Council should be on good terms with the neighbouring Local Bodies; but there is a bitter feeling being caused in Essex, Surrey, Middlesex, and West Ham as to the particular manner in which this proposal has been submitted. While the Loudon County Council say that if the proposal had been made by them in the form of a Public Bill it would be dilatory and costly, they at the same time suggest that the other Local Bodies should have recourse to that expensive process. I venture to say that, in these circumstances, the House of Lords has arrived at the right conclusion. These other Bodies being entitled to representation, I would ask the members of the London County Council what is the use of passing this Bill if in a short time we are to have a proposal of a wide and of a permanent character before us—a proposal which will, I hope, be satisfactory to all parties? I think the House will see that it is a matter that should be left to the Government to take in hand, and that the best course for the House is not to disagree with the Amendments. So far as I am concerned, I can assure the Loudon County Council that if they bring their proposal in a Public Bill,

    451
    dealing with all interests, they will not find any opposition from me.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (MR. H. H. FOWLER,: I do not want to delay the House from the Division, but there are one or two words to say on behalf of the Government with regard to the course to be taken to-day. The question before the House is not one affecting the past history of the London Comity Council or as to the manner in which it has discharged its duties. Neither has the House to consider the aims and ambitions of the County Council nor the disputes between that Body and the adjacent Corporation of West Ham and other Bodies. A Committee of the House has unanimously passed a clause in a Bill which has been passed by the House, and by virtue of which power is proposed to be given to the largest representative authority on the banks of the Thames, the authority which has by far the largest interest in the Conservancy of the Thames, to have a small representation on the Thames Conservancy, the ruling authority on the river. The House of Lords has seen fit, however, to reject that clause, and the House has now to decide whether it will agree or disagree with the attitude taken up by the Lords. This perpetual warfare which is being waged against the London County Council—too frequently, I regret to say, by members of that Body—is never seen in any other Municipality of the country. We do not hear of the members of the Corporations of Liverpool, Leeds, or Birmingham coming to this House to speak in such terms of the Bodies with which they are connected. But, of course, that is not the question before us. The noble Lord (Lord G. Hamilton) said that he did not object to representation in the abstract; but the House is not dealing with the representation of the County Council in the abstract, but as a practical proposal. What is the history of this matter? In 1890 the question was raised by a Private Bill, which was fully discussed on the Second Reading, and was then referred to a Select Committee. I quite agree with what has been said about Hybrid Committees, and I think that what has occurred to-day will put a stop to such Committees. Bills of this kind should be referred to an ordinary Select Committee, on which no Member should sit who either had
    452
    himself or whose constituents had any interest in the Bills. In 1890 the Committee was a Private Bill Committee, presided over by a typical Chairman of Committees—one whose loss to the House and politics I most deeply deplore—I mean SIR Joseph Bailey. Every consideration was then; given to this subject, and the recommendation of the Committee was challenged in much the same way, and by very much the same gentlemen who have challenged it this afternoon; and the Chairman of Committees expressed the opinion that, as most of the drinking water of London was derived from the Thames and Lea, the Body which had the right to look after the health of the Metropolis, ought to be represented on the Thames Conservancy Board. The late President of the Board of Trade said most distinctly that he was in favour of the London Comity Council being represented on the Board, but he raised the same point that has been raised this afternoon, and submitted that the other representative Bodies should be fully considered—that there ought to be an inquiry before the proposal contained in the Bill was adopted, and that a Committee should be appointed the following year to consider the whole question of the Conservancy of the Thames. But no Committee was appointed; and now, three years later, when the Loudon County Council asks for some representation, they are met with precisely the same arguments, which would have the effect of postponing the matter until the Greek Kalends. I think the County Councils of Middlesex, Surrey, Kent, Essex, and Berks should be represented, and possibly other Bodies in the upper reaches of the Thames might have some claim. How is the representation to be carried out? If the Lords' Amendments are accepted, the whole question will be postponed for another year. There is no reasonable prospect in the present state of the Public Business of the House that any Public Bill brought in by the London County Council could be carried through the House next year or during the next two or three Sessions. I submit to the House that we should accept my hon. Friend's Amendment and disagree with the Lords' Amendments. The Bill will then go back to the Lords, and there will be an opportunity of reconsidering the matter possibly in con-

    453
    fereuce with the Representatives of this House; and I think that, with the assistance of impartial and cool-headed men, we will be able this year to come to a satisfactory settlement of the proper representation on the Board of all the Bodies interested. I should be sorry to see a Bill of this class lost because of the particular provision to which objection is taken; and I think the House is not disposed to take that course.
    SIR F. D. DIXON-HARTLAND: How do you propose the others should get representation?
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I am not an authority on the Standing Orders of the House of Lords; but if there is a desire to do it, there should be no practical difficulty in carrying out that desire.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, there would be very great practical difficulties in the way of the course proposed by the President of the Local Government Board. The question was not whether the London County Council was entitled to representation, but whether it was entitled to an excessive and unduly preponderating representation. The House of Lords had done no more than this House had done in 1890, and they were justified in their action by the extremely unfortunate attitude taken up towards the other Riparian Authorities by the Loudon County Council, which had been treated by this House on this occasion with great indulgence. The present constitution of the Thames Conservancy was not of an ideal character, and seemed to have been conceived in the interest rather of the navigation than of water drinkers, but he denied that the representation of London upon it was so inadequate that it should be extended to the exclusion of the other Bodies. It had virtually 11 members out of 27. In 1867, when the Conservancy was last re-considered, representation was given to the upper Riparian Authorities, who were interested in the navigation of the river rather than in the purity of the water, for the sole purpose of counteracting the undue representation of London. This was a case in which the principle of population failed as a test. If, by excluding the interests of navigation, representation were given to the London householders, the question of the quality and quantity of the drinking water would appear to them to be the much more important question. He was not going
    454
    to take any course which would wreck this useful Bill, but he would ask the House to resist a course that would have no practical effect except to very seriously prejudice the settlement of the just claims of the other Riparian Authorities.
    SIR A. ROLLITsaid, it was a satisfactory feature of the Debate that there had been no criticism of the way in which the Thames Conservancy had discharged their duties. Occasions of that kind were often taken advantage of for remarks upon the manner in which the duties of the Public Bodies concerned were fulfilled; but there seemed to be no complaint in the case of this Board. But the question before the House was not so much one of practice as of principle—of the application or otherwise of the representative principle in local government, and, for his part, he did not see how the House could refuse to apply that principle in dealing with the Thames Conservancy. The second question involved was the principle of responsibility; and whatever criticism was directed to the London County Council—and certainly it had not been beyond or above criticism—it could not be denied that the responsibility for that Body's action rested to a great extent with the London electors. It was for those who for the most part criticised it to improve it. They must remember that they owed the County Council to the late Government, and they must also bear in mind that though they might mend the Count, Council, and though they might mar a great deal that it did, or attempted to do, they could not unmake that Body. Therefore, when he heard these criticisms, he was led to hope that what was at times open to objection would be counteracted by greater public interest being taken in these matters and closer identification with its operations by joining its ranks on the part of those who were able to contribute to its usefulness. Conservancy Bodies were essentially representative, for they had to deal with matters of the very greatest public interest. There was no duty which Municipalities had to perform greater or more important than that of securing a supply in all their purity and plenty of the prime necessities of life, and in that sense the regulation of a great river, apart altogether from the question of navigation, was a duty attaching to the Conservancy of primary importance. Then there was the

    455
    question of public health, which, as had been remarked, was dependent to a large extent upon that river, and he reached the remarks of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir J. Lubbock) when he said that in relation to that matter the London County Council had done excellently good work in the Lower Thames. He said this impartially, because he had at one time opposed that policy on the part of the County Council, and had headed a deputation sent to protest. On the Conservancy Board there was the representation of trade by the trading members, and the representation of navigation by the Trinity House and otherwise, and they were now asked to give a representation to the great Municipality which presided over London. When he sought for an example of what ought to be the constitution of that Body, he looked to his own Conservancy in Hull, on which he had long been the representative of the Board of Trade. The Humber Conservancy included representatives of the Hull Municipality, and the absence of those representatives would be distinctly disadvantageous. An old member of the Party to which he belonged, Lord Maghera-morne, as Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, more than once asked for the representation on the Thames Conservancy that the County Council, as the successor of the Board, now sought for. The claims of the Metropolitan Board were well urged by its Chairman, and he (Sir A. Rollit) thought that those claims existed equally, if not to a greater extent, by the Body that succeeded the Board. Then a Committee of the House of Commons had carefully examined the matter and approved the claim, and as a rule it was a mistake to depart from the decisions of such Committees, which hoard the evidence and went into the details. The objection to proceeding in this matter by means of a Private Bill had been answered in the course of the Debate. They owed the right of the Loudon County Council to proceed by Private Bill legislation to the Act of 1888, and the right was one which, so far as he could judge, had been properly exercised, and which he did not think could be reasonably taken exception to. It was suggested that in the present instance it would be well to proceed by Public Bill, and that, as a preliminary, there should be another Com-
    456
    mittee of Inquiry. Well, Committees or Inquiries were chiefly valuable on account of the facts they elicited; but it seemed to him from the flood of literature that had been showered on the House that the facts were already thoroughly well known, and that little more could be elicited. A Committee of Inquiry was suggested from the Conservative Benches in 1890; but no action was taken by the Conservative Government then in power, nor did he find in the mass of literature which had reached him that the Surrey County Council or the Board of Conservators were anxious for the appointment of a Committee. For these reasons he could not see his way to agree with the Lords' Amendment, and therefore he should support the Motion.
    COLONEL HUGHESdesired, as a London Member, to state why he could not vote against the Motion to disagree with the Lords' Amendment. This item of London reform was one which was admitted to be correct in principle. They could well understand that the London County Council did not consider itself justly treated when the Corporation of the City of London had seven representatives on the Conservancy Board, whilst the County Council had none. If they were represented on the Lea Conservancy Board they justly contended that they ought to have some representation on the Thames Conservancy Board. Those two considerations ought to induce hon. Members to vote for giving the London County Council a representation on the Conservancy Board. It was said that the London County Council was entitled to representation, but that other County Councils were entitled to it as well, and that one should not have it without the others. Well, if the representation were now given to the London County Council, the case for the other Public Bodies who claimed similar representation would be greatly strengthened. For these reasons he thought his hon. Friends who supported the Lords' Amendment would be placing themselves in a false position with regard to Loudon reform, as their votes would be misconstrued.
    CAPTAIN BOWLESsaid, that a great deal had been said as to the River Thames, but he wished to say something in regard to the River Lea. Those who had spoken on

    457
    behalf of the London County Council and the President of the Local Government Board himself had entirely omitted any argument in regard to the Conservancy of the Lea. The composition of that Conservancy at present was this— Five members were elected by the riparian owners, one by the owners of barges, one by the heads of certain Local Authorities, two by the New River Company, two by the East London Water Works Company, one by the Corporation of the City of Loudon, and one by the Metropolitan Board of Works— now the London County Council. Therefore, all the arguments used with respect to the case of the Thames Conservancy would not apply to the Lea Conservancy. On the latter Body the London County Council already had a representative. What would be the state of things if the Loudon County Council were to buy up the Water Companies some day? There were the riparian owners, and there were already on the Lea Conservancy Board four members representing London Water Companies which took water from the river; and, naturally, they would do all they could to insure the purity of the water supply of the Metropolis. There was also one representative of the London County Council on the Board, Therefore, at the present time, there were I six members out of 13 who represented London on the Lea Conservancy, and yet the County Council wanted to add two members to their representation. He could not help feeling that those who were interested, like himself and his constituents, in the banks of the Lea should have a fair and proper representation on the Conservancy Board; and though London might be a large body as regarded its population, perhaps its interest in the Lea might not be so great as that of some of the authorities on the banks of the river. The Lea was a river which overflowed in heavy rains and caused enormous loss to people having land on its banks, and for years they had been trying to better the principle on which the water was carried along the river. Only in the last Parliament a Bill was brought forward for that purpose. He trusted, therefore, that whether or not the House assented to add to the representation of the Loudon County Council on the Lea Conservancy Board, it would recognise that the case of the Lea differed materially from that of the
    458
    Thames. When the hon. Member for Shoreditch opened the Debate he suggested that they should divide on the Preamble and take the Division as a whole; but he (Captain Bowles) would submit that the legitimate place to put the case as a whole before the House would be on Clause 5.
    SIR F. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, it was to be distinctly understood that the Government pledged themselves that if the House did not divide on the question they (the Government) would do their best to introduce in some way in the House of Lords a clause by which the other districts should have representation on the Thames Conservancy Board if the London County Council obtained their four seats on it. On that understanding a Division would not be insisted on.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the Government could give no pledge in the matter, seeing that the Bill was not their own. He had thrown out a suggestion as amicus curiœ between all the parties. He would do his best to bring about the result referred to; but he could neither pledge the Government nor the London County Council. It seemed to him that there were modes of securing legislation which would suggest themselves to gentlemen hereafter. The result desired could be secured, if not in one way, at any rate in another.
    SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: Do we understand that this object will be carried into effect this year?
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: That will depend on the way in which the House of Lords deal with the matter—how they take the suggestion.
    SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: Clearly.
    MR. BONSORasked if the London County Council would put a Proviso into the Bill to the effect that this particular part of the measure should not come into force until the other County Councils had representation?
    SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, the London County Council wished the other counties to be represented, and they would do all they could to secure that object.
    COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid that, as an Essex Member, I he could not understand how the Essex County Council was to be safeguarded. The right hon. Gentleman opposite meant to do his best to

    459
    secure the representation of the other authorities; but he could give no pledge. It seemed, therefore, to him (Colonel Lockwood) that he would hardly be doing his duty to his constituents if he did not challenge a Division. A representation signed by the Chairman of the Essex County Council and the Chairman of the Borough of West Ham had been presented, declaring that they would not object to the representation of the London County Council, but insisted that if the rights of that Council were recognised theirs also should be recognised. It was impossible for the Essex County Council to bring forward Bills in the same manner as the London County Council; and as the matter now stood, without a definite promise, he did not see how they could avoid going to a Division.
    MR. BYRNEsaid that, as an Essex Member, he wished to state how the matter presented itself to his mind. In the first place, the London County Council was the only County Council that could proceed by means of legislation; secondly, they all agreed that the London County Council should be represented; and, next, they were all agreed that the other County Councils and the other persons having an interest should be represented as well on the Conservancy Boards of the Thames and Lea; and, lastly, there was no complaint at present of what the Thames and Lea Conservators had done, and, therefore, there could be no harm in a certain amount of delay. If there could be an assurance given that in some way elauses would be introduced to secure that all the Bodies interested should be represented it would not be necessary to go to a Division; but it did seem to him that without that they were in a difficulty. The London County Council should be represented; but he held that the various other Bodies — the Essex County Council, for instance—had, to a certain extent, rival interests which should be represented. He did not mean in the sense that they did not all want pure water and proper navigation, but that the Upper and Lower Thames and the Upper and Lower Lea should both be properly represented. If they were going to destroy the present constitution of the two Boards, which had worked well in the past, and were going to give
    460
    a preponderating influence to one County Body only, it would not be fair to the other counties. That was the effect of the Essex Petition. For his own part, he should not feel justified in withholding his vote from support of the Lords' Amendment if the House divided.
    MR. MACDONA, as representing a constituency interested in three-and-a-half miles of the South shore of the River Thames, in which resided thousands of Thames watermen and lightermen, who worked morning, noon, and night upon the River Thames, thought it was necessary that their interest should be represented on the Conservancy.
    MR. COHENtrusted that in the interest of the reputation of the London County Council, of which he had the honour to be a member, the House would not divide. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board could not give an assurance that the interests of the other Local Authorities would be safeguarded; but the right hon. Gentleman had said that he was firmly convinced that the arrangement he sketched out which would satisfy hon. Members was possible of attainment, provided there were a mutual desire and effort to accomplish it. If the House did not go to a Division they would be giving the London County Council an opportunity of first filling its engagement, and of showing that it would do its best to carry out the arrangement which it declared itself desirous of carrying out. Speaking as a member of that Body, he should be sorry to see the House take a step which would deprive them of that opportunity.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolved, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—(Mr. J. Stuart.)
    Amendment in Preamble, page 3, leave out lines 10 to 23, inclusive, the next Amendment, read a second time.
    SIR J. LUBBOCK SIR J. LUBBOCK moved, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment." The Motion would restore that part of the Bill which would enable the London County Council to hold certain inquiries. He did not object to the small sum of 31,000 being provided for this purpose, instead of the

    461
    £10,000 originally proposed; but he attached importance to there being some power to hold inquiries. He did not think it would be desirable to hold large inquiries under the powers of this Bill; but there were small subjects on which it might be very desirable to exercise this power, and in connection with such matters it would be bad policy to risk wrecking a ship for the sake of a half-pennyworth of tar. In this matter the London County Council were only asking for the power that every other Municipal Body in the country possessed. If his proposal were accepted, and at any time a larger sum than that provided for in the Bill were required, the London County Council would with confidence submit the matter to the judgment of the House; but for the present all they asked was that power should be given to spend the limited sum of £1,000 with the assent of the Government.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."— (Sir J. Lubbock.)
    MR. WHITMOREhoped the House would consent to the course suggested.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolved, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—(Sir J. Lubbock.)
    Words so restored to the Bill amended, by leaving out, in line 20, the words "that the said sections should be repealed and."
    Several Amendments agreed to.
    Amendment to leave out Clause 15, the next Amendment, disagreed to.
    Words so restored to the Bill amended, in page 11, line 2, by leaving out from the beginning of the Clause, to the word "from," in line 5.
    Amendment proposed, to the words so restored to the Bill, in line 10, after the word "Council," to insert the words "unless with the consent of the Treasury."—(Sir J. Lubbock.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I must ask the right lion. Gentleman to insert "the
    462
    Local Government Board," and not "the Treasury."
    SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press the alteration. They were in agreement on all other matters, and the London County Council were in the habit of communicating with the Treasury. The Treasury themselves had no objection to the Amendment.
    "MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the Treasury might not object, but the matter was not one in which the Treasury had the requisite machinery for making the necessary investigations. The Local Government Board controlled all these matters, and he was not prepared to take the London County Council out of the jurisdiction of the Local Government Board. He would move to amend the proposed Amendment by striking out the word "Treasury," in order to insert "Local Government Board."
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out "Treasury," and insert "Local Government Board."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Treasury' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, he differed with the right hon. Gentleman as to facts. The London County Council were under the Treasury in all other matters, and the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would involve a new departure. It would, however, he impossible for him to oppose the Government successfully.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he did not wish to appear pertinacious, but his point was that the Local Government Board, and not the Treasury, had the necessary machinery —the Inspectors, and so forth. The Local Government Board must have the exercise of discretionary powers in regard to this expenditure.
    COLONEL HUGHESthought the Local Government Board would be the proper authority to have control in this matter.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Words, as amended, inserted.
    Words restored to the Bill further amended by leaving out, in line 11, the

    463
    word "ten," and inserting the word "one."
    Several Amendments agreed to.
    Two Amendments disagreed to.
    Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of the Amendments made by the Lords to the Bill:— Mr. Henry H. Fowler, Mr. Mundella, Sir Walter Foster, Sir John Lubbock, Mr. James Stuart, Mr. Benn, and Mr. Marjoribanks:—To withdraw immediately.
    Ordered, That three be the quorum.
    Reasons for disagreeing with the Lords' Amendments reported, and agreed to:—To be communicated to the Lords.

    NEW WRIT ISSUED.
    For the County of Mayo (Western Division), v. John Deasy, Esquire, Manor of Northstead.—(Sir T. Esmonde.)
  QUESTIONS.

    SWAZILAND.
    BARON H. DE WORMS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now state the terms of the Convention entered into between Sir Henry Loch, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, and President Krüger, relative to the future of Swaziland; and whether he will present Papers on the subject?
    SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: At the same time, may I ask whether the Convention concerning Swaziland, arranged with the Government of the South African Republic, has yet been signed; whether it requires, or has received, the ratification of the Volksraad of the South African Republic; whether it requires, or will receive, any ratification by the Imperial Parliament; and whether the Convention will be arranged and finally signed before Parliament has been given any opportunity of examining its terms, or expressing any opinion thereon?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (MR. S. BUXTON,): I am sorry to say that I must ask hon. Gen-
    464
    tlemen to postpone their questions, as I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the subject.

    VOLUNTEER FORCES (JURY EXEMPTION) BILL.
    COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that, in the interview given on his behalf by Lord Sandhurst to a deputation of officers commanding regiments of Volunteers on the 23rd ultimo, the Under Secretary of State for War undertook that the Government would not oppose the Volunteer Forces (Jury Exemption) Bill; and if he will accordingly communicate with the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Secretary to the Treasury, and the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, so that the blocks placed by those Ministers on behalf of the Government on the 10th and 17th of July to the Committee stage of the Bill may not be renewed?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling, &c.): In the interview referred to, Lord Sandhurst spoke by my authority, and after consultation with me, and the intention of what he said was to convey to the officers present the fact that, so far as the War Office was concerned, no objection would be taken to a Bill for exempting officers in the Volunteer Force from service on juries, as it was urged that this privilege would tend to increase the willingness to accept commissions. My noble Friend could, however, only speak for his own Department, and both he and I regret if what was said has been understood in any larger sense; and I must point out that the Bill now before the House is a Bill of much wider scope, extending the exemption to all Volunteers.
    COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the exact words used were "The Government will not oppose the Bill"?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If so, they were used in the belief that the Bill referred to was the one granting the exemption to officers only.

    CHARITY SCHEMES.
    MR. DODD: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Charity Commissioner if arrangements can be made

    465
    to furnish Members of this House, who may desire it, with copies of new Schemes when they are advertised in the newspapers of the localities affected?
    THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. T. E. ELLIS, Merionethshire): The Commissioners will be glad, on application, to supply Members of this House with copies of any Scheme, in which they are interested, free of charge.

    IRISH LIGHT RAILWAYS.
    SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the nature of the reply received by the Irish Office to the inquiry addressed to the Irish officials in Dublin by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury relative to the amending of the law affecting Irish Light Railways?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY, Newcastle-upon-Tyne): It will be some days yet before I shall be in a position to give the decision arrived at.

    THE ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT.
    MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether there is an officer in charge of the Sanitary Branch of the Medical Department at the War Office, and what is his rank; whether this officer (if any) is charged with the perusal of the Quarterly Sanitary Reports of the Army, and does he bring to the notice of the Director General all unsanitary conditions in the Army mentioned in those Reports; whether the Director General brings those unsanitary conditions to the notice of the Commander-in-Chief; whether the principal medical officer of the Army District inspects the barracks, and is he accompanied by the Commanding Officer at those inspections; whether in India the sanitary inspections are made half-yearly as in this country; and whether the Army Medical Officers receive the protection of the authorities so as to enable them to properly carry out their sanitary duties for the protection of the health of the rank and file of the Army at Home and in India?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: An officer of the Army Medical Staff is in charge of the Sanitary and Statistical Branch of the Army Medical Department
    466
    at the War Office, and his duty is to bring to the notice of the Director General any important sanitary question involved in the periodical Sanitary Reports from out-stations. If the case is of sufficient importance the Director General would draw the attention of the Commander-in-Chief to it. The actual course of these Reports is, however, rather the reverse of that indicated in the lion. Member's question. The principal Medical Officer's Report is addressed to the General Commanding the District, who takes such action on it as he thinks necessary, or, if the matter be important, refers the point to the Commander-in-Chief, who would naturally call upon the Director General for his Report and advice. The principal Medical Officer inspects barracks at home half-yearly; abroad (including India), annually. He is accompanied in his inspection by the Commanding Officer, or by some officer, not below the rank of captain, representing him. I have every reason to believe that the Medical Officers are fully supported in all matters affecting the soldier's health.
    MR. A. C. MORTON: What is the rank of the officer alluded to in the first paragraph of the question?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think he is a surgeon-major on the eve of being promoted to the rank of surgeon-lieutenant-colonel.

    FIELD HOSPITAL TRAINING.
    MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether there is any field hospital equipment available for the training of medical officers in the following garrisons — Portsmouth, Plymouth, Dover, Woolwich, York, Colchester, Edinburgh, Dublin, the Curragh; whether, apart from the medical corps depot at Alder-shot, I here are any facilities given to the Medical Officers in garrison there for practice in field duties; and whether the Army Medical Officers have sufficient powers to efficiently carry out their duties to the sick and wounded in the field?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: At the stations named the necessary articles of field equipment are in store for purposes of mobilisation; but, as at present arranged, they are not available for purposes of instruction, except at the

    467
    Curragh, where half the establishment of a field hospital can be so used. As yet, the depôt at Aldershot is the only school for the instruction of Medical Officers in field duties; but, as I informed the hon. Member on the 4th instant, it is intended to give additional opportunities for this training. I believe the Medical Officers have ample powers for carrying out all their duties.

    MILITARY BANDS AT POLITICAL GATHERINGS.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the band of the Derbyshire Yeomanry Cavalry performed in uniform at an "At Home," at the Beaconsfield Club, Derby, on the 7th instant; and whether it is in accordance with the Rules of the Service for a military baud to perform at a political entertainment in uniform?
    THE MARQUESS of CARMARTHEN: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, may I ask if his attention has been called to the fact that the speech delivered by the chairman of the club contained these words-—
    "I need not remind you that to-day we have nothing whatever to do with politics."
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Is the right hon. Gentleman of opinion that Radicals would have been admitted on this occasion?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I can only hope they would under the circumstances explained by the noble Lord. I am officially informed by the officer commanding the Derbyshire Yeomanry, by telegraph, as follows:—
    "At a garden party given at the Beaconsfield Club, Derby, on the 7th July, in honour of the marriage of Princess May and the Duke of York, permission was given for the band to play a programme of music. There was nothing political whatever."
    I may add that the Queen's Regulations forbid the attendance of soldiers in uniform at any political meeting.

    BRITISH CONCESSIONS IN SIAM.
    SIR J. LENG: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that British subjects are in possession of valuable rights and concessions extending over au area of 40 square miles in the Provinces
    468
    of Chantabeen and Korat, and also in Battambong, in Siam, for the working of sapphires and rubies; whether those Provinces are in the Siamese territory now being claimed by France; and whether, in the event of their annexation by France, care will be taken to guard the interests of British subjects in their mining rights?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): Her Majesty's Government believe that such concessions have been granted to British subjects and other foreigners in the districts named. It will be seen from the terms of the French ultimatum that the Provinces of Chautabeen, Korat, and Battambong, all of which lie to the west of the Mekong, are not claimed by France.

    PRISON OFFICIAL DISCIPLINE.
    MR. W. WHITELAW: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether a warder in Peterhead Prison was recently dismissed from the service on account of a charge of having been the worse for drink when on duty three years ago; if so, is it usual to punish a public servant for an offence committed three years before the charge is heard of?
    THR SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. But, on a Report received from the Prison Commissioners, from which it appears that a full inquiry was held into all the circumstances of the case, which were of the most aggravated character, I see no reason to interfere with the discretion properly exercised by the Commissioners under Rule 238.
    MR. W. WHITELAW: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at a similar inquiry at Glasgow the investigation was limited to the 12 months immediately preceding?
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: I cannot say. But I do not think this man could have been kept on as a warder.

    HEROLD'S SCHOOL, BERMONDSEY.
    MR. BARROW (Southwark, Bermoudsey): I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on

    469
    Education whether he is aware that Herold's School, Drummond Road, Ber-mondsey, with a capacity for 420 children, has been closed since 1st May in consequence of its insanitary condition, and the children deprived of all means of a free education; whether he is aware that all the other Board schools in the neighbourhood are more than full, and yet the School Board refuses to open temporary premises, although good accommodation can be had in Crispin's Hall and Jamaica Road Hall, each in the immediate vicinity of Herold's School; also that all the teachers have been granted a prolonged holiday and their full pay; and whether, as it is in dispute between the School Board and Herold's Trustees as to which authority is liable for the cost of complying with the sanitary improvements demanded by the local Vestry, he will state how it is proposed to settle such dispute, and how soon the school may be expected to be reopened?
    THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,: The boys' and girls' departments of this school were closed on the 5th May for repairs, in consequence of a sanitary notice served by the Vrestry of Bermoudsey. Some delay occurred owing to a question arising as to who were legally responsible for carrying out the requirements of the Vestry; and the School Board for London inform me that their Works Committee had under consideration the question of hiring temporary premises either in one of the two buildings named, or in Banyard Road. But as an agreement has now been come to between the Board and the Trustees of the School as to how the cost of the improvements shall be defrayed, and as the school holidays are now beginning, they have decided not to proceed any further in the matter. As the works are being carried out by the Trustees, the School Board cannot inform me without further inquiry as to the precise date when the school will be reopened. In the meantime, it appears from the figures supplied to me that there is, as was to be expected, a considerable excess of children in most of the neighbouring Board schools. If any parents in the district are unable to obtain free school places for their children after the Herold's School has been reopened, they
    470
    ought to make a representation to the Department accordingly, in order that the free places may be provided.

    SANITATION AT SOUTH HETTON.
    CAPTAIN FENWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the sworn statement at the recent Newcastle Assizes of the Medical Officer of Health of Middlesbrough, that the village of South Hetton was the worst he had ever seen in his life as regards sanitary arrangements; and whether he will send an Inspector down to inquire into it?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Sir W. FOSTER,): I am informed that the Medical Officer of Health of Middlesbrough made a statement to the effect of that mentioned in giving evidence in an action brought by the South Hetton Coal Company against the proprietors of The North Eastern Daily Gazette for an alleged libel in connection with the condition of the village of South Hetton. But for the plaintiffs, four medical men, including the Medical Officer of Health for Sunderland and the Easington District, gave evidence that the village was in a fair sanitary condition. The Local Government Board is in communication with the Rural Sanitary Authority on the subject, and will await their reply before determining whether an inspection by an Inspector of the Local Government Board will be required.
    MR. STOREY: Is my hon. Friend aware that in this particular village great efforts have been made by the owners to meet the difficulty, and that they have acted not only on their own initiative, but also at the instance of the Durham County Council? Does he not, under these circumstances, think it desirable and only just to the Durham County Council to leave them to deal with this and similar cases in the county, in which, I admit, there is much room for improvement?
    SIR W. FOSTER: Much has been done already in this village, and I hope more will be done. Of course, we should prefer to see it carried out by the Sanitary Authority' without the intervention of an Inspector of the Board.

    HOUGHTON-LE-SPRING BURIAL GROUND.
    CAPTAIN FENWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received the Report of the Inspector sent down to inquire into the state of the Houghton-le-Spring old burial ground; and what steps he intends to take in the matter?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH Fife, E.): I have received the Inspector's Report, which states that he, in company with several members of the Local Board, the Medical Officer of Health, and a number of parishioners, inspected the burial ground. The rector was represented by two of his curates and the sexton. He reports that the cemetery stands in an open situation outside the town and is two acres in area, and the soil is dry and not unsuitable, and that there is still space for fresh interments in virgin soil, and from the evidence which he obtained he is satisfied that the water supply to the town is not affected, and he can see no sanitary reason for closing it; but he further reports that the Regulations under which it was placed by Lord Palmerston have not been carefully obeyed with respect principally to the laying out of the ground and the size of the grave spaces; consequently, I have given instructions that the Church authorities should be directed to observe the amended Regulations, a copy of which has been forwarded to them.

    PIERS ON THE GARELOCH.
    CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that whereas the piers of Clynder and Barremman (which lie contiguous to each other upon the Gareloch) have been from the dates of their construction respectively in regular use by the residents of those places, Clynder Pier, which is said to have passed lately into the hands of the owner of Barremman Pier, has been closed by him to the detriment and inconvenience of certain of the residents of Clynder; whether the Board has power to compel the owner or lessee of Clynder Pier to keep open and maintain the said pier in the interests of the public; and, if not, whether in future the Board will cause
    472
    provisions to be inserted in Pier Orders and in deeds conveying Crown property to persons for such purposes in order to safeguard public interests in this respect; and in view of the fact that, owing to the severance and removal of that part of the pier formerly leading to the public thoroughfare, there is now no access to the pier from the shore; whether, and, if so, under what conditions, the Board has power to compel the removal of the remainder of the pier?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): My attention has been called to the facts stated, and one of the disputants has informed the Board of Trade that he is about to take legal proceedings against the other. In these circumstances it would not be proper for me to say anything at present as to these particular piers. The Board of Trade have no power to compel the undertaker of a pier to maintain it in the interests of the public, if it is not remunerative; and I shall consider whether in future Pier Orders, or in deeds conveying Crown property for pier purposes, such a provision as the hon. Member suggests should be inserted. Under the Pier and Harbour Acts the Board have power, if a pier falls into disuse or decay, either to repair or to remove it at the expense of the owner. In the case of Clynder Pier the new owner has intimated his intention of entirely removing it.

    CANADIAN CATTLE.
    DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in the event of suspicious cases occurring among future cargoes of Canadian cattle, portions of the affected lungs will be supplied if desired to independent scientific authorities for examination; and whether, in the event of the detection by his professional advisers of pathological appearances, similar to those already diagnosed by them as pleuro-pneumonia, inoculative experiments will be carried out to test the existence of a-true contagious element?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): If any further cases of pleuro-pneumonia are discovered among cattle imported from Canada, I should be quite willing to take the same

    473
    course as that pursued in connection with the recent cases—namely, to give facilities for the examination of the lungs by any veterinary surgeon appointed by the Canadian Government, and to supply them, so far as is practicable, with sections of the diseased portions. The suggestion made by my hon. Friend as to carrying out inoculative experiments has been frequently considered by me in conjunction with my veterinary advisers, and I need scarcely say we should certainly have had recourse to so simple a method of determining the matter if any reliable results could be obtained. I am advised, however, that the effects of inoculation with the liquid exuded in pleuro-pneumonia vary considerably. Indeed, it not infrequently happens that no local or constitutional disturbances are produced; and, moreover, the same local results have been produced by other material capable of setting up infective inflammation. In these circumstances the experiments proposed would obviously not afford any reliable test of the character of the disease.
    DR. FARQUHARSON: Will the veterinary surgeon have to be an English surgeon and resident in this country?
    MR. H. GARDNER: Yes, Sir.
    SIR J. LENG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture when the Papers he has promised relating to the examination of the lungs of Canadian cattle by the veterinary experts of the Board will be laid upon the Table; and whether they will include the Reports of the Canadian Inspectors, and the Correspondence that has passed between the Board, the Government of Canada, and the Colonial Office respecting the order for slaughtering all Canadian cattle at the port of disembarkation?
    MR. H. GARDNER: I hope to lay the Papers in question upon the Table in the course of next week; but correspondence is now proceeding between the Colonial Office and the Board of Agriculture which it is desirable should be included. If the Canadian Government and the Colonial Office see no objection, I should propose to print the whole of the Correspondence to which my hon. Friend refers, and with a view to the inclusion of the Reports of the Canadian Imspectors I have suggested that they
    474
    should be officially communicated to me.
    MR. W. WHITELAW: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will allow several cargoes of Canadian cattle to be landed in this country and kept in quarantine under the strict observation of the Board of Agriculture for such a time as the Board should consider necessary, in order to prove beyond dispute whether or not reasonable security exists for their free importation?
    MR. H. GARDNER: I am afraid that the arrangement proposed would not be of much assistance in connection with the matter to which the hon. Member refers. The detention of cargoes for the lengthened period necessary would involve great practical difficulty; and even if no cases of disease presented themselves amongst the animals detained, it would only prove that diseased animals are not comprised in every cargo—a fact which is already beyond dispute.
    MR. W. WHITELAW: Are the veterinary officers of the Board of Agriculture of opinion that pleuro-pneumonia is so slightly infectious that it can have existed in Canada for a year and still have defied discovery by the authorities there?
    MR. H. GARDNER: That is a matter of opinion. The disease has been found in cargoes arriving in Scotland, and by the Act which I have to administer the country which has to determine what precautions are necessary is the importing country.
    MR. W. WHITELAW: I shall raise the question on the Estimates.

    THE UNITED STATES AND THE SILVER QUESTION.
    SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any negotiations or correspondence were entered into or carried on with the Government of the United States with a view to that "direct agreement between India and the United States," in reference to the silver question which is spoken of in the Despatch of the Government of India to the Secretary of State for India of the 21st June, 1892 (No. 160); and, if so, whether he can lay upon the Table any Papers indicating the nature of the negotiations or the correspondence?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. G. RUSSELL, North Beds.): No such negotiations were carried on. The Delegates of the United States at the International Monetary Conference pressed for an International agreement; but none had been, or seemed likely to be, arrived at when the Conference adjourned; and the position of the Government of India rendered further delay highly inadvisable.

    THE SALE OF GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS.
    SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg-to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether there would be any objection to a Return giving the Correspondence between Her Majesty's Stationery Office and Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode, on the subject of the present contract for the sole agency for the sale of Government publications commencing 1887?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): I do not think it would be right, or desirable in the public interest, to publish such Correspondence between the Stationery Office and a contractor upon the working of his contract.
    SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I shall raise the question on the Estimates.

    THE EDUCATION ESTIMATES.
    MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he has any expectation of moving the Education Estimates during the six days between 28th July and 4th August; and, if not, whether he can indicate any date at which they will probably be taken?
    MR. ACLAND: Yes, Sir.

    THE FIGHTING IN MASHONALAND.
    MR. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any further information relative to the expulsion of an Impi of Matabele men from Mashonaland?
    MR. S. BUXTON: We have not received any further news from Sir H. Loch; but we have telegraphed to him in reference to the news that has appeared in the papers?

    H.M.S. "VICTORIA."
    MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to make good to the "lower deck" survivors of H.M.S. Victoria, such losses of kit and clothing as they may have suffered?
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,): In accordance with the Regulations for the Navy, every survivor of the Victoria, whether man or boy, is entitled to have all loss of kit (which includes clothing) made good to him, either by fresh articles being issued to him free of charge or by money compensation.

    AGRICULTURAL INSTRUCTION IN WALES.
    MR. EDWARDS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, inasmuch as the Agricultural Department of the University College of Wales, Aberystwith, gives instruction to seven counties which comprise the most agricultural parts of Wales as well as the largest area of the Principality, and having regard to the necessity of further strengthening the agricultural staff within the College, the Board of Agriculture will increase the grant for agricultural instruction to Aberystwith College, so as to bring it to the same amount as is granted to the Colleges at Durham and Leeds and the University College of North Wales at Bangor?
    MR. H. GARDNER: I regret that it is not possible for me to anticipate my decision as to the amount to be awarded lo the College at Aberystwith in respect of agricultural instruction during the current year. It will, however, be my endeavour to allocate the limited funds placed at my disposal with fairness and a due regard to the position and work of the various Institutions concerned, and I am glad to say that the most recent Reports I have received show that the work at Aberystwith is growing, and that it is of a satisfactory character.

    MILITARY DUTIES ON THE ROYAL WEDDING DAY.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has received the written testimony of six separate and

    477
    reliable witnesses, and the names of six others prepared to give testimony, all of whom contradict the statement made by the officer who wounded with his sword Arthur Walker on the day of the Royal Wedding; and whether he will now order an independent investigation into all the circumstances of the case? I beg also to ask whether on I he day of the Royal Marriage the officers in charge of the soldiers in the streets had stringent orders to cut down, if necessary, anyone who attempted to break through the lines: whether ball cartridges were served to the soldiers on duty on the same occasion, to be used in a, case of emergency; and whether it is customary on the occasion of a State pageant to arm the soldiers with ball cartridge, and give officers stringent instructions to cut down sightseers who attempt to break through the lines?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am obliged to the hon. Member for sending me letters from six persons who witnessed the occurrence in the Strand. Their evidence varies somewhat, but I do not think that any inquiry would | were grave enough to justify the hon. bring out more than has been already disclosed. As I have already staled, the officer disclaims any intention to injure the man, the seal wound being practically the result of a regrettable accident. In answer to the further question, I have to say that no orders such as described were given to the officers in charge of troops, that no ball ammunition was issued, and that it is not customary on similar occasions to take such extreme steps.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Does the officer adhere to his statement that Walker endeavoured to grasp the reins of the horse and thereby caused the accident?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I would not go so far as to say that this caused the accident to occur; but it was the reason why the officer struck him with his sword. The accident consisted not in the seizing of the rein, but in the sharp edge of the sword meeting the man's bead instead of the flat. With regard to the catching hold of the reins, which, as the hon. Member says, was an important factor in tin; occurrence, even some of the letters—one, at any rate, which is most elaborate in its details—admit that it was quite possible the rein was taken hold of, and suggest it was done, not with a view of stopping
    478
    the horse but because the man was ed by the crowd between the horse an omnibus—an empty omnibus— and which was standing in the street. One way or other, it is most natural to suppose tint, in the circumstances, the rein was taken hold of; and, if so, the conduct of the officer, so far as that goes, was not unnatural.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: But does not the writer of that particular letter say he was not in a position to see whether Walker did seize the horse's rein or not, and do not the five writers, all of whom were looking from windows, distinctly state that the rein was not grasped at all, and that Walker was not in a position to seize it hail he endeavoured to do so? Under these circumstances, and despite the levity with which the matter has been treated, I ask, do not these assertions justify, in the interests of the Service and of the public, an independent investigation?
    MR CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I quite agree that the circumstances Member in sending me these letters. I am not at all surprised that persons who saw more or less of what occurred should be willing to come forward with their testimony; but I disagree with the hon. Member in his supposition that inquiry would bring out any more than we have ascertained, in the confusion and hurry that prevail on such an occasion it seldom happens that one man sees the whole occurrence; and the conclusion I have formed from the letters I have received is that inquiry would bring out no more certain knowledge of the facts.

    THE DUKE OF TECK.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether His Serene Highness the Duke of Teck is a Major General Supernumerary of the British Army; what are the duties attaching to the position; what salary or emoluments are allowed him as Major General Supernumerary; and what was the date of his appointment?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: His Serene Highness the Duke of Teck, who was a Colonel in the Army supernumerary to the Establishment, has been promoted to be Major General under the same conditions. Such an appointment involves no duty and carries no pay.

    THE NAVAL PROGRAMME.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when he will be in a position to lay upon the Table of the House the full details of the new battleships and large cruisers to be laid down in 1893–4?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH,): The statement in regard to the new battleships will be laid upon the Table of the House very shortly. A similar statement as to the first-class cruisers may be delayed, as the details of the design have not yet been completed; but as full a description as practicable will be furnished before the Shipbuilding Vote is taken.

    PARLIAMENTARY PRINTING.
    MR. BRUNNER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to an error in the Report presented to this House from the Joint Committee on Electric Powers (Protective Clauses); whether he is aware that the error did not occur in the Report from that Committee presented to the House of Lords; and whether it is the custom to set up in type Reports from Joint Committees separately for the two Houses? I may explain that the error was the omission of the word "substantially."
    SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I have referred to the two issues of the Report and Proceedings in question for the House of Lords and House of Commons respectively. It appears clear that they have been separately set up, and I am informed that it is the practice to set up the Reports and Proceedings of such Joint Committees separately for both Houses. I will make inquiries, with a view to discovering how the difference between the two issues of the Report arose, and obviating any such mistakes in future, and also, in the interests of economy, with a view to preventing documents being needlessly set up twice.
    MR. BRUNNER: Will my right hon. Friend endeavour to secure that there shall only be one printing in the future? Can it not be done by a friendly arrangement?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The moment I heard of it I made up my mind to try and arrange that in the interests of economy.

    THE ARMENIAN PRISONERS AT CÆSAREA.
    MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any information has been received at the Foreign Office relating to tortures inflicted on Armenian prisoners at Cæsarea; and whether he is able to make any statement on the subject?
    SIR E. GREY: The alleged acts of torture are said to have taken place in January last. Her Majesty's Charge d' Affaires at Constantinople has been instructed to mention to the Porte the unofficial statements which have reached the Embassy; but without further confirmation of their accuracy I should not feel justified in giving any particulars of them.

    THE CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
    MR. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, in view of the fact that the increase of work at the Central Telegraph Office necessitates the employment of a large body of temporary hands for periods so extended as to render them practically permanent, he will consider the necessity of increasing the permanent staff so far as to enable it to cope with the permanent demands of the work; whether lie is aware that the Ridley Commission condemned the employment of "permanent temporary" hands in other Civil Service establishments, and recommended its discontinuance; and whether he can bring his Department within the terms of this recommendation?
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): Comparing the total business done by the Department in telegraph messages in 1892–3 with that done in the previous year, it would appear that the business is almost stationary. There have been symptoms, however, in places of a small increase, but it is by no means certain it will be maintained. Any permanent addition to the force under such circumstances is a matter which requires serious consideration, and the question is now engaging my attention. It is probable

    481
    that some addition will be before long required in the Central Telegraph Office; but, as I have already explained to the House, tin absolute discontinuance of temporary hands is incompatible with the conditions of the work.

    COUNTY MAGISTRATES.
    MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Crown make any charge on the admission or appointment of County Magistrates; and whether Clerks of the Peace, or Deputy Clerks of the Peace, have the right to make a charge for Crown Office and other charges amounting to 33 3s. and upwards?
    MR. ASQUITH: I must ask my hon. Friend to postpone this for a couple of days. I am making inquiries.

    THE "VICTORIA" CCURT MARTIAL.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is able to say whether the officer of the watch on duty in the Victoria at the time of the collision is one of the survivors?
    SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Lieutenant Charles J. Collins was officer of the watch. He was among those saved, and has given evidence at the Court Martial.

    TERMINABLE ANNUITIES.
    MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the saving of 37,406 per annum, effected by the reduction under Treasury Warrant, dated 30th June, 1893, of the Terminable Annuities created to replace the £40,000,000 Consolidated Stock held on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature, by reducing the said Annuities from £2,605,706 to £2,598,300, will be applied annually till 1904 to the reduction of further Debt, or will be appropriated by the Treasury for current expenditure?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): This Annuity being within the fixed Debt charge of £25,000,000, any saving in respect of it goes to the new Sinking Fund, which consists of all the un appropriated portions of the fixed charge.

    HEALTH OFFICERS IN ROSS AND CROMARTY.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the County Medical Officer of Health for Ross and Cromarty has resigned his office for the Western District of the county; if so, whether steps will be taken to require the Board of Supervision to appoint a County Medical Officer of Health who will be able to devote the whole of his time to the duties of the office?
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: I have received information that this officer has resigned his appointment. It will be for the County Authority to appoint his successor, and they will, no doubt, select the best man possible.

    AUTOMATIC BRAKES.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether automatic brakes were fitted to the carriages of the train on the Highland Railway in which the Duke and Duchess of Sutherland and a large number of passengers were travelling when the accident occurred at Dingwall a few days since?
    MR. MUNDELLA: The Company have telegraphed that automatic brakes were fitted to the carriages. The line was under repair and nobody was hurt.

    PIER ACCOMMODATION IN THE ISLAND OF LEWIS.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, as reported in The People's Journal of Saturday, 22nd July, of a meeting of the Ross and Cromarty County Council, held at Dingwall on Wednesday the 19th instant, at which it was stated that Lady Matheson, of Stornoway Castle, proprietor of the Island of Lewis, with its population of 28,500, refused to give the necessary guarantee in regard to the sum required, in addition to the Government grant, for the construction of piers and boatslips in the island, and that, in consequence of the chronic poverty of the inhabitants, it was useless to expect a guarantee from them, the meeting resolved to draw the attention of the Government to the case as being worthy of special consideration; and whether the Government will pro-

    483
    vide the necessary funds to enable the work to be carried out before winter?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I have seen no account of the meeting referred to.
    MR. WEIR: Then I will send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the report.

    THE INSANITARY CONDITION OF MECCA.
    SIR H. ROSCOE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, considering that, the lives of thousands of Her Majesty's Mahomedan subjects are every year placed in danger in consequence of the insanitary condition of Mecca during the Hajj, and in view of the fact that some mouths ago a, public meeting of Mahomedans was held at Madura, when a resolution was passed to memorialise the Sultan of Turkey to adopt suitable measures for improving the sanitation of Mecca and other places of pilgrimage, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will urge the Forte to secure the immediate publication of the Report of the Ottoman Board of Health on this subject?
    SIR E. GREY: The subject already occupies the attention of Her Majesty's Embassy, and no effort will be spared to secure the adoption of suitable sanitary measures by the Ottoman Authorities.
    SIR H. ROSCOE: Can the hon. Baronet say when this Ottoman Board was constituted?
    SIR E. GREY: I cannot.

    FRENCH COMMERCIAL POLICY IN THE EAST.
    COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I bog to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the French Republic has in any way modified the attitude of commercial hostility to British trade taken up in Indo-China and Tonkin in recent years on instructions from Paris, or shows any disposition to lower the prohibitive duties levied upon British goods; and, in the contrary case, if the restrictions imposed by France throughout her Colonics upon the development of English commerce will be borne in mind in any negotiations for the extension of her Eastern Possessions, and especially in directions offering at present great facilities to British traders?
    SIR E. GREY: No alteration of the colonial policy of France in giving French trade preferential treatment in relation to foreign trade has taken place. The restrictions imposed are, of course, well-known to Her Majesty's Government.

    THE NAVAL ESTIMATES.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: In the absence of the right hon. Member for the Ormskirk Division of Lancashire, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state when the Navy Estimates, will be brought forward?
    SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: No early day can be devoted to Navy Estimates. Due notice will be given of the date when they will be taken.

    LADIES AS GUARDIANS.
    MR. LEON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the opinion recently expressed by him as to the usefulness of a. Ladies' Committee, the Buckingham Board of Guardians, at their last meeting on the proposition of the Rev. J. Corr, Vicar of Foscott, abolished the Ladies' Committee; and whether, looking to this and other instances of the way in which Boards of Guardians perform their duties, he will use his best endeavours to push on his Parish and District Councils Bill?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,: I have not been informed of the passing of a resolution such as that referred to in the question. If one were passed I should deeply regret it. No man in this House is more anxious than I am to see the Local Government Bill passed into law.

    THE THREATENED STRIKE IN THE COAL TRADE.
    MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the imminent danger of a strike in the Midlands in which 200,000 miners are involved; and whether the Board of Trade have taken, or can take, any steps with a view to effecting a peaceful settlement between the contending parties?
    MR. MUNDELLA: Yes, Sir; my attention has been drawn to the serious state of affairs, which may result in a stoppage of work in many important mining districts. Steps have been taken by the Labour Department to obtain full and accurate information on the subject (part of which has already been published in The Labour Gazette), but the Board of Trade have at present no statutory powers to undertake arbitration or conciliation or to intervene in-a trade dispute.
    MR. DALZIEL: Is there anything to prevent the Board of Trade interfering and exercising its influence in the direction of peace?
    MR. MUNDELLA: I think the Board would probably be subjected to a, rebuff if it attempted to intervene. It has no statutory powers to act. Already some applications have been made to me by employers in favour of arbitration; but having regard to the declaration on the part of the miners, that they will submit to no reduction and will refuse arbitration, I do not think I could with advantage intervene at present.

    MRS. ELIZABETH GLADSTONE AND HER TENANTS.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a letter from Mrs. Elizabeth Gladstone, of County Limerick, in which she affirms that the statements in the question addressed to him on the 17th instant, regarding her property and the treatment she has received, are strictly accurate; and whether he has made further inquiries into the case, and with what result?
    MR. T. M. HALY: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the fact that the caretaker employed by this lady failed to answer a summons before a Resilient Magistrate for illegally firing a, revolver, and that consequently a Bench warrant was issued for his arrest?
    MR. J. MORLEY: I believe that that is so. In reply to the question on the Paper, I have to say that I have received a letter from the lady referred to, in which she makes a general assertion of the nature indicated in the
    486
    question. I have made further inquiries of the fullest kind, and see no reason to depart from the answer I have already given. It was alleged in the previous questions of the hon. Member that this lady has been boycotted, refused the payment of her rents, and robbed of her property; that hay to the value of £250 was forcibly carried away by Noonan, an evicted tenant, by the aid of a crowd of neighbours from the mountains; that compensation was refused on the ground that the removal was a larceny; that Noonan's farm has since been boycotted; that she has now, according to the hon. Member's question of July 10, about 150 Ions of grass for hay standing on this farm worth nearly £1,000, according to the hon. Member's question of July 17 over 100 tons, and that no one dares purchase or remove the hay. The Constabulary report that, except in the case of Noonan, the relations of this lady with her tenants are good, nor are they aware of any boycotting; that the hay removed in 1892 was not valued at £250. It was sold by Noonan for about £64, and the Grand Jury appear to have measured its value at about £100. The hay was sold as it stood on the farm by Noonan by auction, and the purchasers openly carried away the hay. Noonan was at this time in occupation of the place as caretaker. [Sir E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Hear, bear!] Yes, and that has never been disputed. A notice under Section 7 of the Land Act of 1887 was served on him on November 16, 1891. In February last he appears to have been turned out, but thereupon reinstated as caretaker, but not his son, who had been hitherto living with him. The Grand Jury award was traversed before the Judge on the ground that the necessary legal notice had not been served on the secretary of the Grand Jury. It was also contended that the removal was not a malicious injury. The presentment was, according to the records of the Grand Jury, nullified by the Judge on the ground that the legal notice was not served. The police value the present crop as considerably below that suggested. They have no reason to believe that there would be any attempt to interfere with the persons she may employ. But any necessary protection would, of course, lie at once afforded by them.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Of course, it is impossible for me by way of question and answer to argue upon this statement. ["Order, order!"] I shall not say a single sentence on that now, but I shall take an opportunity on the Estimates to point out that the right hon. Gentleman has by his present statement considerably altered his previous statement—[MR. J. MORLEY: Not at all] —aud confirmed most important parts of my statement. I will not now argue with the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: And on the Estimates I shall call attention to the conduct and threats of this lady's caretaker, to his action in brandishing a revolver, and to the fact that adequate protection is afforded by the police.

    LAND COMMISSION APPEALS.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland have the Laud Commission been advised that no appeal lies to the House of Lords from the mandamus granted by a majority of the Court of Appeal against them (reversing the Queen's Bench) in "Rossmore v. Donnelly;" if not, do they intend to allow the dictum of the Lord Chief Baron affecting the status of every agricultural tenancy in Ireland to be incorporated in their procedure in hearing fair-rent applications; did the landlord's notice of appeal from the Sub-Commissioners cover the point as to the tenant's status subsequently raised in the Court of Appeal; and do the Land Commissioners hold that their decision to appear or not appear as litigants on a mandamus application before the Supreme Court of Judicature is an exercise of judicial discretion?
    MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed that the Commissioners are engaged today in the business of the Court, and have not had time to reply to my telegram. I must ask the hon. Member to postpone the question till Thursday.

    BOGUS CLUBS IN DUBLIN.
    MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has observed the number of convictions in connection with bogus clubs iu Dublin; and whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill deal-
    488
    ing with this evil, or whether the Government will support the Bill on this subject already passed its First Reading?
    MR. J. MORLEY: I am pleased to hear that there have been several successful prosecutions in Dublin arising out of the evil referred to within the last three months, and that the police have a number of other similar cases now pending. The Government cannot promise legislation on the subject, and until the Bill to which the lion. Member refers has been printed I am afraid I cannot undertake to say whether the Government would support it.
    MR. FLYNN: Will the Government assist the Irish Members to extend to Ireland the provision of the Clubs Registration (England) Bill?
    MR. J. MORLEY: I am not acquainted with that Bill, but I will consider the point.

    LIMITED COMPANIES AND INCOME TAX.
    MR. H. FORSTER: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether he is aware that a large number of cases have been stated and set down for hearing by the High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division) on questions relating to the assessment of Limited Companies for Income Tax; that some of these cases involve very considerable sums and affect the profits of these Companies for several years past; that certain of these cases were set down more than 18 months ago, and have never been allowed to reach a hearing; and that the Companies have nevertheless been compelled to pay the amounts in dispute as charged by the authorities; whether he can state the cause of such delay and the remedy for it; and whether he can state the total number of such cases?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir C. RUSSELL,: The hon. Member has been misinformed as to the facts. The number of cases which have been stated and set down for hearing by the High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division) on questions relating to the assessment of Limited Companies for Income Tax, and which have not been decided, is two, and two only. Those two cases were set down for hearing in January last, and were heard last week, when judgment was reserved in each case.

    FRANCE AND SIAM.
    MR. CURZON: I wish to ask a question, of which I have given private notice to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, which he may be able to answer before he makes the promised statement as to Siam. It is as follows:—Whether the French Government have notified the blockade of the coast of Siam; whether this is to be interpreted as an act of belligerency between France and Siam; whether the blockade has been, or will be, recognised by Her Majesty's Government; and what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take with regard to a measure that will inflict the most serious damage upon British trade and shipping in the East?
    SIR E. GREY: Her Majesty's Government have received verbal notice from the French Government of their intention to establish a blockade of Siam. Such a measure would be undoubtedly an act of belligerency between France and Siam. We propose to continue our present protection in Bangkok of British life and property; but the Government do not think it advisable in the public interest that any further statement on the subject should be made to-day.
    SIR C. DILKE: In regard to the statement that the blockade would constitute an act of belligerency, is it supposed that there would be any declaration of war or would it be a mere implied belligerency? Or, in other words, is it to be a pacific blockade?
    SIR E. GREY: I hope to enter into further details on Thursday. I apprehend the exact value to be attached to a blockade must vary according to the circumstances in each particular case.
    MR. CURZON: Am I to understand from the answer of the hon. Baronet that no British vessel, not even a ship carrying the mails, can from Thursday next ascend the River Menam to Bangkok without the risk of being fired upon by the French? Will any steps be taken by Her Majesty's Government to mitigate so serious a state of affairs; also may I ask when we may look forward to receiving some notification of the proceedings pending with our Ambassador at Paris?
    SIR E. GREY: Any further statement must depend upon the communica-
    490
    tions now passing between this Government and the French Government, and as regards any details of the blockade we have only just received notice of the blockade, and I should be glad if the hon. Member would give notice as regards the passage of the mails.
    SIR R. TEMPLE: May I ask whether Her Majesty's Government are taking steps to secure some equality of the naval forces between France and England?
    SIR E. GREY: We have already assured the House—and that assurance still holds good—that we have sufficient naval forces to protect the lives and property of British subjects at Bangkok.

    PROGKESS OF SUPPLY.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): It may be for the convenience of the House that I should state that we propose to proceed with the Education Votes for England and Scotland on Friday. After the Education Votes we propose to proceed with other Supply, intending to take the Votes in their order, unless special circumstances should intervene, of which, of course, we should give due notice. This will hold good until Wednesday, and then we propose to proceed with the Vote on Account, which it will be necessary to report to the House not later than Friday.
    MR. BARTLEY: When will the Vote on Account be printed, and for how long will it be?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Six weeks.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Which Vote will be taken after the Education Vote?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The Votes will be taken in their order unless special circumstances necessitate an alteration.
    MR. PAUL: Will the Scottish or English Education Vote be taken first?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Notice will be given of that.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: It would be of great convenience to many hon. Members to know whether the English or Scottish Education Vote will be take first.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I will state what will be done to-morrow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL. (No. 209.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress, New Clauses, 24th July.]
  [FORTY-FIFTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  New Clause (Financial arrangements as between the United Kingdom and Ireland).—(Mr. W. E. Gladstone.)
  MR. J. E. REDMOND MR. J. E. REDMOND (Waterford) moved the omission of the 1st sub-section of the clause. It would not be necessary for him to detain the Committee for more than a few minutes, as he had already expressed his views on this question during the general discussion on the clause. It would be remembered that Clause 10, as it originally stood, gave the Irish Legislature control, collection, and management of the taxes in Ireland immediately, with the exception of the Customs. He and other hon. Members had voted in favour of that Clause 10, because they desired to take the earliest opportunity to show that the proposal in Clause 10 was a preferable one to the proposal in the new Financial Clause. The 1st sub-section of the new clause was as follows:—
  "(1) Until the transfer hereinafter mentioned the existing taxes in Ireland shall he imposed by Act of Parliament, and all matters relating to those taxes or to the hereditary revenues of the Crown in Ireland, or to the collection or management thereof, shall be regulated by Act of Parliament."
  If that 1st sub-section was left out the remainder of the clause, with a slight amendment in the last sub-section, would read connectedly, while the Amendment would not materially interfere, in his opinion, with the financial scheme of the Government. Both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Local Government Board made an elaborate defence of the new financial proposals, but neither of the right hon. Gentlemen thought it necessary to dwell, even in a single sentence, on this proposal for the collection of the Irish taxes; and that fact strengthened him in his belief that there was no necessary or reasonable connection be-
  492
  tween the financial scheme as a whole, and the immediate taking over of the collection of all taxes by the Irish Legislature. He therefore moved his Amendment in order to raise distinctly the clear issue whether the Irish Legislature was to have the immediate control of Irish taxes, as originally proposed, or whether that control was to be withheld from it for six years.
  Before the CHAIRMAN put the Question,
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I rise to a point of Order. I wish to move the omission of the words "until the transfer hereinafter mentioned," the object being to take away the transitional character of the clause. If you, Sir, put to the Committee a single word of the clause, it would prevent my Amendment being moved; and I ask as a matter of Order whether you cannot put the number of the sub-section, or in some other way indicate the question before the Committee, so as to enable me, should the Committee reject the hon. Member's Amendment, to move my Amendment, which raises a different question?
  MR. J. E. REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman should have intervened earlier.
  THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member for Waterford likes to give way the right hon. Gentleman could move his Amendment.
  MR. J. E. REDMOND: That would be the more regular course, I submit.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not wish to take the hon. and learned Member unawares. But if this is done the hon. Member will himself be debarred from moving the Amendment on which he has just spoken.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is so. If the right hon. Gentleman moves his Amendment it would be impossible for the hon. Member to move his Amendment subsequently.
  MR. J. E. REDMOND: In these circumstances it will, perhaps, be more desirable that I should insist on my Amendment being moved.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I can only put the omission of the first word "until," as the Amendment of the hon. Member.
  MR. GOSCHEN (St, George's,): Perhaps the difficulty would be got rid of if my right hon.

  493
  Friend moved to insert after "until" the words "Parliament otherwise ordains."
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes; I accept that suggestion.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out Sub-section (1).—(Mr. J. E. Redmond.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'until' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am not able to assent to the statement that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman raises a clear issue. If the Amendment was carried the omission of the subsection would leave things exactly as they are; that is to say, the collection and management of the Revenue would be in the hands of the Imperial Authorities, and, therefore, the hon. Member would of course require to proceed by further provisions in order to attain his end. The hon. Member said that this change, as regards the imposition and collection of the Revenue, could not be considered by the Government as a vital change in our financial position, because neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the President of the Local Government Board referred to that part of the plan. It is perfectly true that they did not refer to it; but the reason was that this part of the plan was not assailed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and consequently there was no necessity to defend it. We regard this change as a very great change indeed, and the whole system of receipt and account in connection with the collection and distribution of Irish Revenue would be altered and dislocated if the plan of the hon. Member were accepted. In the alteration which we made from the original plan of the Bill the main object was to secure simplification. We cannot accept the Amendment because it would break up the character of the plan, and, further, because controversy would be raised which might perhaps otherwise be avoided.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I rise at once not because I have any desire to intervene in the special matter of controversy between the Prime Minister and the hon. Member for Waterford; but if I were called upon to decide on the issue between them, I could not think it consistent with
  494
  my duty to go into the Lobby with the hon. and learned Member. I presume this would be the appropriate time for me to ask the Government by what machinery they propose during the transitional period of six years to deal with the protection of the Revenue in Ireland? As the Chief Secretary was aware, there was a time when there was a special machinery for dealing with the Excise in Ireland. That was found to be very expensive, and a saving of about £20,000 a year was effected by the transfer of the duly of protecting the Inland Revenue to the Royal Irish Constabulary, who now perform that duty. I believe that body has been increased by 400 men, who are employed and paid for Revenue purposes, and without those 400 men I take it that it would not be possible in any way to cope with the problem of illicit distillation, which is a serious problem in large tracts of mountainous country like the Highlands of Scotland and the West of Ireland. The Bill, as I understand it, contemplates that the whole of the Royal Irish Constabulary shall be withdrawn as soon as the new Irish Legislature sends a certificate to the Lord Lieutenant that local police has been provided in any county. It is not, I presume, intended by the Government to intrust to such local police the whole responsibility of protecting the Imperial Revenue, and yet they would apparently deprive themselves, or they might find that they had deprived themselves, by this Bill of the existing machinery for that purpose. The problem therefore arose, which the Government, I suppose, have faced, though they have not told us anything about it, by what machinery they are going to protect the interests of the British, and, indeed, in this matter, of the Irish taxpayer also. This must have been present to their minds in formulating their plan. Do they mean to go back to the original and costly system by the abolition of which some 20 or 30 years ago £20,000 a year has been saved? If they do not mean to do that, what do they mean to do?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: It was very considerate on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to assume that I was ignorant of this particular detail. But it so happens that I am myself the author

  495
  of this change. I think so far back as 1853—
  MR. GOSCHEN: I think it was in 1846.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: No, a much more important change, which I have always regretted, was made in 1846, when the entire general charge of the Constabulary Force was put on the Consolidated Fund instead of one-half of it being provided in Ireland. But in 1853 it was represented to me by an excellent public servant, the Chairman of the Inland Revenue, that an economy might be made with great administrative advantage to the Service—and that economy was, I think, considerably more than the right hon. Gentleman has stated it to be, for it was something like £40,000 a year—by the abolition of the Excise Constabulary, and by the transfer of their duties to the regular Imperial Constabulary. I made the change, and there is no doubt that it has been successful, and that the duties have been discharged by the Constabulary with perfect satisfaction to the authorities. I quite admit that the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman in respect of the collection of the Imperial Revenue by the local police is one which may require some consideration, but it is not an imminent or pressing question at the present time. There can only be county police under some county local government or some local government in county areas outside the areas of the Municipalities. No such areas have been formed or authorities constituted under which there could be police, and, therefore, although I feel the force of the inquiry, these changes must be made before the question can be considered as a practical one. The right hon. Gentleman has said that this machinery will be for the collection of the Imperial Revenue. But the Irish interest in this collection will continue, because two-thirds of that Revenue will constitute the fund, from which the charges of local government in Ireland are to be wholly or substantially met. I do not think, under these circumstances, that the time has come for giving a final answer upon the modifications in the present arrangements which will have to be made to secure the repression of illegal distillation when the proper time arises.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, it was somewhat interesting to him to regard the difference with which the Prime Minister treated his Irish allies in the matter of the collection of the Revenue and the way in which the right hon. Gentleman treated them on other occasions. When it was a matter of protecting the rights of the Irish minority, or a matter of retaining the Imperial supremacy, the Prime Minister entirely confided in hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, and it went to his heart to hear any doubts cast upon them. But when it came to what the right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, considered to be the far more interesting question of the collection of the Revenue his attitude towards the Nationalist Members changed. The Prime Minister's position on the sub-section which the hon. Member for Waterford proposed to omit showed that there lingered in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman a certain doubt as to the willingness, or possibly as to the capacity, of the future Irish Government to satisfactorily fulfil the functions of collecting the English tribute. It was a matter of perfect indifference to him if Home Rule ever were granted whether the tribute was collected or not. So far as he was concerned, he hoped it would cease altogether. He thought that being betrayed was bad enough, but paying the betrayer was still worse. But it was interesting now to learn that the right hon. Gentleman had not got the faintest idea in the world as to how the collection of this tribute was to be made. There was not to be established in Dublin a Prætorian Guard, but there was to be established in Ireland a local police. The right hon. Gentleman knew a great deal, but he did not, he thought, know very much of Ireland, for if he did he would not look to the local police of Clare or Kerry to collect the tribute which was to flash the pockets of the hated Saxon. He did not interfere in the Debate because he inclined to the one course or the other course. It was a matter of indifference to him. He should neither support the hon. Member for Waterford nor vote for the Government. This was one of those family quarrels which sometimes occurred now, notwithstanding the union of hearts, but which led to nothing. Hon. Members below the Gangway would accept any re-arrangement the

  497
  Prime Minister might fix upon. The right hon. Gentleman had nothing to fear, because hon. Members below the Gangway were bound to accept his proposals if he only put his foot down. Those hon. Members, however, must have internally smiled as they listened to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because they knew well that if Home Rule were granted the British tribute would be at their mercy. If the Prime Minister looked at the Amendment Paper he would see a later Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for North Dublin, providing that the tribute was to be paid only when the surplus in the Irish Exchequer was not less than £,500,000. The first object would be to pay their own expenses, then to pay the Government officials; and to do that they must have a surplus. The Amendment was a sort of old friend of his, because it was the way in which they dealt with the landlords in Ireland. They advised the tenants to pay their landlords under certain restricted conditions. They were first to pay the shopkeeper, then to pay their dues, then to provide for themselves, and to retain enough to enjoy life, and then, if the tenant chose, to pay the remainder to the landlord. In this case they found the tribute was to be paid, but it was only to be paid if £500,000 of surplus remained to be distributed amongst the officials of the future Parliament. This Amendment, which he was not discussing now, threw its shadow over the present discussion, because it showed the meaning and intention of the hon. Member and his friends. When the Home Rule Parliament was established and the British Exchequer demanded its due, and that due was refused on pure and patriotic motives, he would like to hear what the right hon. Gentleman would have to say. Again, how would the right hon. Gentleman stop smuggling; how would he prevent distillation? The right hon. Gentleman said he did not know, nor did anyone else know. When the scramble was over for the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer of the Irish Government, and when the other posts were distributed, as they would be, amongst gentlemen of great ability below the Gangway, naturally their first motive and object would be, not to secure the Revenue of the British
  498
  Chancellor of the Exchequer, but to pay themselves and their friends, and to maintain with proper dignity that Government of which, no doubt, they would be ornaments. He should vote neither one way nor the other, and he hoped those of his friends who sympathised with him would adopt that course. Of course, there might be English and Scottish Members who might view this from the standpoint of the British taxpayer; but he did not. That was the British taxpayer's look out, but he looked at it from the point of view of the Irish minority; and he might say for them that if they snapped the connection between this country and Ireland so far as the collection of the British tribute was concerned, he, for one, did not care a farthing.
  MR. CLANCYthought the Committee would agree with him that speeches like that last delivered did not conduce to the relevancy or order of discussion. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member upon his Amendment, he preferred to explain the Amendment himself, which he would do when they came to it. With respect to the remarks of the Prime Minister, he wished to make one or two observations. The right hon. Gentleman said that if this sub-section were omitted things would remain as they were now. Might he point out that if the sub-section were omitted things would not remain as they were if a subsequent and consequent Amendment was adopted? All that was necessary would be to alter the first three or four words of Sub-section 8, to substitute for the words "after six years" the words "on and after the appointed day." By that the 10th clause of the Bill as it originally stood would be revived. The right hon. Gentleman said the omission of this sub-section would have the effect of giving over at once the control of Irish taxation to the Irish Legislature, the result of which would be to break up the plan. The essence of the plan consisted of two parts; first, in taking one-third of the Irish Revenue for the British Exchequer; and, secondly, in allowing the Imperial Parliament to fix the rates of Customs, Excise, and postage. If they went back to the 10th clause, which he contended would be the effect of omitting this sub-section, they would

  499
  leave this Imperial Parliament the power of fixing all Excise, Customs, and Postal Rates, and the rest of the clause would give to the Irish Exchequer two-thirds of the Revenue; therefore it seemed to him that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman fell to the ground. The meaning of the Amendment was that the Irish Legislature should at once have the control of all its own taxation, with the exception of the fixing of the Customs, Excise, and Postal Rates; and so far as his hon. Friend, himself, and those who agreed with him were concerned, they regarded it as a matter of first-rate importance. He would not dwell upon the fact that the keeping from the Irish Legislature, even for a definite period of six years, the control of all its taxes was a humiliating proposal. He would not dwell upon that, because it was self-evident, and he looked forward with great apprehension as to what might take place in such a state of things both in the Parliament of Ireland and outside its walls; but he would dwell upon the fact that the keeping away from the Irish Legislature the power of controlling all its taxes for six years would gravely hamper the Irish Legislature in the management of Irish affairs. For instance, supposing, under the arrangement of the Bill, somehow or other, by a miscalculation in the Returns, by an enormous amount added to the pension list in respect of the Civil Service and Police, a deficit occurred, they would be absolutely unable to make up that deficit, because they would have no control over the existing taxes in Ireland. When the right hon. Gentleman told him they would have power under the Bill to levy new taxes he bogged to assure him that his (Mr. Clancy's) conviction was that he would be a bold Minister who would propose to introduce any new taxes in Ireland for the next 10 or 20 years. Therefore, he was afraid it would hamper and disorganise and dislocate their whole system in Ireland, if they were deprived even for only six years of all control over their taxation. He was afraid that the collection, not merely of Customs and Excise Duties, but all other taxes, by Imperial officers who were to be established all over Ireland as now, would create a state of things likely to lead to political friction, and he was
  500
  borne out in this by the words of the Prime Minister. In introducing the Bill the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the desirability of keeping Imperial officers as much as possible out of connection with the internal affairs of Ireland. Instead of doing anything to keep them out of such connection, for the next six years—the most critical period in the whole history of Ireland, the time when Home Rule would be on its trial—Imperial officers would be then, as now, diving into all the affairs of Ireland, and he was afraid the result would be political difficulty and friction. He admitted there was one consideration that would weigh with himself in accepting this clause, and that was the doubtful character of the Financial Returns. ["Oh, oh!"] There was no doubt about that; everyone admitted it, and the Government had practically admitted it by offering a Royal Commission to ascertain the facts. Considering that fact, he sometimes thought it would be better for the Irish Government to have nothing to do with the taxation of Ireland until they knew the real facts of the case. But a consideration like that did not outweigh the other considerations to which he had referred; and believing that it did not outweigh them, he had no hesitation in supporting the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. E. Redmond). The proposal of the Government was that for six years the control of the taxation should remain in the hands of the Imperial Parliament, and that it should have power to control and alter the taxation of Ireland; but that it should hand back to the Irish Government for the purpose of carrying on its own business two-thirds of that taxation. As a British taxpayer, and as a friend of Ireland, he objected to that arrangement. He thought it would work evil to both the Imperial Government, and the Government sitting in Dublin. It must necessarily hamper the action of any Chancellor of the Exchequer there, because he would have to consider an entirely new state of circumstances in any dealings he might have to take in the annual review of the finances. It was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday that even now, in

  501
  dealing with the finances of the Empire, he had to consider their effect on Ireland, and that the Representatives of that country would have a good deal to say with regard to any proposed change. That was true; but there was this entirely new feature introduced—that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in considering the effect of any alteration of the taxes, must not only consider how that alteration would affect the different classes of taxpayers, but he must consider what effect it would have on the balance at the disposal of the Irish Government. Hitherto, whatever change was made in the taxes the Irish administration was bound to be carried on, and the money would have to be found for it. But now it would have no effect whatever on the expenditure in Ireland if the duty on tea or spirits or any other source of Revenue was reduced. If they were going to allot two-thirds of the Revenue derived from Ireland for the maintenance of the Irish Government they would have to consider, whenever any change was made in the taxes, how that two-thirds would enable the Government of Ireland to be carried on. That was a new thought, a new complexity, a new embarrassment, in dealing with the taxation of the Kingdom. They could not make changes they might otherwise desire to make, because it would disorganise the Irish balances. But if, instead of giving the Irish Government two-thirds of the Revenue from Ireland, they resolved to accept the proposal of the quota which the Irish Government should pay—that was that the Irish Government should pay a fixed sum to the Imperial Exchequer, the embarrassment of the Irish Exchequer would be greater, because then the diminution of the Irish Revenue would not apply to two-thirds, but to the whole. In his opinion the only way to reserve to themselves liberty of action in respect of Imperial taxation, and, at the same time, to keep themselves free from embarrassment would be to assign to the Irish Government not the two-thirds, or not what would remain after a fixed quota was paid, but to assign to them what might be necessary for the purposes of government and take the remainder. Then they would be at liberty to deal with the taxation of the country, and a fixed quota would be left to the Irish
  502
  Government. The proposed mode of dealing with the Irish finances took away from the Irish Government the prime motive for economy. It was said that the Irish Government would have ample stores of money if it exercised due prudence; but to what purpose would it exercise due prudence? It was the glory of a Chancellor of the Exchequer to remit taxation. No prudence on the part of the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer—and he thought the Prime Minister would be keenly alive to this argument—no prudence would enable the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer to remit taxation. He would have no motive to do so. He would have to spend to the limit that was assigned to him; and the scheme of the Government, while it would embarrass the Imperial Parliament, would not tend to develop that virtue which his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government relied on. He would pass from that point to the third line of consideration, which involved perpetual difficulties between the two countries. How could they get rid of the difficulties of Irish finance when the Irish Representatives in that House could raise the question in certain respects every year, and year by year? and evil must result between the two countries if this proposed dual arrangement was started. In a previous speech he made an observation which he would take the liberty of repeating. He ventured to say that the peaceful, easy, and smooth relations between Great Britain and her Colonies was owing to the absence of any pecuniary relations. He had also referred to the experience of the United States, which was absolutely free from all pecuniary relations between the Federal and the State Government. If the Government introduced a system of pecuniary arrangement between Great Britain and Ireland, a system liable to revision and change, they would be creating a source of corruption and of perpetual intrigue. He was glad to see the Member for Longford (Mr. Blake) in his place, and he would challenge him to question the accuracy of the statement he was about to make, that the history of Canada was full of warnings in this respect. Sir John Macdonald was a clever manager of men and an able manipulator of political issues; but Sir John Macdonald's success in carrying out

  503
  his objects and the security he had arose from the way in which he went from Province to Province offering them subventions of money. The history of Canada was pregnant as to the evil of a system of pecuniary relations between a central and a subordinate Government, and the Colony of New Zealand gave a lesson of the same kind. The Government was rushing, without considering what experience taught them, into setting up in Ireland a system the evils of which had been demonstrated elsewhere. If they were to accept Home Rule, and if a separate Parliament was to be set up in Dublin, the only way to do it was to make a clean cut fiscally between the Exchequers of the two Kingdoms. His right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was in favour of the unity of trade; but the unity of trade was not worth keeping if it must be kept by a corrupt arrangement between England and Ireland. The sincere and outspoken Leaders of the Home Rule movement demanded freedom in respect to taxation and trade, and the best interests of this country required that that demand should be acceded to if the Government was going to make the false step of setting up Home Rule in Ireland. But he believed they would not settle the Home Rule Question in that Parliament, or perhaps in the next; but if the constituencies insisted on the setting up of Home Rule, let the opportunity be availed of of going back to the scheme of 1886 or some modification of it that would leave them free, leave them untainted, and that would give Ireland an opportunity of working out its future free from the corruption and taint which would affect it also under the present financial scheme.
  MR. BLAKE: It is not to be denied, it needs no precedent to prove, that complicated or intimate financial relations between subordinate and central Governments afford opportunities of evil which do not exist in the absence of these relations. But I think it is not to be denied either that it is possible to achieve objects which are in the best interests of both Islands without encountering all the dangers to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and which, I think, he has immensely exaggerated. It is strange to hear from the Benches on which the right hon. Gentleman sits the
  504
  suggestion that the true method of Home Rule is one which should separate the trade relations of the two Islands; because—wisely, as I believe—with reference to the first cast of the Bill of 1886, the most cogent objection taken, apart from the question of representation here, was the objection indicated at a time when it was thought that there might be a separate Custom and Excise Revenue, and thus a possible separation of trade, with Protection in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that the candid Home Ruler is saying he is not satisfied with the present arrangement as to trade relations, and that it must be changed. But so long ago as 1886, when the Bill assumed in that respect the form in which it came before Parliament, the Leader of the Irish Party accepted fully and frankly the proposition that, for the purpose of trade and commerce, the Islands should be one. Since that time, up till now, that view has been accepted and adopted by those who, from the Sister Island, do advocate Home Rule. I regard as a cardinal point; I have regarded it as even more in the real interests of Ireland than in those of Great Britain, that there should be absolute freedom of trade between these communities. The feeling in Ireland which subsisted with reference to that subject was, as we all know, due to the fact that the power of Britain had in former years been used with different trade notions and different views, in a manner absolutely impossible to conceive of revival now. That real freedom and community of trade are best secured by the present plan is an obvious proposition. I say that regarding this as a cardinal point, and adopting the views which the Liberal Unionists in 1886 took upon that subject, and which largely moulded the legislation of 1886 and 1893, it becomes obvious that here, and here alone, must centre the legislation with reference to trade, and, therefore, the legislation on Customs and Excise. If that is so, since it is perfectly clear that with reference to Ireland a large portion of the public resources necessary to meet her Public Local Expenditure must be derived from Customs and Excise, since it is out of the question to suggest increased direct taxation to any large extent as a means of Revenue, it is obvious that we are obliged to face the difficulty to which the right hon. Gentleman alludes.

  505
  My opinion is that, subject to certain questions which are to be disposed of at the end of the transitional period, the system of the quota is the best and most convenient system of making the adjustment. With reference to what the right hon. Gentleman has said as to Canada, I will observe, although the person to whom he referred was an opponent of mine all my political life, that it is just to him to say it was not with reference to such transactions as are pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman as dangerous, but with reference to another class of transactions altogether, that the difficulties, mainly at any rate, have occurred in Canada. They occurred in Canada because there was an interlacing of another and altogether different description from that proposed in the case of Ireland. They occurred with reference to those very local subventions which have been the subject of so much discussion here, such as light railways or local grants, those transactions to which you propose to put au end altogether as Imperial transactions, with respect to which you cut a short and sharp mark of division between the two communities, and as to which you say that for the future Ireland herself shall bear the burden of local development and local improvement. Because in Canada the Constitution—interpreted rightly or wrongly—interpreted in some respects in my judgment against its true meaning, was interpreted as being adequate to permit the intervention of the Central Authority with reference to the question of local improvement. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the States as having altogether got rid of that difficulty. Not so. The question of local improvements in the States is a burning question to-day. Therefore it is, I think, you are really avoiding the main point of danger when you make it distinct and clear that whatever the division of the Revenue may be, Ireland herself, out of her own resources, is to provide for the future for her own local improvements and development. I admit, as I have said, that you cannot have complicated transactions without some danger of jarring machinery. But to suggest that of the two dangers which are set before us by the right hon. Gentleman the one he proposes we should encounter is less grave than the one he proposes we should avoid seems to me entirely
  506
  out of the question. I believe the true interests of these two Islands are largely bound up in the unity of their trade arrangements. I believe their true interests are largely bound up in the maintenance of the representation at Westminster. These are two points for which the Liberal Unionists contended in 1886. A great many of them did, at any rate. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Courtney) shakes his head, but the right hon. Gentleman who loads him will not shake his head. On these two main and cardinal and related points, in respect to which I sympathised with them then, my only distinction from them now is that while I sympathised with them as they were in 1886, I do not sympathise with them as they are in 1893.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The House always listens with interest to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down; and having listened to the few remarks he has just made, it is no disparagement to his speech to say that it was but au imperfect answer to the very weighty observations of the right hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney). With most of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the hon. Member did not attempt to deal; he confined himself to the last argument.
  MR. BLAKE: That was all I heard.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman pointed out the grave dangers which might arise between England and Ireland if money relations were to come in between the two Governments. In answer to that, the hon. Gentleman said that the differences between the Central Government of Canada and the Provincial Governments had not arisen from the amount which the Provinces had to pay, but from the subventions to be given by the Central to the Local Authorities.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, that what he intended to say, and what he thought he did say, was that they arose mainly from the circumstance that the Canadian Constitution had been construed to mean that the Central Government itself might and should undertake and effect local improvements.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Quite so: and his argument was that as it is not contemplated we should go on either contributing or making local grants to Ireland, that particular source of

  507
  difficulty would be removed. But Irish Members will not come to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and say, "We will give you our votes if you make light railways." What they will say is, "The country wants light railways; increase the amount of money we get from Imperial taxation or we will not support you." The danger only changes in form; the corruption is precisely the same. Most of us know how the most united families maybe riven asunder by a wretched quarrel over a paltry sum of money. Is not that more likely to be the case where the members of a family are not joined together by the closest and most long-standing family affection? One of the most remarkable parts of the speech of the right hon. Member for Bodmin was that in which he pointed out that the motives of economy would, to a great extent, be absent in Ireland under the proposed system. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out one of a series of dangers, all analogous in their character, which would arise from Irish finance being bound hand and foot by this arrangement. The hon. Member for Longford said that all Irish Home Rulers were agreed that this kind of control must be exercised by this House over Irish finance; but he evidently did not hear the speech of the hon. Member for North Dublin, who pointed out what confusion must follow, both inside and outside the Irish Legislature, if the scheme of the Government were carried out. I cannot doubt that in this case the Member for North Dublin was a true prophet. The position of the Irish Government would be absolutely intolerable under this Bill. The Irish Government could not possibly carry out works which were necessary without a large capital at their hand, and they could not get a largo capital out of the produce of taxation or out of the £500,000 surplus so generously given to them at the expense of the British taxpayer. They must, therefore, get the money by borrowing; and on what security would they borrow? Under what I will call the February scheme there were the Income Tax and other sources of taxation which the Irish Government might have hypothecated, but now the whole control over taxation is taken out of their hands. They cannot touch the Customs; they cannot touch Income Tax; they cannot touch the Stamps. It is quite true that they
  508
  have a right to two-thirds of the taxation in Ireland; but all that taxation is determined not by them, but by the British Parliament. The Irish Legislature cannot turn to one single source of Revenue with a view of borrowing in the English market for any purpose whatever. Who would lend money upon an income which was not in the control of the borrower? That is only one of many illustrations made in the preceding Debate by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) and the right hon. Gentleman who spoke this evening; and if in the vote we are about to give I had merely to consider how this system would work in Ireland, and how it would affect the Legislatures in Ireland and in England, I should not hesitate to support the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. But I do not mean to give that vote. We have something more to consider than the ease and future government of the Irish Legislature. My own view is that we are trying an impossible experiment, and, for my part, I wish to see it tried, if at all, on the smallest scale possible. The scheme is an impossible one, but we are met by these antagonistic impossibilities on every clause of the Bill. We have always got to consider on every proposal of the Government whether the impossibility on the right is or is not worse than the impossibility on the left. One of them we have to choose, and we have to estimate the comparative degrees of absurdity which we are compelled to swallow by the legislative speculators who promote this Bill. Though with some hesitation and reluctance, I choose the absurdity which gives least power to the Irish Legislative Assembly. On the whole, I am disposed to think the least intolerable course to be pursued is either to abstain from voting altogether or to support the Government against the hon. and learned Member for Waterford.
  MR. SEXTON: The question raised by the right hon. Gentleman as to the security which the Irish Government might have to give for loans is not one which arises on the present Amendment. It is a question relating to a surplus which they may have from income. It is presumed that they should have a surplus, and certainly if you have not a surplus you would not have a good security to offer for loans, and the surplus, from whatever source it may come, will have

  509
  to be provided. That question arises hereafter. The right hon. Gentleman, as it appears to me, pointed his speech against the Bill at large, against the principle of Home Rule, and he conceived he was making a point against Home Rule. I consider the drift of his speech was a condemnation of the present system. He said under Homo Rule the Irish Members would use their opportunities to corruptly influence the Government with regard to the contribution of Ireland towards Imperial Expenditure. We have now 103 Members in this House; and if the Irish Members are inclined to use their influence corruptly, they could use it now; the only difference is that now you have 103 Members who could use their influence every day throughout the Session, while under Home Rule there will only be 80 Members, and they will only have an opportunity of using their influence corruptly with regard to the Irish contribution once in three years. I think that would be a great relief, and would greatly reduce the opportunity for using the influence which the right hon. Gentleman fears. Sir, perhaps it is time now to turn for a moment to the Amendment. I would say, before coming to it, that the Unionist Members—especially those from Ireland—are in the habit of charging the Irish people and their Representatives with bad faith, or, at least, a disposition to it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURdenied that he had so charged the Irish people.
  MR. SEXTON: No; I think the right hon. Gentleman within the limits of controversy is always tolerably courteous. But I notice to-night that the Leader of the Irish Unionist Party, who has so often charged us with bad faith, has himself introduced, for the first time, the suggestion that Ireland would be entitled to repudiate her contribution to the Imperial Revenue.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I did nothing of the kind.
  MR. SEXTON: Not only that, but he closed his speech by saying he did not care a farthing about it, and that he would not assist in the collection of the Imperial Revenue. It was not from any Irish Nationalist in Ireland or elsewhere, but from an Irish Unionist—from the Leader of the Irish Unionist Party—unless the Member for South Tyrone aspires to that positiou—from the Leader
  510
  of the Irish Unionist Party has come the suggestion which I repudiate, for Ireland would not dream of repudiating the Parliamentary obligations into which her Representatives had entered. As to the form of this Amendment, it is open to the criticism passed upon it that if the sub-section were omitted Sub-section 8 would carry on the provisional arrangement for six years, and after that would transfer the powers of collection to the Irish Parliament. But, undoubtedly, a further Amendment would be necessary. Now, Sir, in considering this we have to bear clearly in mind that this is a transitional provision, and that the Bill is largely a provisional Bill. The Bill proposes that the Irish Legislature should enter gradually into their powers; that the legislation on the Land Question should be delayed for three years; the appointment of the Judges shall not be handed over to the Irish Parliament for six years; that the control of the Constabulary until their dissolution shall remain in Imperial hands, and that some of the powers of the Irish Legislature, especially with regard to the alteration of the constituencies, shall not be exercised for six years. I say if it was proposed permanently, or for any extended period of time, to withhold from the Irish Legislature the power of taxation or from the Irish Executive the function of the collection of the Revenue, I would not countenance any such change in the scheme, because I believe that the imposition and collection of taxation are a necessary part of any scheme of autonomy, and, therefore, the withholding of these powers and functions could only he countenanced for a temporary period and having regard to the provisional character of the Bill. I would remind the Committee that in the Bill of 1886 the provision was that all Irish Revenue should be collected by an Imperial officer. And upon the question of the collection I am disposed to think that for the first few years of its existence the Irish Legislature will be abundantly occupied with more urgent questions which call for legislative action, and perhaps more especially with regard to reform of the administrative system in Ireland, and that they will lose nothing particular by not having placed upon them the function of collecting the Revenue. It is no disparagement to the Irish Legislature to withhold this function for a limited term of years, because

  511
  the Bill contains an explicit enactment that power over the imposition and collection of Revenue shall pass to the Irish Legislature at the end of the term, and there is no disparagement in the partial retention due to the principle of expediency. There is some financial gain—not very considerable it is true, but it may be material to the Irish Parliament in its early days—in allowing the collection of Revenue to remain in Imperial hands for a term of six years. Ireland pays 62 per cent. of the cost of collecting the Revenues. If Ireland collected the Revenue for herself and debited Great Britain with the cost of collecting her half the net cost to Ireland would be £115,000.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: £120,000.
  MR. SEXTON: She pays £95,000 under the present scheme; therefore she gains, by letting Imperial officers collect it, the sum of £25,000 a year. It is not a great sum. It is not £230,000, as gentlemen opposite who have not gone into the figures seem to think. I think that sum of £25,000 is of some importance in the first years of the Irish Legislature. Then as to the fiscal effect of the collection of these taxes. The hon. Member for Waterford is aware that under the plan of 1886, under the plan of February last, and under the present plan, the fiscal unity of the Three Kingdoms is preserved. That is to say, the imposition of Customs and Excise remains in the hands of the Imperial authority. Customs and Excise are five-sixths of the Revenue of Ireland; therefore, if the hon. and learned Gentleman should carry his Amendment, the only fiscal effect would be that Ireland, if she wanted money, could only raise it by increasing the Death Duties or the Income Tax. With regard to the Death Duties, and more especially with regard to the Income Tax, the Irish Parliament, as contended by some hon. Members, might act oppressively or unjustly with regard to certain classes in Ireland, and I am not at all sorry to say here that I think it is no harm for us to agree that the power of levying these taxes for six years should not be transferred to us, so that the Irish Parliament, whatever general course it takes, may be able to give security to those classes in Ireland who fear unjust treatment that it has no such intention as they apprehend. Suppose
  512
  the Irish Parliament wanted to raise money, would they do it by raising the Income Tax or the Death Duties? I think, in the first place, that the Irish Legislature would be very unlikely to increase the Revenue at all. The Revenue is already oppressive. The Revenue of Ireland is already double what is indicated by the yield of the direct taxation, and it is four times what is indicated by Mr. Giffen's calculation. I think it is extremely unlikely, then, that the Irish Legislature in the first years of its existence would resort to any new tax whatever, or any increase of the present taxes. But if they did, I see no great difference, I confess, between raising what they needed by increasing the Income Tax or the Death Duties, and raising it by new taxes. If they require additional Revenue it will be open to them to raise it by a new tax, and I see little difference between the one and the other. There is an important political effect connected with this scheme, and I say it is superior to every scheme that has gone before it. This is the first scheme that has given both Parties—both the Imperial Government and the Irish Government—and the British people and the Irish people a direct interest in keeping up the Revenue. Neither the plan of 1886 nor the plan of February last gave both Governments and both peoples an interest in keeping up the Revenue, and the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister gave a conclusive reply to the Leader of the Opposition when he said that that interest is a better protection with regard to smuggling and illicit distillation, or any frauds upon the Revenue, than could possibly be secured by any preventive law. What is the political effect of this scheme, and especially of the present section? Has the Committee observed that since the promulgation of this scheme we have not heard a single word or syllable about Ulster? A most curious silence, a most instructive silence, has succeeded all the reverberating eloquence of the last six months. What is the secret of the silence? Of course, it can no longer be said that during the first six years we shall oppress the monied classes by Death Duties or Income Tax. There is something more important still. The burden of the threats of certain Unionists in Ulster was that they would resist the payment of the Queen's taxes in Ireland. It was very easy to suggest that, and it

  513
  might be popular in certain quarters in Ireland so long as the authority to impose the taxes was the Irish Legislature, and so long as the officers collecting them would be Irish officers; but I doubt that even the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) or the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) will now rise either in this House or elsewhere and repeat the threats they made three months ago, that if this Bill were passed their friends of the Unionist Clubs in Ulster would resist the payment of taxes. They will not find any English audience so prejudiced, even in a Primrose Habitation, as to believe that their friends in Ulster have the least idea of resisting the imposition of taxes proposed by the Imperial Parliament or the collection of taxes by Imperial officers. Thinking, then, that it is no disparagement to the Irish Parliament to withhold these powers for a limited time, and thinking that this new scheme will finally lay the Irish bogey—and I have given the matter sincere consideration—I am of opinion that in the interests of Ireland it would be wise not to press the Amendment.
  MR. W. REDMONDsaid, he should not have risen to speak, but that he felt so strongly on this matter. They had had two speeches from hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway representing Irish constituencies, but not of the Party to which he (Mr. Redmond) belonged. One of them—the hon. Member for North Lougford—in the course of an extremely able speech, had said absolutely not one word about the Amendment under consideration, and the other—the hon. Member for North Kerry—in the course of a very strong speech, had pointed out why he and his friends did not intend to support the Amendment. Now, he (Mr. Redmond) could not understand the feeling which prompted any Irish Representative to assent to the postponement for six years of the right of Ireland to control and manage her own taxes, and, so far as he was concerned, sooner than consent to an arrangement of that kind he would resign his seat, because he felt absolutely certain that the arrangement would not satisfy the national aspirations of the Irish people. The hon. Member for North Kerry said that for a period of six years it did not really matter very much
  514
  whether the Irish Parliament had the collection and management of the Irish taxes. He (Mr. Redmond) took an exactly opposite view. The first six years of the Irish Parliament would be the most critical Years of its whole existence, and during those six years it would be brought to a test whether the Irish people were likely to rest content under the Bill, and whether the Bill would work. He was, therefore, strongly of opinion that, instead of suspending the powers of the Irish Parliament for six years, their powers should be as free and as full as possible during those years. If the Bill broke down he was confident that it would be in consequence of the restrictions which were contained in it, and which would irritate the Irish people, without doing good to Great Britain, to Ireland, or to the Empire at large. The hon. Member for North Kerry gave two reasons for supporting the proposal of the Government. He said, in the first place, that it would disarm the hostility of the Ulster people. The hon. Member had pointed out that since this new financial scheme had been introduced no threats from the Ulster people had been heard of refusal to pay taxes. But if the Irish people were to submit to the proposed humiliation in order to conciliate Ulster where was the line to be drawn? On that argument the Irish people might be asked to surrender every one of the rights and privileges to which they were entitled under this scheme of self-government. He did not believe that this proposal would conciliate Ulster; but even if he thought it would, he would not consent to it, for he did not approve of showing a weak front to Ulster. He had been seven years a Member for an Ulster constituency, and his experience was that the more they tried to conciliate the prejudices and the opposition of the men who were opposed to Home Rule, the more were those prejudices and opposition strengthened. The only way, in his opinion, in which the opposition of Ulster was to be met was by the majority of Ireland taking a firm stand, and declaring it to be their set purpose to manage their own affairs. It was a most humiliating thing to ask the overwhelming mass of the people of Ireland to forego the elementary right of freedom—that was to say, the right of collecting and managing their own taxes

  515
  —in order to conciliate a section of the people in the North of that country. Ulster should be given to understand that, like every part of every other civilised country, she must submit to the majority. The second reason that the hon. Member for North Kerry gave was that the Irish people would be saved a pretty large sum of money by the proposal of the Government—namely, the cost of collecting the taxes, amounting to something like £25,000 a year. He did not think the hon. Member for North Kerry was right in saying that a saving of £25,000 a year would be effected. Granting, however, that that would be the case, he, as an Irish Nationalist, would not be a party to surrendering the right of Ireland to manage her own taxes for a money consideration. The power of collecting and managing taxes was the first power in any self-governed country in the world, and he said that not with the idea of unnecessarily throwing cold water on the scheme, but because he believed that, candour was the best policy. The Prime Minister might have thought that he had good reason for proposing the present alteration in his financial scheme, but it was the feeling of a large section of the Irish people that the change would be a humiliating thing to Ireland, as well as being a useless step. The Bill contained many restrictions. The Irish people wore not to have control of their Police for a stated period, or control of the Judiciary or of the Laud Question. All these restrictions, in his opinion, were unnecessary and unwise, and if the Bill failed it would be on account of those restrictions. But of all the unfortunate restrictions contained in the measure this with regard to taxes was the worst. If the Irish Members accepted the proposal they would lower themselves in the estimation of the people of the civilised world, who sympathised with the Irish people in their struggle for self-government. He opposed the scheme not alone on its merits, but because he believed that it would be the means very largely of wrecking the Bill. He could not conceive an Assembly of Nationalists of all sections in Ireland in which the Executive had not control over the taxes of the country. For himself, he should consider it a humiliation to take part in such an Assembly. A Member of the
  516
  Irish Parliament might pretend to be invested with power; but when he left the House the first tax collector he met might insult him and treat him with disrespect, and over the most insignificant person of that description neither he nor the Irish Government nor the Irish Parliament would have control. He believed there were a large number of Irishmen who, under those circumstances, would refuse to take part in what might be termed such a mockery of government. He made bold to say that the more this proposal was discussed in the country, and the more it came homo to the minds of the Irish people that they were to have no control over their own purse for six years—the most critical part of their Parliament's experience—there would be dissatisfaction felt with the scheme over the length and breadth of the country. Whether the Amendment was supported by few or many, a Division would be challenged and taken; and whatever the result would be it would be placed on record that, at any rate, some Irishmen by their voices and votes resisted the humiliation that it was sought to put on their country. The tendency of the Bill in many respects was to distrust the Irish people. A Bill of this kind, if properly amended, would, no doubt, settle the quarrel between England and Ireland, and clear the House of the eternal Irish Question. It would make the people of Ireland content and satisfied to live on terms of the utmost friendship with England; but those desirable objects could only be brought about in one way—by trusting the Irish people and saying, "We believe you when you say that if we give you liberty you will use it wisely and well." But through this policy of restrictions the Bill would probably fail. If it succeeded it would be in spite of the restrictions. If he were the only person in the House to do it he would oppose this scheme and support the Amendment. He did not hesitate to say that the hon. Member for North Kerry was actuated by what he considered the necessities of the case. He regretted that he was in opposition to that hon. Member; but, certainly, when the time came he should challenge a Division.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, that the hon. Member who had just sat down had spoken strongly for the Irish people, and

  517
  the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) had also spoken for them; but one branch of the Irish Party was going to vote for the Government, and the other against it, so that it was difficult to know what the views of the Irish people were. The two Irish Members who had spoken were to be thanked for their candid outspokenness. The hon. Member who had just sat down had spoken of the opinion of "the civilised world;" but he might depend upon it that the people of Great Britain would do what they thought best, irrespective of outside opinion, which the hon. Member summed up as that of "the civilised world." The British people were not to be threatened in that manner. Then the hon. Member spoke of "Ireland's" struggle for liberty. Well, he (MR. Jesse Ceilings) thought the people of Great Britain were beginning to see through all those phrases. If the hon. Member had spoken of years gone by no doubt there would have been something in what he said. The sea did not go down when the wind ceased, and no doubt there was a great deal of feeling remaining from the past history of Ireland. That feeling he had shared, but he would like to see it disappear now that the causes which legitimately gave rise to it had passed away. There was now no liberty which Great Britain possessed which was not enjoyed by Ireland. The British people were beginning to see through all this talk about Irish liberty, and to find that Ireland not only possessed all the liberty that England possessed, but a great many advantages besides. As to Ulster, it should be borne in mind that the people of Great Britain would have something to say to the mariner in which it was proposed to hand the Ulster people over to the proposed Irish Parliament. The hon. Member must remember that the Government majority at the present moment was purely accidental. It was gained not on Home Rule, but on other matters. [Cries of "Question!"] The hon. Member must remember that every Division in Committee showed that there was a majority of the British Representatives against the Government. The British people had put up with many threats—[Cries of "Question!"]
  MR. W. REDMOND: The right hon. Member says I have used threats. I would not be bothered threatening him.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Question before the Committee is as to the collection of taxes in Ireland.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I am sure, Sir, you will allow mo to reply to speeches on the other side.
  THE CHAIRMAN: No; not if those speeches were out of Order. I do not think the hon. Member is justified in his present line of argument.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, that that being so, they were very awkwardly placed—if speeches were made and Members were not permitted to reply to them. The speech of the hon. Member for North Kerry gave the Committee some insight as to the way in which the Bill had been manufactured. They saw a fresh step in the genesis of the measure almost every time the hon. Member spoke. He had said that the Ulster people would resist the payment of taxes if they were collected by an Irish authority. The hon. Member showed practically how an arrangement had been made with the Government for the British authorities to collect the taxes so as to place Ulster in the difficult position of resisting the British tax collector. Those tactics showed how clever the Irish Members were, and how abject and degraded was the position of the Government. The degradation was such as no British Government, he ventured to say since the beginning of the century, had ever submitted to. The hon. Member for North Kerry declared that Ireland paid too much; but the charges for the expenses of the Imperial Government were of fixed quantity. If they were not fixed they increased rather than diminished, and every shilling that Ireland paid less than its share it was quite certain must be made up by somebody; and, therefore, whatever the Irish Government did not pay—whether the charge upon her was too much or too little—would have to be paid by the British taxpayer. [Cries of "Question!"] This was a very interesting question to the British taxpayer. The Amendment of the hon. Member for North Kerry showed up the monstrous character of the Government proposal probably as much as any Amendment which bad hitherto been moved. Those who were in favour of Home Rule ought in consistency to vote for the Amendment, for if there were any matters more than

  519
  others of internal concern, they were the imposition and collection of taxes. Not only would it be a domestic internal matter in itself, but in the case of Ireland almost every domestic transaction that the Irish Government would engage in would hang upon that. It had been said that it was necessary for the Irish to have a Government in order to develop their resources. Surely, in that regard, it was necessary that the country should have control of its own finances. One reason why he was unable to vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Waterford was this—he presumed that if the Irish Government had the collection of their taxes they would also pay for the collection. That was involved in the Amendment; therefore, by such a system of payment for collection the Imperial Government would save £200,000 a year. The hon. Member for North Kerry had said that the saving would only be about £25,000 a year, because the Imperial Exchequer would have to defray the cost of collecting the two-thirds of the Irish Revenue which it retained. That view was accepted by no less an authority than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). Now, apply that principle to an ordinary transaction. One-third of a debt was due to the Imperial Government towards Imperial charges. Let the Committee apply this to an ordinary commercial concern. A owed B £1,000. A said—"I have had to get in my money, and I have paid a commission of 5 per cent. for collecting it. Therefore I will hand over £1,000 less 5 per cent." B would, of course, reply—"No; you owe me £1,000, and I must insist upon having that sum without the deduction of any commission." An illustration of this kind showed how ridiculous was the proposition that anything less than the full expenses of the collection of the Revenue should be paid by the Irish Government. He agreed with the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. J. E. Redmond) that it was a humiliating thing to say to a country to which we proposed to give enormous powers—"You shall have nothing to do with the collection and control of your own taxes." The Committee ought to be thankful to the hon. Member for having been so candid as to give fair warning of what would happen if the proposal of the
  520
  Government were carried out. This proposal of the Government put an end to the angelic theory; and the Government, who could not trust the people of Ireland with the collection and control of their own taxes, ought never to say a word more about any want of trust of the Irish people. The more he saw of the shifts the Government were put to the clearer it appeared to him that they had given up the Bill in despair and wanted to see it out of the way as soon as possible. The Prime Minister said the question would be re-opened in six years. There was very little comfort in that prospect. The Government seemed to have adjourned every question that had any difficulty about it. It had evidently been arranged between the Government and the Irish Members that the British people should be hoodwinked for six years, and that the Irish people should have everything they were asking for. It was far better to settle these questions now than to leave them open for six years. At the end of the six years there might be a Government in Office which was only kept in power by the Irish vote, and which was content to throw over all its principles in order to retain Office and to keep in power by no matter what servile tenure, and in spite of any injury to the interests of the country. The result in that case would be that everything would have to be given away, for, whilst the Irish Members might be opposed to one another on certain questions, they were all united when it became a question of dealing with the British Government. The existence of the Bill itself was due to a process of this kind. No one in his senses supposed that if the Prime Minister had got a majority in 1885 there would ever have been a Home Rule Bill at all. This Amendment, would, if carried, make the sum the British taxpayer had to pay £200,000 a year less, and it was, therefore, impossible for him to vote against it. As he held that every farthing of the expense of collecting the Irish Revenue should be paid under any circumstances by the Irish Government he should not vote against the Amendment.
  MR. FIELDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down bad spoken of liberty, and stated that the Irish people possessed every liberty which the English people pos-

  521
  sessed. The right hon. Gentleman ought to remember that the greatest liberty any people could possess was that of selfgovernment, which the Irish people had not yet obtained. The Irish people were, further, not allowed to carry arms or to equip Volunteers, both of which were matters which every liberty-possessing nation would desire to have within its power. It was proposed by the Government that the Irish Government should not have the power of collecting taxes. In his opinion that was the essence of self-government. Under the Parish Councils Bill every city, every Poor Law district, and every parish in England would have the power of taxation, and yet that power was to be withheld from the Irish people by what was called a Home Rule Bill. In his opinion, if the proposal of the Government were maintained, the Bill would not be a Home Rule Bill at all, and those who acted as Members of Parliament in Dublin would be simply the shadows of English Parliamentarians. The House of Commons would start the Irish Government in business, but would give it neither credit nor capital. He was of opinion that if this process of cutting down the powers of the Irish Legislature went on the Bill would become simply a measure of restrictions and negations. He protested in the strongest manner against the Government proposal.
  MR. RENTOULsaid, he failed to see how the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. J. E. Redmond), as a Home Ruler, could possibly have acted in any other way than he had done in bringing forward the Amendment. If the Irish Legislature was for six years to be deprived of the power of imposing, regulating, or collecting taxes, it would be placed in an absolutely ridiculous position. Neither under this scheme nor under previous schemes put forward by the Prime Minister was the slightest trust or confidence reposed in the Irish people. The best proof of one's confidence in a man was shown by entrusting him with one's financial affairs. The Government, whilst they were willing to hand over the liberty and property of the Irish minority to the Irish Parliament, were not willing to trust them with the collection of that portion of the Revenues of Ireland that had to be paid to the Imperial Exchequer. The arguments used
  522
  by the hon. Member for Waterford were wise and sensible from his point of view. He (Mr. Rentoul) disapproved of the scheme entirely; but, certainly, if he were a Homo Ruler, he should follow the hon. Member into the Lobby. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Courtney) considered that the scheme would lead to a very great, amount of corruption. The right hon. Gentleman's argument was very clear and conclusive on that point; and the instances he gave from Canada, New Zealand, and elsewhere were not answered by the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Blake). The hon. Member was generally regarded as a man eminently well-fitted to answer such an argument, and the fact that he did not answer it was a conclusive proof that it was unanswerable. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) had been twitted by the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) with having given the first advice to the Irish people to repudiate their obligations. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had done nothing of the kind. He had simply said he did not care in the slightest degree what happened—whether the Irish Parliament succeeded in getting its Revenues or became bankrupt at once. It was quite natural that he should not care. Surely repudiations of obligations had been made again and again by gentlemen below the Gangway. They had frequently declared their intention of repudiating their obligations to an Imperial Exchequer and an Imperial Parliament. If the Trish Government needed to borrow, as probably they would, it would be impossible for them to do so for the first six years. They had clearly nothing to give as security. At the same time they would have no incentive to economy, because a certain amount of money would be given to them, and they would be bound to spend it. If they kept any of it back they would simply save the Imperial Exchequer, and the Irish people would imagine that they were desperately badly treated if the Dublin Exchequer saved a single shilling. The hon. Member for North Kerry said if the Irish Members wanted to use their influence for corrupt purposes they could do so at the present time. But, as matters were now, he (Mr. Rentoul) did not think they would be using their

  523
  influence corruptly if they tried to get as many grants for Ireland as they could. Hon. Members were perpetually trying to get a new post office or a new telegraph office for their constituents, and nobody considered that that was corruption. If two hon. Members joined together in order to get benefits for the two constituencies, that would not be corruption. If 103 Members joined together in the same way, as long as they were Members of a united Parliament, they would not be acting corruptly. The hon. Member for North Kerry said it was no slight to keep the collection of taxes from the Irish Government for six years. If so, it would be no slight to keep it from them for 12 years or for ever. The hon. Member said that Ireland would save £25,000 by the transaction. Would the hon. Member be willing to continue to make that saving on the same terms? As an Irish Unionist Member he could not support the scheme of the Government, because it was an essential part of the Home Rule programme, and in like manner he was not able to support the Amendment, because it would merely put the Homo Rule scheme in a better and stronger position. For those reasons he should vote neither on one side nor the other.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, there had not, he believed, been any Amendment proposed during the discussions on that Bill in regard to which he felt greater difficulty. The proposal of the hon. Member for Waterford was a perfectly logical one; but then he (Mr. Heneage) was opposed to Home Rule, root and branch. Still, they were discussing a Home Rule Bill, and the proper course was to consider it as a Bill which might pass, and to try to amend it in the best way they could. That being so, he could not conceive, from the Home Rule point of view, why the collection of the Revenue was to be taken from the Irish Government. The Irish people, according to the Ministerial speeches, were supposed to be endowed with all possible virtues; they were to be entrusted with the lives and property of everyone in Ireland, with the administration of the Criminal Law, and with the payment of interest on the capital lent by England; and surely if they could be trusted to do these things they could equally be trusted to collect the Revenue, which was to be
  524
  paid not only to England, but also into their own Exchequer. That was a humiliating position, and therefore, logically, he felt bound to vote for the Amendment. But what were the reasons advanced by the Member for North Kerry in favour of the Government proposal? That hon. Member, as the result of six weeks' wrestling with the Government, had said it was to do away with the difficulty of Ulster. But if the object of the clause as it stood was to do away with difficulty about Ulster, he was not so sure it would do away with difficulty in other parts of Ireland, where the Imperial tax collector would come to the people in the foreign garb of which they had heard so much. Was not difficulty likely to arise in the South of Ireland, in the same way as the hon. Member for North Kerry imagined it would in the North of that country? Why had the Government abandoned their first proposal? They had had six years to consider what ought to be the proper adjustment of taxation between England and Ireland; but the only explanation of the abandonment of the proposal had been given by the hon. Member for North Kerry. In introducing the Bill the Prime Minister objected altogether to the method of quota, saying it would expose Irish finance to inconvenient shocks from changes introduced in English Budgets, and would give Imperial officers a meddling power in Irish fiscal affairs. This was in February; and in the interval the objections to the method of quota appeared to have been swept away, and financial arrangements were proposed at short notice on statistics that were entirely baseless. ["No, no!"] At any rate unreliable. No answer was given to the speech of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham by the President of the Local Government Board, whose speech had apparently been prepared for the introduction of the Financial Clauses, and whose arguments sounded like an overdue bill discounted at a heavy loss. The Chancellor of the Exchequer absolutely accepted every figure of the right hon. Gentleman, and said—"We have been horribly extravagant, and propose to be so still." Why had the Government proposed this new scheme? They had been told that the Irish would be economical and save money. But they well knew

  525
  that in public and in private matters alike economy depended upon whether it paid, and he would point out that it would be the height of folly for the Irish Government to be economical, because their object would be to show that they were awfully poor and wanted another contribution from the English Exchequer. In fulfilment of the arrangements between the Prime Minister and the hon. Member for North Kerry there was to be a readjustment at the end of six years; and, consequently, the Irish Government would feather their nests during the six years. Why six years were chosen for finance and three years for the Land Question as transitional periods it was difficult to say; he should have thought the term would have been the same in both cases. But would it not have been better to see for six years how the taxes were collected, instead of waiting for that period to obtain any evidence on the subject? It would then have been their interest to collect their own Revenue and to be economical. As it was, the Irish Government would be able to make better terms at the end of six years, when they had driven the capitalists out of the country. Apparently the British taxpayer had no friends on the Treasury Bench, which was more pro-Irish than the Irish themselves, and that was the reason why the taxes were to be levied by the English and not by the Irish Government.
  SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, that if the hon. Member for Water ford were at all displeased with those who sat above the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House, because their political conduct was opposed to his, he now had his revenge. It was extremely awkward for the Opposition to go into either Lobby; they were placed on the horns of a veritable dilemma, and were driven to a choice between two evils. Of all schemes this six years' scheme was certainly the most vicious. It was equally bad from the British and from the Irish point of view, and it would simply prolong the friction which the Prime Minister and his Colleagues complained had existed in the past, because they would have the responsibility of Irish fiscal matters after an Irish Parliament was established, so that really the friction would be indefinitely aggravated by this six years'
  526
  arrangement. There would also be a struggle over the £500,000 surplus. It would be looked upon by the Irish as a concession. Without that concession they would have the strongest motive for economy in their Civil expenditure. But it would be perfectly clear that if the Irish Government economised they would lose the concession. They would, therefore, keep up their expenditure to such an extent as would justify the concession and make sure that it would not be withdrawn. He contended that this was a bad arrangement for Great Britain. Then there came the prospect of the inevitable re-settlement at the end of the six years, when the contribution of one-third from Ireland would have to be revised, and the eyes of every Irish Home Ruler would be fixed on that resettlement. The contribution of one third was already too small, and an injustice to the British taxpayer. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Member for West Birmingham had made it clear as daylight that one-third was not sufficient to enable Ireland to discharge her just obligations to the Empire. One-half, at least, should be proposed. The proposal of the Government was prejudicial to the interests of the British taxpayers, for it placed an additional expenditure on their shoulders by calling upon them to pay more than their fair share of the Imperial defence, in order to remove a just burden from their Irish fellow-subjects, an arrangement to which his English constituents would never consent. It would be found that when the revision took place, and after the Civil finance of Ireland had been manipulated with a view to making the new terms favourable, the last state of the pockets of the British taxpayer would be worse than the first. So that there was a prospect of that descending scale of badness from one plan to another, as foreshadowed by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. Then, supposing any distress arose in Ireland, as was only too probable, of course the Irish would say that, as Great Britain collected the taxes, managed the Revenue, and was to some extent responsible for the whole of the Civil finance, it must boar the burden of any distress that might happen. With reference to the argument about Ulster becoming accus-

  527
  tomed to pay Home Rule taxes to Imperial collectors during the six years, he would say that were Ulster ever inclined to resist she would during the six years nurse her strength for her revenge, and would resist, undoubtedly, when that period was at an end; so that the difficulties would be still worse at the end of the term. For all these reasons he was opposed to the six years' plan of the Government.
  MR. CARSONsaid, that, as representing an Irish Unionist constituency, he took up a somewhat different position from that taken up by those Representatives of British constituencies with whom he was generally associated. He should upon this occasion most certainly vote in favour of this Amendment, and in favour of any Amendment which tended to reduce or abolish any taxes paid by Ireland to England. He wished to explain the reasons for the vote he was about to give. He was not averse to Ireland's paying her share of Imperial taxes, but he desired that she should do so under present conditions. As long as Ireland was to remain de facto a part of the United Kingdom, he was quite willing that she should pay her fair proportion of the Imperial Expenditure. But he changed that position when Ireland was to a large extent severed from Great Britain, and when the Unionists he represented were no longer to have the same benefits from British rule they had hitherto received. They were told Ireland had been overtaxed and unfairly treated in the past. He wanted to know what were Irish Loyalists getting by this Bill that they should consent to the same unfair treatment in the future? The Prime Minister had said that Ireland, in former days, had been most shabbily and unjustly treated in money matters; and he, as the Representative of the Unionists, objected to that shabby and unjust treatment being perpetrated under the Bill at the same time that they were cast off from all Imperial advantages. It might be all very well for hon. Members below the Gangway to consent to fix a tribute upon the Irish nation as the price they were to pay for having Executive power in Ireland. But he was no party to that bargain. He was not willing to assist in having the interests of the Irish Loyalists sold out at a specific price by
  528
  this Parliament. That might be very natural for hon. Members below the Gangway, who probably would personally gain something by this Bill.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE (ironically): Hear, hear!
  MR. CARSONsaid, he felt highly complimented to think that his suggestion that this was a bargain between right hon. Gentlemen opposite and the Irish Members, by which the interests of the Loyalists were to be sold, met with an enthusiastic reception from the Prime Minister. But the question he had to ask was, what would be the real position of Ireland under the clause? According to the clause Ireland would continue to pay to the Imperial Parliament exactly the same taxes which the right hon. Gentleman had described as shabby and unjust. In addition, the Unionists and Loyalists would have to pay as much taxation as hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway chose to impose; and, instead of being able to borrow money upon British credit for the purpose of developing Ireland, they would have to raise that money on the credit of hon. Members below the Gangway. He could not see the slightest reason why, in addition to all that, he, as the Representative of a Unionist constituency, should consent to have a stereotyped Imperial tribute imposed upon Ireland for the purpose of having the aid of England behind hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway in enforcing the payment of the taxes which they imposed. Therefore, as a Unionist Member, he would have no hesitation in voting against the clause. It might be said that it was quite fair that this tax should be imposed by the Imperial Parliament. But why was it fair? Why should not the Irish Parliament assess the amount to be paid to Great Britain? Was it because the Government did not trust the Irish Parliament? They had been listening to nothing during the whole course of the discussion but the trust they ought to place in this angelic union of hearts. When the property of the Irish Unionists was at stake the Government were prepared to impute to the Irish Parliament a double dose of original virtue; but when they came to deal with that Parliament in relation to Imperial taxes they were prepared to impute to it a double dose of original sin. It seemed to him that the Government were per-

  529
  forming the very interesting operation of blowing hot and cold. If the Bill was to be based upon the assumption that they could trust the Irish Parliament in relation to the property of anybody, the very best argument they could use as showing their real confidence, as contradistinguished from their political confidence, was by trusting it in relation to Imperial matters, as well as in matters only affecting Irish Loyalists. He had read the very interesting speech made by the Secretary for Scotland on the First Reading of the Home Rule Bill of 1886. With that speech he entirely agreed. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that if an independent Parliament were set up in Ireland the time would come when the two Parties in Ireland would unite to get the tribute. Let there be no pretence about the matter. When Ireland was cut off the Loyalists would try to get rid of this tribute, because England had betrayed them and deceived them.
  MR. LOGAN: Loyalists?
  MR. CARSON: Yes; they were Loyalists so long as England was loyal to them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said they ought to be loyal to England when England was disloyal to them. That was a position he refused to accept.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,: I beg pardon. I did not say that. I said you had let the cat out of the bag.
  MR. CARSONsaid, he thought that it was the right hon. Gentleman's cheers that let the cat out of the bag, because what the right hon. Gentleman said was—"Great Britain may betray you; Great Britain may deceive you; Great Britain and Great Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer may go back on every word they have spoken in the past, may swallow everything they have said hitherto to eucourage the Loyalists of Ireland, and may, to their own satisfaction, continue to stew in Paruellite juice, but because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has changed his views you are to be satisfied to be handed over to men whom he himself has over and over again in this House and elsewhere described as disloyal." Hon. Members opposite might talk of conditional loyalty and laugh at it if they liked. What he said was that the moment England was disloyal to the Loyalists of Ireland there remained no
  530
  reason why those Loyalists, whose allegiance was to be transferred by Act of Parliament, should continue to be loyal. Talk of conditional loyalty! Had there been no conditional disloyalty on the part of hon. Members below the Gangway, who had declared over and over again that they would willingly unite with England's enemies when an opportunity should arise and England should be in difficulties? Why were they loyal now, or, rather, why did they make a pretence of loyalty? Because they knew that when these legislative and Executive powers had been transferred to them they could snap their fingers at the Imperial Parliament and do with Ireland as they pleased, for the only control the Imperial Parliament would have over them would be through this flimsy veto. Remember that the Irish Loyalists had asked over and over again that there should be some real veto, as in the case of the Colonies; but that was refused, and the Loyalists would, under the Bill, be in a worse position than the Colonies. The Government wanted Ireland to pay taxes which they dared not ask the Colonies to pay. It would be said that Ireland was to have Representatives in that House, and he admitted that that made some difference. [Ministerial cheers.] Yes; but the Party opposite were quite willing to exact the same tribute from Ireland when they were ready to exclude the Irish Members. When the Irish people wore told that they were to pay £2,800,000 a year for the privilege of having Representatives in that House they would consider that they had got a very hard bargain. If the clause were agreed to as it stood, one of the principal questions that would be raised at the very next General Election would be how to get rid of this involuntary tribute. If Ireland was to be transformed into a Colony it would only be logical on her part to demand that she should be treated as a Colony in money matters. Under this sub-section Ireland would be treated shabbily and unjustly, and in the future, therefore, he should vote against it.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 249; Noes 53.—(Division List, No. 240.)
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I propose to move the

  531
  Amendment of which I have given notice, to omit the words "transfer hereinafter mentioned" in the first line of the clause, in order to insert the words "Parliament otherwise determines." I must apologise to the Committee for not having put this Amendment down on the Paper. The fact is that I did write it out, but forgot to hand it in to the clerks, and, therefore, it has not appeared on the printed Notice Paper. At the same time, I do not think that any inconvenience will arise, because the question I wish to raise is extremely simple. I wish to raise the question whether or not there should be, in reference to the financial arrangements, a transitional period? I would have preferred had it been in order, to have moved the omission of the first words of the sub-section: the omission, that is to say, of the words "until the transfer herein-of the mentioned;" but that was impossible owing to the hon. Member for Water-ford having precedence with another Motion. In order to bring myself, therefore, before the Committee, I have to insert the words "Parliament otherwise determines." The result is practically the same, because, of course, Parliament can always determine what it will do in regard to a Bill which has been previously passed. At the same time, I would rather not have inserted these words, because they seem to suggest that it might be desirable that Parliament should at some future time re-consider the terms; whereas I would rather that these terms, having once been settled, should never be disturbed except in some case of emergency, or for some extraordinary reason shown. The object, therefore, of my Amendment is to do away with the transitional period. I am not arguing now whether the proposal of the Government is a good or a bad proposal; I am only arguing in favour of a permanent, or practically permanent, settlement. I ask myself why have the Government insisted on a transitional period? I think there is reason for the Committee to reflect upon the situation in which we find ourselves. It is not only in regard to finance that there is a transitional period; it is most singular that, although we have spent nearly a whole Session in consideration of this Bill, we have not up to the present time, and Ave shall not after the Committee stage has been
  532
  passed, have settled a single one of the principal questions which were open to discussion when the Bill was introduced. I venture to say that of all the critical questions—questions which were known to be critical, and upon which the determination of the Government was anxiously expected by the House and the country—not one single one of them has been settled by this Bill. Every one of them has either been evaded, or, by means of a transitional period or a temporary arrangement, has been left to the dim and distant future for its ultimate settlement. Now, what is the reason why we have a transitional period in regard to finance? Surely the Government have had time enough to consider this matter. They had, of course, the six years of Opposition, during which they must have prepared their plans. They brought their plans before the Committee, but, owing to a mistake which was discovered in them, they found it necessary to revise them. One would have supposed that, if their previous plans had been sufficiently discussed, the only changes they would have made would have been a change to meet the mistake which had been discovered. Not a bit of it; they took advantage of that mistake in order to alter their plan from top to bottom. Again, I say, I suppose that, at all events, that revolutionary change was made after due consideration, and at least we have reason to believe the Government have now prepared and proposed to the Committee a plan in which they themselves have confidence. If they have confidence in this plan, why do they propose it only for a period of six years? Well, Sir, we know perfectly well why they do it. They do it because they know and believe that their plan is the best plan, and a fair plan for the British and Irish people; yet they have been informed by their allies that they will never accept it as a permanent settlement; and as they dare not come before this Committee and propose a plan which would be refused as unsatisfactory by their allies, they endeavour to get out of their difficulty by this device of a transitional period. They propose one plan, and then, in a stage whisper to the opposite side of the House, they toll them not to pay any attention to it; that it is only for a transitional period; and that six years hence they can have their own way.

  533
  That is the reason for the transitional period. The Government must be presumed to have confidence in their own plan, and I suppose their supporters have confidence in their plan. Then, I say, under the circumstances, vote for their plan as it stands, and do not vote for arrangements which will allow the whole plan to be reviewed and altered six years hence, when hon. Members opposite will be masters of the situation. Now they cannot impose their will upon you if you are not willing to be imposed upon, but six years hence you will be at their mercy, and if you pass this clause in its present form, you will be deceiving yourselves and deceiving the public; you will be accepting as wise and prudent a plan which in your hearts you must know will not last longer than the six years of the transitional period. Now, I want the Committee to consider other objections to this proposal for a transitional period. Consider the effect of a suggestion of this kind upon the future relations —the relations, that is to say, during the next six years between Ireland and England. Remember the position of Irish Members is perfectly clear. They want Home Rule. They tell you they want it very much; but they will not take it unless they got, at the same time, a sufficient subsidy. They have told you in plain words that to have their independence is not enough for them. They are not willing to have their independence unless they have a surplus also. And they have told you that this arrangement does not give with sufficient certainty the surplus they require, and that when they have got the opportunity they will ask for more favourable terms. Now, consider what will be the position of the Irish Legislature. I am sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not present. The right hon. Gentleman treated the Committee to a brilliant burst of eloquence the other night; but he has again disappeared below the horizon. The right hon. Gentleman told us the other night that the expenditure of this country in Ireland had been abnormal, wanton, unnecessary, and extravagant. I will assume that as the basis of my argument. I will admit that the Government of Ireland, when Home Rule is passed, will be prudent, economical, and wise beyond the experience of British Governments, even when they have the advantage of
  534
  the light of the right hon. Gentleman's countenance. When, however, this Government comes into power, it is impossible to suppose that they will be wantonly and unnecessarily extravagant. They will save all the money that we have wasted; but, says the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "Yes, do doubt they will do this"; he has so much confidence in the financial skill of the Member for North Kerry, that he is quite confident millions will roll into the Irish Exchequer sooner or later; but he thinks it is impossible that even the financial genius of the Member for North Kerry can produce all these results while he is winding up the concern. We have put such a burden on Ireland in the shape of unnecessary and unlimited officialism, he thinks, that until he has disposed of it the Irish Government will have no funds at all. Will the Committee look at that point a moment, and take one illustration? We have been told that the Civil Service in Ireland costs £300,000 a year. If the new Irish Government, directly after getting into Office, dismisses every person in that Service, they will have, of course, to provide pensions. These pensions will cost £150,000, and the Irish Government will then have £150,000 with which to provide its Civil servants. But on the supposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that our expenditure in Ireland has been, as he showed us, four times and six times as much as was necessary, that it had been dictated by wanton extravagance, surely half the sum proposed will be sufficient for the Irish Members to deal with all the necessities of the case, and they will still have a large balance at their disposal. And now I come back to my point, which is this: that it is perfectly certain, if the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is accepted, the Irish Government will have—conditionally, as my right hon. Friend says—by prudent and economical administration, a very large surplus in their hands. But now, if that takes place, what will be the position of the Irish Government when it comes to this country six years hence, and pleads for a reduction of the tribute? They will have to say—"It is true that we have a plethora of money, and that the savings we have made on your wanton extravagance have been so large that our cellars are gorged with money; still, we appeal to you to reduce the tribute.

  535
  It is true, the tribute is only one-half what we ought to pay according to any fair calculation; that we are prosperous almost beyond the dreams of avarice; that our people are much better off than your people; that our poor are less poor than yours; and that we are reducing taxation every year—still we appeal to you to reduce our tribute, and ask you to be content with a million or so less than you now take from us. Take your hands out of our pockets, but if you put them there take care that they are full of something to our advantage." What will be the result of this? Nobody denies to Irish politicians the possession of great shrewdness. I cannot help thinking that the idea will pass through the minds of hon. Members opposite that it will never do for the Irish Government to show themselves to be rich. They have absolutely no object for economy during the next six years. They will naturally say that they have no reason for economy; that their object should be to make their savings after the six years have passed; and that, in the meantime, they should do all in their power to get rid of any surplus in order that they might be able to come with better grace to this House and ask it, in consideration of their poverty, to make them a further allowance. Another point I wish to put before the Government is this. The effect of the transitional period is that up to and until that period the Imperial Parliament will control the whole of the taxation of Ireland, making to it the necessary contribution of two-thirds of the Revenue. After the transitional period the Imperial Parliament, according to the scheme, will still control five-sixths of the taxation of Ireland—the whole of the Customs and Excise; and the only taxes handed over to the Irish Parliament which they will not possess during the transitional period will be the Income Tax and the Stamp Duty. I believe this scheme will raise great difficulty, and will put much temptation in the way of the Irish Parliament. The Income Tax and the Stamp Duty are taxes on property; and it is the relation of the majority in Ireland to the owners of property, the constant difference of opinion as to the share of burdens which should be borne by the property classes and the poorer classes, which really constitutes the difficulty in that country. I repeat, therefore, that by giving the
  536
  Irish Parliament the power to deal with the Income Tax they will subject it to a great temptation—they will give that Parliament a power which there may be great pressure on them to use unwisely, and from which there can be no possible advantage, even if they use it wisely. I do not know that the Irish Parliament would use that power unwisely. I say unwisely, because it must be perfectly clear that, if the Irish Parliament were to take advantage of its opportunities to raise the Income Tax in Ireland very much above what it was in England, there would, as a necessary consequence, be an immense transfer of property to Great Britain, by which the Irish Exchequer and Parliament would lose in the long run. The third point to which I would refer is this: that, in my opinion, the change which I propose is necessary to a plan of dealing with the financial relations between two countries—and I can quote my right hon. Friend as agreeing with me that it is the best possible plan. That is to say the quota. My right hon. Friend, in dealing with this matter on the introduction of the Bill of 1886, and again on the introduction of the present Bill, declared his own view to be that the quota plan was the most exact and most desirable plan to adopt. Why my right hon. Friend is now giving it up I cannot say. But undoubtedly it would be a much more simple plan if Parliament was to take the control of Irish taxation and reserve the quota of l—18th, as I think it ought to be, or l—40th, as the Government think it ought to be, and hand over the rest to the Irish Legislature. In order that that plan might be carried out it is necessary that the Imperial Parliament should have the control of Irish taxation. It is not, in my opinion, a disadvantage that we should thus withdraw from the Irish Legislature such a power of general taxation as already exists in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, because that is a power which more than any other would be liable to be abused. Any impartial reference to my speeches in the House in 1886 will prove that I asked for the retention of the Irish Members as a means to an end, not as an end desirable on its own merits. My argument was that it was impossible to have a subordinate Parliament unless they had representation of Irishmen at Westminster. But my view then was, as it is

  537
  now, that, having given Ireland representation at Westminster, it was not necessary, desirable, or wise to give the Irish Legislature the extended powers proposed in this Kill. Lastly, with regard to the transitional period, I venture to impress upon the Government that by insisting upon this period of probation they are not consistent with what they have previously said in the House and in the country. One of the conditions which my right hon. Friend has always laid down in dealing with this question of Home Rule is that it should be a permanent and final settlement. In the last speech in which my right hon. Friend referred to the subject he called it a, permanent and continuous settlement.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: A continuing settlement.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Do hon. Members see any difference? I shall be obliged to have the etymological distinction explained to me. It is sufficient for my argument to say that my right hon. Friend urged that this, if not a settlement for all time, should, at all events, be considered to be a permanent settlement. Nobody denies, least of all the Government, that in undertaking this tremendous revolution, in shattering the ancient Constitution of this country, in creating a double Executive, in setting up a quasi-independent Parliament, they were running some risk. I can appeal to the speeches of right hon. Gentlemen on that (the Government) Bench since the House went into Committee to prove that they admitted that there was a chance of their intentions being frustrated, and clearly they were right in saying that it would not be worth while to run this risk unless they believed it would give good and great results. They admit there is a chance that their intentions may be frustrated; and therefore, clearly they are right in saying it would not be worth while to run this risk unless you had as a possible result of your proceedings the final settlement of the quarrel of seven centuries. But where is the final settlement in this proposal? Why, it is hardly a settlement for a single Parliament. At the end of this Parliament we may be called upon to go over the whole thing again,
  538
  and to consider a new Home Rule Bill. It is because the Government have persuaded me that it is not worth while to consider this question at all unless we are to have a permanent settlement that I move my Amendment, in the hope that the transitional period may be avoided.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 1, to leave out the words "the transfer hereinafter mentioned," in order to insert the words "Parliament otherwise determines."—(Mr. J. Chamberlain.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'the transfer hereinafter mentioned' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The whole speech of my right hon. Friend only supplies arguments against his own Amendment. There is no doubt that when the clause of an Act of Parliament is prefaced with the words "until Parliament shall otherwise determine," there is placed upon it the stamp of its temporary and short-lived character. My right hon. Friend has examined the subject in the same spirit of exaggeration and hostility which have invariably marked his investigation of any portion of the plan of the Government. Would my light hon. Friend excuse my suggesting an analogy of the character which he bears with the character which is systematically assumed, I believe, under ancient rules, in the Court of Rome on a great and solemn occasion, when it is proposed in consequence of the peculiar excellence of some happy human being who has departed this life to raise him, so far as terrestrial judgment can raise him, to the order of the saints. For fear lest, under the influence of too favourable prepossession, the honour should be conferred without a sufficiently jealous scrutiny, there is always brought into the Court a gentleman who goes, or who is said to go, under the name of Devil's Advocate. The peculiar function of this gentleman is to go through the career of the proposed saint, to seize upon and magnify every human failing and error, to misconstrue everything that is capable of misconstruction; and when the able and ingenious Devil's Advocate has, like my right hon. Friend, his heart in the cause, then it becomes reasonably certain to the

  539
  satisfaction of impartial and dispassionate men that everything has been said against the candidate for spiritual honours that can possibly be said, and not only so, but a great more than can be sustained. That is the case of my right hon. Friend. But on one point, owing to the excess of his zeal, he went a little beyond even the Devil's Advocate. I have never heard upon any occasion of persons entrusted with the charge of that high office—for they were not less discreet than able—saying in the course of the same speech what amounts to a practical confutation of the main proposition they were endeavouring to urge. That is the case of my right hon. Friend. What is the main charge he makes against the Bill? He described it the other night as a "bite at Home Rule."
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: It was a quotation.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Oh, yes; I knew that it was a phrase which he was fortunate enough to detect in a leading article. It is not so long ago since he quoted a leading article in this House calling for scorn and contempt on it because it did not exactly suit his object. When it does suit his object he produces the article in his support. My right hon. Friend said—"We have settled nothing in this Bill about Home Rule." Settled nothing in this Bill! My right Friend, in discussing this matter, used language of habitual, gross, enormous exaggeration. What are the questions connected with Ireland that are not settled in this Bill? I grant there is the Land Question.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: An obligation of honour.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Yes, an obligation of honour with respect to facts and circumstances that were then existing, and expressly stated by me, as my right hon. Friend must know, to be an obligation to these temporary facts and circumstances. The Laud Question, it is true, is a most important question. It is a question internal to Ireland, and it is entirely by way of exception that there is any reservation of it at all. What is the foundation for the charge that the
  540
  Bill settles nothing? Finance? Yes. What did my right hon. Friend say in another part of his speech? Like the unskilful Devil's Advocate, having declared that the Government entirely upset and destroyed everything they proposed to enact with respect to finance, in another portion of his speech, when he had another object in view, he entirely forgot what he had urged, and said—
  "Why, after all, what is the use of this charge about the six years? The Excise and Customs Revenue "—he might have added the Post Office—"are still withheld from them, so far as regards fixing their rates; and, consequently, this Bill, which fixes the principle with respect to these Revenues, will still be in force, and the whole substance of finance, with limited exceptions, will still be settled by the Irish."
  And that is the only point to which my right hon. Friend can refer as not having been successfully settled by the Bill. Now, what is settled by the Bill? It is settled by the Bill that Ireland shall make her own laws. It is settled that Ireland shall have two Chambers of Legislature. I want to know whether fixing the Legislative Body is, or is not, a capital and fundamental portion of any scheme of government for Ireland? We have settled the Executive, the relations between the Executive and the Legislative Body. We have absolutely settled the Judiciary.
  LORD R, CHURCHILL: All by the Closure.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The Police has been absolutely fixed. In naming these branches, have I not named all the most important branches of a scheme for the Government of Ireland with the exception of finance? And with respect to that exception, my right hon. Friend has himself said that the most important parts are fixed. In this instance my right hon. Friend exhibited, as he did in others, his practice of gross, habitual, and enormous exaggeration. My right hon. Friend is engaged in denouncing a measure with respect to the most important part of which more conclusive support could nowhere be found than in the speeches of my right hon. Friend himself, before he assumed his present position.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Is not that exaggeration?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: My right hon. Friend has also given some specimens of more temperate arguments. He said—
  "If the plan is good, why is it to last only for six years? Why is it not to remain?"
  In what I cannot call a specimen of temperate argument my right hon. Friend then supplied the reasons for the limitation. They are not the reasons stated by the Government, who might he supposed to know something of their own interior minds; but they wore, according to the right hon. Gentleman—
  "Because your allies have put yon under compulsion, and have given you to understand that they will not tolerate the permanent enactment of such a system as you have introduced. It is the old doctrine of the taskmaster and the lash."
  But that doctrine was much weakened in its impression on my mind, and for the reason I am about to state, though it is only one illustration of the licence continually assumed by the opponents of the Government—a licence which permits them to use, in the successive Debates upon the Bill, either a particular proposition, if it be unfavourable to the Bill, or the contradictory of it. My right hon. Friend continually casts upon the Government the stigma of being under the lash of taskmasters. My right hon. Friend has not sat through much of to-night's Debate, or he would have known that the contradictory of that proposition was vehemently urged upon the Government less than two hours before from that (the Opposition) quarter of the House. The Government were then told as positively and confidently—for posi-tiveness and confidence are the invariable concomitants of all the assertions of my right hon. Friend and his allies, as positively and confidently as when my right hon. Friend spoke of taskmasters and lashes—that the Government had no excuse for not doing something they were asked to do, because it was perfectly well known and notorious to the world that gentlemen below the Gangway would accept whatever they were offered.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I never referred to the Parnellites as taskmasters. There are only nine of them.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: After that brilliant repartee I will pass on. I
  542
  have quoted what has been said by one of my right hon. Friend's allies, and, therefore, my right hon. Friend's interruption was wholly without point. My right hon. Friend has a practice, which is one of the most unsatisfactory and one of the most mischievous that can be introduced in to public life. He constantly and deliberately, and with the utmost confidence and infallibility, ascribes to men who have a right to stand on a level with him, and who were at one time his colleagues and supposed to be his friends, motives for their acts the direct contradictory of that which they state themselves, and motives which my right hon. Friend knows they indignantly disclaim. My right hon. Friend knows, or ought to know, that the Government have stated their reasons for introducing this intermediate period: and he knows those reasons are absolutely different and totally irreconcilable with that which he himself alleged, not as a suspicion on his part, but as the absolute result of his infallible thought-reading. There is a profession growing up in the country in which my right hon. Friend appears to deserve the very highest honours and distinction, and that is the profession of the thought-reader. My right hon. Friend said that the Irish Members—not the Parnellites only, but the Nationalists—have a most dangerous notion in their heads. They had, he told us, compelled the Government to put off their decision upon the amount of the contribution, though the principle of a contribution was a thing absolutely fixed under the Bill. And why? "Because," said my right hon. Friend, "they know that in six years they will be absolute masters of the situation." Where does he get his gift of infallibility? By what superhuman gift does my right hon. Friend pronounce upon the state of things which is to subsist in this House six years hence? There are 103 Irish Members in this House now, but they are not omnipotent. On the contrary, we are told this very night by a high authority that they have nothing to do but to submit. If this is so, why, then, should 80 Members be omnipotent? I commend that view to my right hon. Friend. Hon. Gentlemen who are imbued more or less with the confidence and self-esteem of the right hon. Gentleman must see, when they predict the

  543
  supremacy of 80 Members, what a sentence of condemnation they are passing upon the 570 Members who will be in this House along with the 80 Irish Members? They are to be nothing but their tools and their slaves! But what will the British public say outside who witness this enslaving? What will the people of Great Britain say of it? Will they stand by unmoved at this enslaving by the 80 Irish Members who would possess a special privilege?
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: They would have their own Parliament.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I should have thought it would be understood I was referring to this House. This miserable 570 will be the tools and the slaves of 80! They are to sit here as victims—miserable tools, slaves! It is, Sir, in my opinion, absurd. One of the illuminating doctrines delivered from that quarter of the House (pointing to Mr. Chamberlain) is that any body of Members representing any set of constituencies may lawfully combine together to obtain by their combination anything they can on behalf of their own particular constituencies, irrespective of the general welfare of England.
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: We all hold it.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The noble Lord cannot have heard the words that fell from my lips. If he had, he would not respond in those terms. Well, Sir, we are told that there is no necessity why Ireland should he furnished at the outset with a surplus. We are told we gave no surplus to the Transvaal. To the Transvaal! What was the Transvaal? It was little more than a village community. What were they?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: 40,000.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Yes; 8,000 adults. But that is not all. These men had been deprived of institutions, and into their midst was sent a handful of English authorities; and, therefore, it is presumed they had lost those institutions. There is no parallel with the case of Ireland. Then, Greece is cast in our teeth. But the three Powers which founded
  544
  Greece did give Greece a surplus, did propose, if they did not—as I think they did—guarantee a surplus—though the three Powers found themselves unable to obtain a considerable part of the interest on this Guaranteed Loan. They recognised, I think, that a commencing Government requires a surplus. But, Sir, what is the use of talking to Irish Members about economy before they have a Government to make economies? Does a Ministry cost nothing? Does building cost nothing? Does a legislative building cost nothing? How are all those charges to be defrayed? That is the crux of the question. We have told a simple tale to the House about all these matters in this period of six years. Originally our financial plan was for 15 years. It is now reduced to six years. The time at our disposal is a time which does not permit the Committee to probe so serious a question. The employment which is placed on the Irish Legislature irrespective of these questions is more than ample, and these few years it is proposed to adopt form a period of postponement, but a short and rational period, at the close of which it is most reasonable to expect that they will be in a condition to deal in a satisfactory manner with this subject. But the Committee is told that this Bill settles nothing. That is a common mode of describing the most positive Bills which the Opposition disapprove and do not believe in. The plan proposed by the Government is a most reasonable one, and the right hon. Gentleman has done nothing to shake or to undermine the Government plan, although he has used his utmost efforts to do so, and to do so in the spirit of that important functionary to whom I made an initiatory allusion.
  MR. A. J. BALEOUR (Manchester, E.): The right hon. Gentleman has left me but a few minutes, but I will endeavour to compress my argument into them. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman has not been mainly to the Amendment, but to the Second Reading stage of the clause. When the right hon. Gentleman ought to have replied to the arguments made on that stage of the clause he remained absent from the House.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Member for West Birmingham largely argued the question of surplus.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My right hon. Friend never mentioned the Transvaal or Greece, and there is not an hon. Member except the right hon. Gentleman who would have been permitted so far to divert from the speech to which he was professedly replying. The point, however, to which I would first refer depends on a remark made by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham that the Irish Members are the masters of the Government. Well, are they not? The right hon. Gentleman looks forward to the end of six years, and says, who can suppose that, at that time, against the vote of 570 English Members, 80 Irish Members will be allowed to prevail? The right hon. Gentleman was unconsciously repeating his own speech made nearly 10 years ago. I recollect that speech well; it was a magnificent effort. The right hon. Member for Dublin University had been saving that the Reform Bill of 1884 would inevitably hand the Loyalists of Ireland over to the certainty of Home Rule agitation, which would probably be successful. What did the right hon. Gentleman say? He said (reading from Hansard)—
  "He believed that if there could be only a sufficient proportion of Irish Members following in the train of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, 500 to 600 Members from England, Scotland, and Wales would be so intimidated by the action of the Irish Members that they would cast away all consideration of justice in legislation."
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONEasked to see the reference, and the volume was handed across the Table.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Almost verbatim what the Committee has heard that evening! In 1886 these 500 to 600 English Members were coerced by the followers of Mr. Parnell, and the right hon. Gentleman did come down and propose legislation which he then thought to be impossible. Well, Sir, I pass to the attack made on the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, and the Prime Minister's description of what
  546
  he called the habitually gross and enormous exaggeration of the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with this Amendment. The Prime Minister said that Government had settled that there should be an Irish Legislature consisting of two Chambers, the Police, the Judiciary, and the Executive. With regard to the word "settle," I confess that it is an inappropriate substantive to use with regard to the decision which has been arrived at without debate or discussion. Up to the present, when we spoke of the House of Commons settling something, we usually meant that the subject had been first debated and then divided upon. The first of these processes is now omitted by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman says we have settled the Judiciary. There are clauses about the Judiciary, and I do not deny that, in a sense, it may be said that you have settled that question. But in what sense has he settled the police? Upon my word, I do not know. I raised the question this afternoon with regard to the Revenue and the existing Constabulary; and the Government said that, although the question was a very proper one to raise, they have not settled it, but that, perhaps in a year or two, they would be prepared with a solution to a problem which they admit requires one. The question of the police is only settled in a negative sense, and so little is it settled, that the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) looks forward to eight anxious years of debate in the Irish Legislature before it is settled. Have the Government settled the police of the country when they have only settled the police is not to exist, but have left it absolutely open as to what police will take their place? The right hon. Gentleman himself has admitted that, he has not settled the land; but he says he is only under "temporary obligations of honour." I have been accustomed to consider that the obligations of honour are permanent, but a new morality and a new linguistic usage are being introduced, and apparently the obligations of honour only exist during the temporary exigencies of Party, and when those exigencies of Party change the obligations of honour will, I suppose, vanish with them. Is the taxation settled? That is the very

  547
  question under discussion, and it is not settled. The right hon. Gentleman said—"You should not impute to us had motives. We have given our reasons for settling it only for six years. It is contrary to the usage of Parliament to attribute to us motives which have never animated us." The only reason we understand for the change of front on the part of the Government is that they have heard a speech from the hon. Member for North Kerry, and that they thought the suggestion he makes is a good one. I do not see that that reason is contradictory of the motives attributed to the Government by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. There remains the vital question of the Irish Members in this House. Is that settled? I appeal to the Government themselves on that point. Clause 9, dealing with them, begins with the words "unless and until Parliament otherwise determines." The Prime Minister himself says, when similar words are proffered as an Amendment to another clause by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, that their insertion will be a conclusive proof that the clause is a temporary and short-lived one.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I said in the most distinct manner that there are many points that might be construed as an honourable compact between Great Britain and Ireland for the term of six years, and I stated that the words referred to were introduced to show that the 9th clause was no part of the honourable compact between Great Britain and Ireland, and was reserved in quite another sense.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The meaning of the words of an Act do not depend upon the intention of those who insert them, but on the words themselves. If the words were introduced for the purpose of making this one clause short-lived the effect must be the same. The Prime Minister has likened the right hon. Member for West Birmingham to the "Devil's Advocate" in those ecclesiastical cases where the claims of a saint to canonisation were brought forward. I will not go into the propriety or the good taste of the metaphor, but I would merely
  548
  point out that the functions of the Devil's Advocate are exercised only with regard to a defunct individual. If the Home Rule Bill is to be regarded as dead, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham will not quarrel with the metaphor. For my own part, when once the author of a Bill admits that it is a corpse, I am perfectly ready to take any part he likes in the canonisation of his defunct Bill. I do not think it worth while to continue the discussion any further; but there are other Members who may desire to take part in the Debate which I am sorry to say has been wasted—a portion of the time has been wasted—by the irrelevant and personal recriminations which the right hon. Gentleman embodied in the observations which he addressed to the Committee.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, a great deal of the attack upon his right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) —
  It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  EAST INDIA (MRS. ELIZA SAUNDERS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 26th June; Mr. Alpheus Morton]; to lie upon the Table.
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—Improvement of Land (Scotland) Bill, with an Amendment.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (SCHOOL ATTENDANCE) BILL.—(No. 241.)
  Considered in Committee; Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  VOLUNTEER FORCES (JURY EXEMPTION) BILL.—(No. 141.)
  Order for Committee read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.
  House adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

TOOK THE OATH.
THE Lord Gwydir.
SAT FIRST.
THE Earl of Iddesleigh, after the death of his father.
LONDON IMPROVEMENTS BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW*THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved—
  "That this House, before assenting to the Second Reading of this Bill, desires to express its opinion that proposals for the assessment of capital values instead of annual values, and for creating new and arbitrarily-defined areas of taxation such as are contained in Clause 41 of the Bill, ought not to be embodied in a Private Bill; but, if found just and equitable, should be based on general principles laid down by Parliament."
  He said, that the dimensions of this measure had shrunk considerably since it was first presented to Parliament. Originally it provided for the expenditure of £5,250,000 upon improvements, but now it provided for the expenditure of less than £1,000,000. Instead of vast improvements, such as a now thoroughfare from the Strand to Holborn, the proposal was now confined to the rebuilding of Vauxhall Bridge and to making approaches to Woolwich Ferry and the new Tower Bridge. The London County Council had seen fit to whittle down their first proposals, the reason being, as he believed, that they were not so much intent on effecting great improvements as on passing a particular clause in the Bill—namely, Clause 41—which would revolutionise our present system of Local Taxation. The County Council had felt that the only way by which they could get Parliament to sanction that clause was by limiting the extent of their proposals, so as to provoke the smallest possible opposition. The rateable value of the property that would be affected by the improvement with which the Bill was concerned was not more than £3,300 a year. "Betterment" was a curious American word, which
  410
  might be said to be an algebraical expression denoting the moiety of an undefined quantity—namely, the enhanced value of property affected by the improvements of the County Council. The County Council themselves had likened it to throwing a large stone into a, millpond, when waves of betterment were raised in immediate propinquity to the stone, falling off into ripples, until they finally died away at the edge of the pond. The Bill was referred by the other House of Parliament to a Hybrid Committee of nine Members, five of whom were supporters of the principle of betterment. The conclusion of that Committee was, therefore, a foregone conclusion. He was not prepared to say that the principle of betterment, which was that where a property received a special benefit it should pay a special contribution, was an entirely erroneous one. He thought, indeed, that it might lie possible to devise a scheme under which property should contribute when it was really benefited; but, if that principle were adopted, they ought also to adopt the correlative, which was that where property was diminished in value by so-called improvements the owners ought to be compensated. The Bill as it stood violated the principle dear to the Liberal Party, that representation should accompany taxation. The charges which were to be imposed would fall upon the owners of property, and not upon the occupiers, and yet the Bill contained no proposal for giving representation to owners. Surely, if they were to be taxed, they ought to be given some share in the imposition of that taxation. If this clause passed, owners of property would be subject to taxation by a Body on which they, as owners, had no representation. Every Commission that had reported on this subject had reported most strongly in favour of the owners being represented on the Body which administered the rates. He had no doubt, however, that the members of the London County Council would not welcome upon the electorate a large accession of owners; but why should their Lordships be asked to sanction what was unjust and inequitable in order to suit the political exigencies of the London County Council? It was an invariable rule of our system of taxation that the burden of the year should fall on the annual value of property;

  411
  but under this Bill it was proposed that the charge should be an unvarying one, whatever the nature of the property, and should remain for all time. The County Council, instead of following the practice of spreading the taxation over a well-defined area, asked Parliament to empower them to select for themselves, in an arbitrary manner, the area over which the taxation should be spread, and even the individuals within that area who should be the subjects of taxation. Unless members of the County Council were differently constituted to, and had less human nature than, the majority of those interested in political questions, he could not help thinking it would be extremely difficult for them, in selecting individuals as subjects for this taxation, to dissociate entirely from their minds the question whether those individuals did or did not support the views of the Council. It was also proposed, for the first time he believed in the history of taxation, that unoccupied houses and land should be charged. Property in a district might remain unlet, as when the sugar bakeries of Silvertown were done away with, and when the Spitalfields silk-weaving industry fell off. Populations might come and go, but the charges of the London County Council went on for ever. There was no means of ascertaining how far property had depreciated in value. Then it was proposed to levy this taxation as a capital charge in the nature of a mortgage, and the Council would have power to enter on the premises and sell them for what they would fetch if the charge was not satisfied. That was an absolutely novel departure. It would be impossible for those over whom this sword of Damocles was hanging to dispose of their property at all. If the Council had wished to deal fairly in the matter they would have made provision not only for the increment, but also for the detriment. During the last three years the Council had spent £30,000 in Parliamentary costs. The expenditure of £1,000 or £1,500 in the promotion of this Pill could only be justifiably in order to effect a substantial relief in the rates; but their Lordships would hardly credit him when he said that the Council had never taken into consideration the amount they were going to get from the scheme. Their surveyor admitted in evidence that the
  412
  total sum that could be levied would be £10,000, a moiety only of which would go to the Council, which, at 3 per cent., would produce the magnificent income of £150 a year. For the sake of 1–12,000th part of the income of the London County Council their Lordships were asked to revolutionise the whole system of Local Taxation in this country. The ideas of the Council were ambitious. Their employés were to receive the highest rate of wages; to approach the Australian acme of "eight hours' work, eight hours1 play, eight hours' sleep, and eight bob a day." The slums were to be pulled down and model lodging-houses put in their place, and the Council themselves were to be lodged in a palatial manner in a building which should not compare unfavourably with the Hôtel de Ville of our neighbours across the Channel, where, he understood, the most numerously attended balls in the world were given at the expense of the ratepayers. These were charming schemes, but, unfortunately, they cost money. London already owed £40,000,000, and the rates had increased since 1868 by 104 per cent. The long-suffering ratepayer was beginning to cry out at last. Meetings had been held, and there was grave danger that the Council might become unpopular. Therefore, with the next election casting its shadow before it, the Council were looking round for some new victims who combined wealth of property with poverty of votes. Who so suitable as the ground laud-lord? It would be impossible to establish our rating system on a permanent basis until the distinction between personal and real property was removed, and until the whole of local property bore the whole of local burdens. The honest and straightforward course for the Government to take would be to accept the terms of his Resolution, and to bring in a Bill next year dealing with the question on a broad and comprehensive basis; but from the attitude of their colleagues in another place he was inclined to think they would ask the House to pass the Bill in its entirety, in the hope that it might bring them a few votes from London in favour of Home Rule. Their London team was becoming restive. North St. Pancras had kicked over the traces and bolted; Kennington had shied at the Local Veto Bill; and others were looking dangerous, so the Govern-

  413
  ment were now trying to set aside all the best traditions of legislation in order that they might pose before the voters of London as the champions of their interests. But the Government were reckoning without their Lordships' House, which he did not believe would consent to pull the chestnuts out of the fire in order that they might gain a little popularity among the voters of London. They might reckon that their Lordships, knowing that the great Home Rule contest in which in a few weeks they would be engaged would be submitted for the opinion of the constituencies, would not risk damaging their popularity with the electors by throwing out the measure. But he did not believe that House would give up the position which they now held, in the opinion of all those whose opinion was worth having, that of revising legislation which was designed not in the interests of the community at large, but with the view of catching votes; and he was satisfied that any unpopularity would not fall upon them, but upon the shoulders of the Government, who had sacrificed to an attempt to break up the Empire all the traditions and principles of legislation which they had inherited, and all the real interests of the people whom they professed to serve. He hoped, therefore, their Lordships would agree to the Motion of which he had given notice.
  Moved to resolve—
  "That this House, before assenting to the Second Reading of this Bill, desires to express its opinion that proposals for the assessment of capital values instead of annual values, and for creating new and arbitrarily-defined areas of taxation such as are contained in Clause 41 of the Bill, ought not to be embodied in a Private Bill; but, if found just and equitable, should he based on general principles laid down by Parliament."—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  LORD HOBHOUSEsaid, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, he should be sorry if their Lordships sent it to a Committee hampered with the noble Earl's Resolution. As he had to meet two lines of attack—that just delivered and that awaiting him from Lord Portsmouth—his best plan would be to state the case for the Second Reading of the Bill without qualification, and meet the noble Earl's objections as they occurred. He wished that the noble Earl had kept more to the point. His speech had degenerated, as a good many
  414
  speeches from his side did, into a general attack on the County Council and the Government. Everything the London County Council had done was wicked in his eyes, and not only what they had done, but what they had not done, and what only a few members of their Body had thought of doing. However, he would not be led aside from his point by those vague hits at the Body he had then the honour to represent. The Bill was for effecting four improvements in London. The first of these was the improvement of Wood Street, Hammersmith. That was a small matter, and the parish contributed part of the expense, which was a somewhat primitive and rude method of betterment—i.e., the principle that those who benefit most should pay most. The second was the rebuilding of Vauxhall Bridge, a much larger affair, as it would be of general public benefit, and was not calculated to benefit private properties in any special manner. Therefore the provisions for betterment in the Bill would not apply to that improvement. The third was the improvement of the approaches to Woolwich Ferry, a small matter of £3,000, which would not excite controversy. The fourth was the construction of a new access to the Tower Bridge. That was an expensive affair; and it was calculated to benefit the properties contiguous to the new road, and therefore attracted the principle of betterment. It was upon this work, the cost of which was estimated at between £400,000 and £500,000, that the controversy concerning betterment centred in the House of Commons. If their Lordships were to refuse the Second Reading of the Bill they would put a stop to works as to which there was no real controversy, and which it was desirable—and, as to Vauxhall Bridge, somewhat urgent—to execute. The noble Earl said he did not find any fault with the principle of betterment, which was that an owner should contribute something towards the cost of an improvement by which his property was benefited; but he objected to the proposed application of that principle in this Bill. But he could hardly have read the Bill sufficiently. It was not correct to say that this was purely a charge upon owners, nor was it the fact that the County Council could levy the charge as it thought fit. Under the Bill the area of betterment was confined within limits

  415
  of deviation which were to be settled by Parliament, and everything had to be submitted to an independent arbitrator, appointed by a Government Department, and it was he who would decide whether the marketable value of property had been increased, and what charge should be placed upon it. The noble Earl complained that damage to property was not to be compensated. The question of "worsement," as it was called, was totally different from that of betterment, and should be separately treated. Moreover, it was almost impossible that in such a plan as this any case of worsement could arise; the whole controversy was confined to the limits of deviation. On the merits of this principle he would take the liberty of stating it in a proper shape thus: In all dense populations it is necessary for the purposes of health, access, traffic, and so forth, to execute public works at the expense of the public. The community—in this case the county—as a whole paid for them and benefited by them. But there were some individuals, the owners of land contiguous to the works—in this case a road—who benefited, not only more in degree, but in a different kind and mode from the general public. Not only bad they the chief use of the road, but their land bad its market value increased at the expense of the county, not of themselves. It had long been felt in London that there was great hardship in compelling all the inhabitants to pay for an improvement to private estates, and that the owners should contribute nothing. Well, the principle of betterment was simply that the landowner should repay something out of the increased value which he had received. It was said, indeed, that he did contribute something, because he paid a higher rate. That was quite irrelevant to the present question. Every man whose property had increased in value since the last assessment was liable to pay an increased rate; though it was to his parish and not to the county. But besides the fact that the rate was an inadequate contribution; besides the fact that it goes into the wrong Treasury, that of the parish and not that of the county, there was this consideration—that the same result would happen if the landowner made the improvement out of his own pocket. The same result happened to his neighbour 200 yards off, who effected an improvement out of his own pocket; so
  416
  that for the special boon that the improvement in question was paid for, not out of his own pocket, but by the community, the landowner paid absolutely nothing. That this was not just was almost universally agreed. The noble Earl did not assert that it was just. But he objected to the mode of remedy; and by his Resolution he asked the House to affirm that it ought to be sought by Public and not by Private Bill. With regard to that question, they had great Codes of Law affecting multitudes of daily transactions, and without which their affairs would be sadly hampered—such as the Lands Clauses Act, the Companies' Clauses Act, the Settled Estates Act, the Enclosures Act, and so forth, which were all the outgrowth of private transactions legalised by Parliament in the majority of instances by Private Acts. A private Canal Bill, a private Railway Bill, a private Estate Bill, a private Enclosure Bill, proposed arrangements respecting the matters dealt with. Each of those arrangements was an innovation in its day. Some of them—e.g., expropriation powers—were great innovations. But they appeared to meet the necessity of the case: they were allowed upon a small local or personal scale, and if found beneficial they were adopted in subsequent cases of like nature. Then came a time when the most beneficial clauses could be culled out of those Acts, brought together, and set up as a branch of general public law. Surely that was the wise way of going to work. If a new method were just in principle, if it was calculated to allay a deep and widespread feeling of injustice among a large community, surely it was better to begin on the small scale which befitted a Private Act, and then, when experience had been gained, general principles could be laid down by public enactments. But the noble Earl wanted to begin at the other end, and to start general principles before they had obtained experience, and so to reverse the practice in regard to this kind of legislation. If the noble Earl were to have his way, it would lead to endless delays and to friction and irritation, of which there had been too much already. He did not admit that there was any innovation in principle in this Bill. The principle of betterment proposed was simply to make a man pay back part of

  417
  that which he had received in the shape of benefit or increased value. That had been done in many Acts, public and private, and in various ways. The only novelty here was in the method, and surely that method was peculiarly a subject for a Committee to deal with. He, therefore, begged their Lordships to read the Bill a second time, and not to take upon themselves the responsibility at this stage of the proceedings of saying that this Clause 41 as to betterment, which they could not here properly discuss, should not go before the Committee, and that practically the wishes of the Londoners to introduce some more equitable principle into the payment for London improvements should be postponed sine die.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, the noble Lord should not have to complain of him for not sticking to the point. He would address himself, in the first place, to the question raised by the Resolution of the Earl of Onslow, whether the proposals in this Bill wore not more properly matters for public than for private legislation. To that proposition he gave his most hearty assent; and he should certainly vote with the noble Earl, partly on the grounds which had been stated by the noble Earl, and partly for reasons which he would now proceed to state. In the first place, then, the proposed change of assessment from annual to capital value was a matter of public and not merely of private and local interest. He believed it to be an absolute novelty in the local taxation of the English people. This, of itself, was a good reason for public and not for private legislation on the subject. Again, secondly, there was no principle for the purpose of taxation in the "area of deviation." Then, thirdly, beyond this, an Executive officer of Her Majesty's Government was not a proper person to go to for the ascertainment of capital values.
  LORD HOBHOUSEsaid, it was not a Government official, but an arbitrator named by the Government Department to act between the parties—one of the commonest things in the world.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he was not aware there were many instances of this at all, and if such a principle wore extended into the Government of this country it would lead possibly to the greatest corruption. These were reasons,
  418
  even if they stood alone, in his opinion, for the Resolution of the noble Earl. But he was opposed to this Bill on the merits, as well as the form of its proposals. Most of their Lordships probably had read a paper circulated that morning stating that the Bill ought to receive support because it was of a purely local character and would effect purely local objects. But if a Private Bill proposed to forfeit and confiscate property, was the Imperial Parliament to take no notice of that? Was the property of a particular locality to be placed at the absolute power of the Local Authority? He had no wish to say a word against the London County Council. He thought that the powers of municipal government would probably receive in this country very large developments, and in certain directions, no doubt, large extensions of local powers would have to be given. But in other directions the progress of modern society had been in the direction of greater limitation and restraint. In Scotland, prior to the Reform Bill, the Municipalities possessed the most arbitrary powers of taxation. All that had been, however, taken from them. Free Trade had spread throughout the country, and the Municipalities had not been allowed to continue to exercise such arbitrary and monstrous powers as they formerly possessed. Their Lordships should, therefore, look above all things to what powers it was fit and safe for the Imperial Government to hand over to Municipal Authorities, and new principles of arbitrary taxation ought not to be conceded to them without the most careful and public examination. It might come to this—that great powers of taxation ought to be given to the London County Council on some novel principle; but he agreed with the Earl of Onslow if that were done it should be done by public Act of Parliament, and with full consideration of all the consequences involved. Nobody acknowledged the principle of betterment more readily than he did. But what was meant by the term "betterment"? They all knew what the promoters of the Bill meant by it. Their meaning was, however, not his. He did not accept it in the arbitrary and artificial sense put upon it by the Lord Chancellor. It reminded him of the extreme Darwinians. He acknowledged their principle of development,

  419
  but it did not follow that he must adopt their doctrine of natural selection—a juggle of words and nothing else. He contended that under the present system the legitimate object of betterment was practically attained, and far more justly and equally than it would be under any of the artificial proposals of the London County Council and their friends. On what other principle could the benefit or increased value derived by a man's property from any improvement be ascertained than that of annual value? There was only one other basis which he knew of, and that was political corruption and jobbery. That was what this proposal of assessment upon capital value would undoubtedly lead to, as it had led to that result in America. Betterment simply implied that he whose property gained in value should be called upon to pay in proportion to that increased value. But the gain must be ascertained as fact, and as tested by actual market values. With regard to the corruption existing in the Municipalities of the United States, an article appeared about two months ago in The National Review, which was written by the Chairman of a Committee appointed by the Corporation of Boston, for the purpose of investigating the question to what extent that corruption existed; and in that article it was stated that only two Municipalities throughout the States were not notoriously dishonest and corrupt, and the Corporations of those two exceptional Municipalities, one in Washington and another in Illinois, were appointed by Central Authorities, and not by popular vote. Some few years ago when he was entering New York harbour he saw a vessel engaged in raising mud from the harbour basin, and he was informed that it was engaged in useless work, because the mud it raised was deposited in other parts of the harbour, and that the whole business had been started by the Corporation of New York in order to enable them to pay high wages to a certain class of workpeople for the purpose of obtaining votes. A public Committee in New York had reported that the corruption that prevailed among the Corporation was "appalling." What was the source of all that corruption? It arose to no small extent out of the system of taxation which it was now sought to introduce here. The object of that system was to make capital pay for everything. In
  420
  saying what he had done he did not desire in any way to make accusations of corruption against our existing Corporations. On the contrary, he believed those Bodies at the present time to be singularly free from the slightest taint of it; but he protested against the adoption of a system which he believed would bring corruption about in the course of time. He was not a landowner in London, but, on the contrary, he was one of the aggrieved leaseholders, and he had suffered pecuniary loss in consequence of having renewed a long lease of certain property at a largely enhanced rent, and having had to pay rates which had been more than doubled since the renewal of the lease. The fact was that he had been called upon—as the cant phrase goes—to pay increased rents and rates "upon his own improvements." As a general rule the rates were really borne by the landlords, who got less rent for their property in places where the rates were high than they did where their property was situated in low-rated districts. That was to say, there was no real grievance at all in the matter; but people could not be taught to believe in anything they could not sec with their two eyes, however true the principle that the landlord really paid rates because he received less rent than he otherwise would. He, therefore, preferred the Scotch principle of the rates being equally divided between the landlord and the tenant. That was so equitable that people were reconciled to the incidence of the taxation. It was impossible to look at this Bill without seeing that important principles of taxation and municipal government were involved in the 41st clause. That clause, therefore, ought not to be proposed as part of a Private Bill. If it was thought desirable to pass such a provision, let it be introduced in a more general Code, such as the Municipal Corporations Act.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Earl of ROSEBERY): My Lords, I only want to interpose with one remark after what the noble Duke has said. Unfortunately, I had not the opportunity of being present during the whole of the discussion; but I came in in time to hear a long diatribe from the noble Duke on municipal corruption in America. I have sometimes a difficulty in adapting the noble Duke's speeches to the subjects which

  421
  they are supposed to illustrate, and I confess I never had more difficulty in that respect that when endeavouring to see the connection between the philippic delivered by the noble Duke against corruption in America and the subject before the House. The noble Duke stated that municipal corruption in America was due principally to one cause, and he went on to point out that American assessments are made on capital values, and that the assessors appointed by the Municipalities are able to make assessments at their own sweet will. I confess if that wore the case here the noble Duke would have some ground for saying that the measure proposed by the London County Council was likely to give rise to those municipal evils. But where does he find that provision within the four corners of this Bill? And why does he come down to your Lordships' House and denounce the London County Council in the language he has used, a Body of which he knows little or nothing, and of which I happen to know a great deal, upon a matter with which his denunciation has no more to do than it has with the major and minor prophets? The provision made in this Bill, that, if after public improvement has been made, if in the opinion of the Local Authority it does conduce to an improvement, or an increase in the value of property, the London County Council may then apply to the Local Government Board to have that improvement or increased value assessed. The Local Government Board thereupon, and not the County Council, will appoint an arbitrator, and the arbitrator will then assess the increase in value from that public improvement, and of that value the County Council will deal not of the whole, but of half. Therefore, every possible precaution against the jobbery which the noble Duke denounces has been taken in the Bill now before Lordships' House.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, I desire to say but a few words in explanation. The noble Earl has mistaken my argument. What I meant to say, and believe did say, was that the London County Council will, under this Bill, have very large powers of assessing values, but that they may enter into a corrupt bargain with the Executive Government of the day. What I have endeavoured to point out is that we have
  422
  to guard not only against corruption on the part of Municipalities, but against the possibility of it on the part of the Government—the Executive Government of the day.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My answer to that is that the noble Duke's pessimism appears to go very far. He seems to be troubled by the old question, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Before we can believe that the Government would be corrupt as well as the London County Council, we must become as great pessimists as the noble Duke himself. Then the noble Duke said that hitherto we have been absolutely free from political or municipal corruption in this country. Does he remember the opposition to Sir W. Harcourt's Bill? Does he remember an illicit expenditure of £12,000? Does he remember the employment of that large sum under the rose to promote agitation against that Bill, and to break up meetings in favour of it? Does the noble Duke remember these facts of a few years ago? If he is not aware of that episode I should advise him to scrutinise our municipal history in recent times a little more closely before he ventures to state absolutely that our Municipalities are absolutely free from corruption.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH,who had on the Taper a Notice on the Motion for the Second Reading, to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, he was prepared so far to make concession to the noble Lord who had moved the Second Reading that he would not move the rejection of the Bill, but would content himself with supporting the Earl of Onslow's Resolution. As America had been referred to in the course of the Debate he might be permitted to make a comparison between the treatment and the betterment question there, and the way in which it was dealt with in the 41st clause of this measure. Taking the case of New York, which was more like London than any other city, every step in betterment proceedings was under the control of a Judicial Authority. That would not be the case here. For seven years by this Bill would the London County Council be able to keep an unknown betterment charge hanging over property. Who would buy property in such circumstances? It would be impossible for an owner to sell it if he wished to. Another injustice was that

  423
  even if the principle could be practically carried out the charge for betterment was to remain on the property for ever. Surely it ought to cease when the capital spent upon the improvements and the interest upon that capital had been paid off, and after the locality had received the whole benefit of the improvements. It was unnecessary to prolong the discussion, and he could only offer his noble Friend (the Earl of Onslow) his hearty support.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): My Lords, I should not like this matter to go to a Division without expressing my opinion. The noble Duke's speech surprised me because having begun by saying he would keep closely to the point, I hope he will not be offended at my saying that I never in my life heard a speech which so barely touched the question. I must forgive my noble Friend, to some extent, because the principle of betterment has been otherwise largely discussed; but this Motion is upon a particular point—namely, that this question ought not to be dealt with by a Private Bill. That is quite an intelligible point, and it has nothing to do with the subject of corruption of Municipalities and all the rest of it, here or in America, that I can possibly see. Upon the I question immediately before the House, no doubt at first sight the suggestion that the subject of betterment should be dealt with in a general Public Bill is rather attractive. I believe, however, that that plan would really be found to be beset with difficulties. It would be a rash thing to pass a general Act before we have any experience as to the working of this principle in a particular case. The question whether a principle should be applied must always depend largely upon the circumstances of the particular case to which it is proposed to apply it. I say at once I agree with the noble Earl that the principle of betterment I believe to be sound in itself; and the reason I say it is this: I think it must occur to any person, as a mere matter of justice and fairness to all, that if a large amount of public money is spent in a town, by which the value of property is increased, the persons so benefited by the expenditure of public money should, if it be possible to devise a fair mode of doing it, contribute over and above the
  424
  sum paid by the rest of the ratepayers in proportion to that improvement. It seems to me, when boldly stated in plain words, that the principle cannot be controverted. The real difficulty is how to apply the principle. No doubt there are serious difficulties in that, but here is a practical proposal made by the London County Council. The noble Duke opposite spoke of arbitrary powers. I do not know what my noble Friend meant. Surely arbitrary powers mean powers exercised without the control of the law. Can any such powers be found within the four corners of this Bill, which most accurately defines what those powers are to be? Then I was astonished to hear that exception was taken to the appointment of an arbitrator. It seems to me to be thought that we have arrived at a point in this country when a Public Department cannot be intrusted with the appointment of an arbitrator; but there are hundreds of cases in which arbitrators are appointed by the Board of Trade, under Acts of Parliament, for the purpose of dealing with a variety of matters affecting private interests. Is it to be believed that, because the County Council has to deal with this matter, it will exercise a sort of influence upon the Local Government Board and induce that Body to appoint an arbitrator who will act in concert with the County Council to rob the owners of property? A more extravagant notion I have never heard; and when such an argument is used, I think there must be a very bad case against the Bill. This question has nothing whatever to do with the position of ground landlords, or the question of the raising of the rent by the landlord at the close of a long lease. No doubt those are important questions, but the proposal of the Bill has nothing whatever to do with them, and such subjects can only be introduced in order to create prejudice against the Bill.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLpointed out that both those points were specially put forward in the paper which had been circulated by the London County Council in support of the Bill.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am not the author of the paper, nor have I even read it with the attention it no doubt deserves. I think, myself, the wisest course would be to allow the Bill to go to a Committee, as is usual in matters of this kind, and there it will be

  425
  seen whether there is anything in the scheme which is undesirable.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWonly desired that the Bill should go to the Committee with the Resolution of the House impressed upon it.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I cannot think that there is in this proposal, important as it is in principle, such a danger as will induce the House to reject it altogether. I would suggest to the House that they should not pass an unmeaning Resolution. If it is to amount to an Instruction to the Committee not to pass the Betterment Clause, I would only remind the noble Earl that it is in the teeth of his own argument, for he said he was not against the principle of betterment, speaking generally, but that he thought there was danger in this particular proposal. Surely the natural conclusion when you have assented to the principle that you should send a particular proposal for its application to be considered by the Private Bill Committee so that you may see whether there is anything in the proposal of a nature to induce you not to pass the Bill is to refrain from restricting the labours of the Committee. The noble Lord (Lord Hobhouse) has told you that it is not of the essence of the proposal that this particular mode of valuation should be adopted, and if the Committee are of opinion that that mode of valuation is open to objection, undoubtedly it is within their powers to deal with it. All I contend is that there is not in the proposal such a danger as should induce this House to reject it as a principle. The controversy lies in and turns upon whether we are going to admit this principle of betterment, or peremptorily to say that it should be rejected. The noble Earl has himself said that the principle should be admitted, and I think your Lordships will be prepared to send it to the Committee to see whether this particular application of it is wise and judicious.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)said, he understood the principle of betterment to be this: that the owners of property which was benefited by the expenditure of public money should to some extent contribute to the improvement. That was a principle he could not cavil at; but the question before the House was an important one, because, if they admitted the principle in this particular
  426
  case, it would extend very largely, not merely in London, but elsewhere. As to its being carried out by public or private legislation, he had given the subject the best consideration he could, and he confessed it was not an easy one. He was inclined to agree that it would be extremely difficult by a Public Act to lay down principles that would apply to every variety of case that could occur not only in London, but elsewhere. He was not at all sure that it would be desirable or safe to lay down general principles which would be at once adopted without any experience being obtained. On those grounds, and on the ground that the application of the principle in this case depended entirely on local circumstances, he thought it was a subject that might legitimately and rightly be left to private legislation. They would then have the advantage of the application of the principle to individual cases, and by the growth of experience they would gradually get such an amount of knowledge as to be able to lay down principles for universal application. Still, in adopting for the first time a new and important and far-reaching change in local taxation, it was desirable that some general principles should be laid down for the guidance of the Committee. How that was to be done it was for Parliament to consider. This Bill had been very much cut down since its introduction, and the amount of betterment contemplated was very minute. Therefore, the case was one of small importance, except that by adopting it the House was adopting the principle. He would have felt safer if larger and more varied interests than would be affected in this case would be fairly represented before a Committee, for in a small matter like this he was afraid the Committee would hardly have an opportunity of hearing the very important and intricate points which the proposal must inevitably involve. Therefore, he thought that a decision on the adoption of this principle should not be taken except upon a larger question than that before the House. He hoped there would be no question of rejecting the Bill, and he, for one, would be sorry to thwart so important a Body as the London County Council; but he must repeat that, in his opinion, the adoption of this principle should only be resolved upon after careful consideration in their Lordships' House.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, as the noble Earl has stated, the question which will be determined upon this Motion is the view of your Lordships and the attitude of this House on the adoption of the betterment principle.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Marquess may say "no," but that is what is at the bottom of this Resolution. That is really what it amounts to. Those who are in favour of the principle of betterment will no doubt vote against the proposal of the noble Earl, and those who vote in favour of that proposal will be understood to be in favour of the principle of betterment. It was not a question of the difference between a Private and a Public Bill. The noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, with the experience he has, says the matter is better to be dealt with by a Private than by a Public Bill, though what the sum total of his advice was I was not able to discover. The principle of betterment has been dealt with before, and has been three times adopted by the House of Commons. It was adopted in the House of Commons in the last Parliament, when those who are now opposed to the present Government were in a majority. The matter was discussed and fought out on the question of Public or Private Bill. The Bill was read a second time, but the particular scheme was rejected, and the scheme of the London County Council was adopted in the last Parliament. The principle was again amply discussed in the present Parliament, and the House of Commons declared by a largo majority in favour of the principle of betterment as embodied in this Bill. Your Lordships are now asked to pronounce a decision which would put an end to the provisions adopted by the House of Commons, and that decision, I am quite sure, whatever may be said, would be understood as a pronouncement against the principle of betterment. I believe that the principle is thoroughly sound; that it may be safely dealt with in a Private Bill, and that the notion that it will lead to widespread corruption is a mere nightmare; and I shall certainly, with the greatest satisfaction, give my vote against the Motion of the noble Earl.
  On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents 55; Not-Contents 36.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Hobhouse.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

REDEMPTION OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT (1891) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 193.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN,in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, explained that by a recent decision of the Court of Appeal the Act of 1891, as regarded the relation between occupier and owner, did not apply to fee-farm grants made prior to 1860; and said that the Bill had been brought in to carry out what he believed was the intention of Parliament by extending the Act to these cases.
  Moved, "That the Bill be nowread 2a"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD ACTONsaid, the Government had not opposed the Bill in the other House, and he would not, on their behalf, put any obstacle in the way of the noble Earl; but considerable objections were taken to certain of its provisions, and he asked that the Committee stage should be postponed until the noble Earl had consulted those engaged in the administration of the Land Laws.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked what length of time would be required and whom it would be necessary to consult, as the matter was important at this period of the Session?
  LORD ACTONsaid, on the question of time he could give no opinion, and on the question of persons he would communicate with the noble Earl.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he accepted the noble Lord's suggestion.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

THE NATIONAL FLAG ON THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MEATHinquired of the Lord Great Chamberlain if he would ask the Queen to order the National Flag to be flown at the Palace of Westminster

  429
  when the Royal Standard was not used? He said, it might be urged that this was a matter of little importance; that it made no difference whether a piece of coloured hunting was flown or not from the summit of Her Majesty's Palace at Westminster; but, in the past, sentiment had exercised great influence over the affairs of men, and would probably exercise just as much in the future. It was difficult to exaggerate the amount of sentiment which clung around the folds of the Union Jack. It represented to us the union of the flags of St. George of England, St. Andrew of Scotland, and St. Patrick of Ireland. It represented the majesty and power of the Empire, and recalled heroic deeds performed in defence of Sovereign, country, and national honour. It was the emblem of liberty, freedom, and justice. Wherever the Union Jack flew, oppression, tyranny, and violence would meet with their due punishment, and the oppressed of the earth might feel sure they would always find a refuge beneath its folds. Men had laid down their lives for our National Flag, and men would be found ready to do so again. The Flag was to be found floating over every fortress within the British Empire, over every man-of-war, merchantman, and passenger steamer registered as a British vessel; it was to be seen flying from the Round Tower at Windsor; but, curiously enough, they never saw it on the Victoria Tower of the Houses of Parliament. The reason of this anomaly was stated to be that Windsor Castle was a fortress, while that was simply a palace; but it was the building in which the great Council of the nation met, and surely the Union Jack ought to be hoisted over the edifice where were framed the laws which governed the Empire. As far as his experience went, there was no other nation but the British which did not hoist their Flag over the National House of Parliament. Her Majesty's Government proposed to establish by law a subordinate Parliament in Ireland, and there was a desire to establish similar Local Bodies in different parts of the Kingdom. If such ideas were to take practical form, there ought surely to be some material emblem of the unity of the Empire and of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, and no emblem could be fitter than the Union Jack, which represented the
  430
  three great divisions of that United Empire. No political Party could possibly take exception to the hoisting of the Union Jack on the Victoria Tower, as all Parties, including the Irish Parties, had distinctly and loudly expressed their loyalty to the principle of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament at Westminster. Interpellations had already been made on the subject in the other House of Parliament, and he felt confident that if any general opinion were expressed in favour of his proposal by both Houses of Parliament, Her Majesty, who had ever shown herself solicitous to carry out the wishes and desires of her I people and of Parliament, would not withhold her consent, but would gladly do what she could to accede to any request in the matter conveyed in a proper manner through the regular channels.
  THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I shall be very happy to comply with the request made by the noble Earl.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (FISHING BOATS) ACTS (1883 and 1887) AMENDMENT BILL.
Reported from the Standing Committee without amendment; and to be read 3a on Tuesday next.
ISOLATION HOSPITALS BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments: the Report thereof to be received on Friday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 218.)
CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND) (No. 3) BILL.—(No. 202.)
Reported from the Standing Committee without amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 15) BILL.—(No. 164.)
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
SALMON FISHERY PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL—(No. 189.)
Amendment reported (according to Order); and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 3) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (BLIND AND DEAF CHILDREN) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next.—(The Lord President [E. Kimberley]).—(No. 219.)

IRISH EDUCATION ACT, 1892, AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Friday next.—(The Lord Acton.)—(No. 220.)
House adjourned at ten minutes before Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.