Sitting of 5 April 1894

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  EAST LONDON WATER BILL (by Order.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Dr. Farquharson.)
    MR. J. STUARTsaid, he proposed to move as an Amendment that the Bill he read a second time that day six months. He would do it as briefly as he could. This Bill was identically the same as was rejected by the House on the Second Reading 12 months ago, and the reasons for its rejection on that occasion by a substantial majority were twofold: First, that it was unnecessary and not urgent; and, secondly, that it tended to prejudge the question of the future water supply of London. On the present occasion these arguments applied with intensified force, because the Royal Commission which had sat on the London Water Supply question had reported—and in their Report would be found abundant proof—that this Water Company had not only an adequate supply of water for the present and for many years to come, but was actually able to supply its present needs subject to the conditions which were proposed to be imposed upon it by the Royal Commission. It would be for him to make these statements good, and he was able to do so by referring to the evidence as well as to the Report. If the House passed this Bill the effect would be to saddle the future Water Authority of London and the neighbourhood, and that meant practically the ratepayers, with a very large amount of
    1382
    capital which really was not required, as he would be able to show to the House, in the event of the water supply of London in the future being taken not from the Lea and from the Thames, but from outside sources. This was a very serious question. Already a very considerable amount of capital had been expended on the development of the water supply from the Lea and the Thames. The London County Council, in opposing this Bill, was not seeking to decide against the supply being taken from those sources, for he would remind the House that the Royal Commission had stated that, under certain circumstances with respect to storage and purification, the Thames and the Lea together were sufficient to provide a sufficient water supply for any probable extension of population. That might be so or not, but it was simply a, contribution to the main question which would have to be settled before they could come to a, decision as to in what form the London water supply was in the future to be secured. The Royal Commission was called upon to decide first whether the areas of the Thames and Lea. Valleys were sufficient, and it was only in event of their coming to the conclusion that they were insufficient that they were to go into the question of other sources of supply. But, as a matter of fact, they came to the conclusion that the areas would be sufficient for all practical purposes. Although the London County Council did not, by opposing this Bill at the present moment, seek to prejudge the question, he felt that that body would fall exceedingly far short in its duty if it allowed any steps to be taken which would ignore the natural desire of the people of London to have outside sources of supply. The interests of the London County Council, and of Loudon generally, were as a matter of fact identical with the interests of the inhabitants of Essex, Middlesex, and neighbouring counties. When this Bill was before the House on a previous occasion a member of the Essex County Council, the member who in this House represented North Somerset, spoke very strongly in regard to the matter. What was the position as it then stood? There was no doubt a clause in the Bill as originally brought in respecting the fittings of the Water Company, but the clause had been withdrawn by the Com-

    1383
    pany. They indicated their intention to withdraw it before the Bill came on for discussion on the Second Reading. The London County Council were not taking this step in their own interest as against the interests of Essex or against any other county. All they desired was to oppose the granting of unnecessary capital to the Companies which the Water Authorities for various districts would have eventually, with the consent of the House, to acquire. They objected to giving them capital for undertakings which were not at this moment urgent, and which would prejudge the great question likely to arise in the immediate future. There was a point in connection with the Bill which had nothing to do with the important question of supply. He referred to the question of mains, and he would state at once to hon. Gentlemen who supported the Bill that if they desired to have new mains laid down in order to supply their districts, and if they could show before a Committee of this House that it was desirable to have those mains, then if the Bill were, as he hoped it would be, thrown out, and if those who represented the East London Company chose to introduce a Bill dealing with the question of mains they would find no opposition raised, and on the contrary every assistance afforded them in the direction of the suspension of Standing Orders, so that they might carry that particular portion of their scheme to a Committee. But the amount of additional capital proposed to be raised under this Bill was £500,000, of which only about £20,000 annually for seven years was asked for for mains and similar purposes. He proposed now to deal with the argument contained in the statement sent out by the promoters of the Bill. The first thing to which he had to draw attention was the statement in Clause 5, that unless they obtained the powers they were now seeking the new districts which were being developed would, for an indefinite period, run a serious risk in sanitary matters by reason of the insufficiency of the water supply. That he ventured to flatly deny, and he hoped he would be able to prove to the House that this was a misapprehension of the existing state of things. He asserted that not only had the East London Company water enough to supply all their mains, but that it had
    1384
    been proved by their own witnesses before the Royal Commission that the supply was ample. The promoters asserted that if these new populations which were growing up were to be supplied with wholesome water, new mains and pipes would have to be at once laid down in the new districts, large reservoirs would have to be established, and the necessary machinery fixed. He repeated, as to new mains and pipes, that was a very small matter indeed, and again he offered if hon. Gentlemen opposite would withdraw the rest of the Bill, he, on the part of the London County Council, would offer no objection to that portion of the scheme receiving legislative sanction, providing, of course, that the investigation of a Committee of the House proved the existence of the necessity for these extensions. But the Bill generally involved a very important question—namely, the water supply of London for the next 40 years, and this was a matter which he ventured to suggest was tit to be decided not by a Committee of the House, but by the House itself. What he hoped he would be able to show hon. Members was that the question of the sufficiency of the sources of supply from the Lea and the Thames was not one of which it was necessary to come to any decision at the present time. According to the evidence given by the promoters of the Bill before the Royal Commission, the East London Company were at present supplying an average of 40,000,000 gallons daily, and the engineer to the Company stated that whereas that was, at the time he was giving his evidence, the present requirement of the Company, five years hence it would be necessary to supply 42,000,000 gallons daily, and 10 years hence—namely, in 1901, the quantity required would be 44,000,000 gallons. Thus in 10 years there would be an increase of 10 per cent. in the requirements of the Company. These statements by the engineer were subjected to a close examination, as would be found on reference to the evidence. Now, he ventured to suggest, there was nothing alarming in the growth which the officials of the Company estimated would have to be provided for. The Company at present supplied 40,000,000 gallons daily; 10 years hence they would be required to supply 44,000,000. But what was the

    1385
    amount of water the Company was able, if necessary, to supply? In the first place, they admitted that they had supplied, and could supply, 37,000,000 gallons per day from the River Lea. They also admitted that they had consecutively for weeks supplied from the River Thames 10,000,000 gallons per day, and they further admitted in their evidence that for weeks successively on different occasions they had supplied from their own wells 7,000,000 gallons per day. These statements were contained in evidence given in 1892, and they showed that the Company had the absolute power of supplying from these different sources 54,000,000 gallons daily without finding it necessary to make any additional provision. That being so, and their sources of supply being so much in excess of what they estimated would be their daily requirements 10 years hence, he did venture to submit to the House that it was undesirable by passing this Bill to prejudge the whole question of the future supply of London, and he thought he had made it quite clear that the Bill did prejudge that question, because all the Company had to do to get what they required was to use the powers which they at present possessed of pumping from their wells and of taking water from the Thames. The Royal Commission had reported that the Company ought not to take more than 30,000,000 gallons of water daily from the Lea, and they had suggested that increased storage accommodation was desirable. The promoters stated that the storage works which the Hill proposed to authorise were being provided on the recommendation of the Royal Commission and were immediately necessary; but that was not a fair statement of the case; and if the Company would take its full supply from the Thames and the wells, which amounted to 17,000,000 gallons, they need not abstract more than 27,000,000 gallons from the Lea, and even then they would have an absolutely sufficient supply for the next 10 years. Besides the water capacity they had, they had the power of inter-sale between the various Companies that existed, and they could increase the quantity of water they could get from the Thames to an almost indefinite extent by the exercise of that power. There was accessible to the East Loudon Water Company an
    1386
    amount of 10,000,000 gallons more than their immediate requirements without any extra capital being laid out, and it might proceed to supply all its needs for the next 10 years, and yet diminish very considerably its supply from the Lea. Again, it was quite obvious that greater storage capacity was not required by the Company. Its storage was the largest, with one exception, of any Company in London. It had storage capacity for 910,000,000 gallons, equal to 14 or 15 days' supply, whereas the average storage was something like six days' supply. There was only one other point he wished to put to the House respecting Clause 3, and it related to machinery. It might be said that the Company required further machinery, but the evidence given before the Royal Commission showed very clearly that they had abundant engine supplies. In the Report of the Royal Commission, in Questions 660 and 661, there was a statement of the enormous amount of machinery possessed by the Company for pumping purposes, and it appeared that they had more than 50per cent. of stand-by or surplus power in all of their different districts. The Chairman of the Commission asked—
    "We may take it that your present machinery is modern high-class machinery doing good duty?"
    To which the reply was—
    "Splendid duty. All our new engines are triple expansion engines."
    So much for the points in respect of the third clause of the statement of the promoters. He would turn to one other point. It was stated in the evidence before the Commission itself that the reservoirs proposed in this Bill were not to provide water for what was needed now, but for very distant and future requirements. The engineer and secretary to the Company had laid before the Royal Commission a statement as to what the Company could supply, and how it could meet all present and prospective needs. They were summoned back to deal with the point of additional provisional supply, because the Commission felt it would still investigate how the additional supply could be provided and that, additional supply was what was referred to in this

    1387
    Bill. Here was what passed on this subject before the Royal Commission—
    "The Chairman: You have already taken, I think, about 37,000,000 gallons daily from the Lea?—Yes.
    "Then do you think if you raise the racecourse reservoir and make the two projected reservoirs"
    —that was what was proposed to be done by this Bill—
    "you can get 40,000,000 gallons a day without making the new compensation reservoirs?—Speaking from my experience at the present time we can do so."
    It would be seen, therefore, that the provision of these reservoirs which were proposed in this Bill was to make arrangements for the supply of 40,000,000 gallons in place of 30,000,000, but he had shown that by even a much less amount than 30,000,000 gallons daily taken from the River Lea—although they were taking much more than that—the East London Company could supply all that was required. It was necessary for those who opposed the Bill to show how very dangerous and doubtful were the sources of supply from which the East London Water Company proposed to take this extra quantity, because if it was no matter where the supply came from, they might as well let them take it from there as elsewhere. The Royal Commission reported as follows about the supplies from the Thames and the Lea, which were proposed to be taken for the next 40 years by the Company:—
    "Having regard to the experience of London during the last 30 years and to the evidence given on the subject, we do not believe that any danger exists of the spread of disease by the use of this water provided there is no adequate storage, and that the water is sufficiently filtered before being delivered to consumers."
    It was exactly that adequate storage and the additional filterage which required the expenditure of very large sums of money. But what did the Royal Commissioners themselves say on the subject? Mr. Mansergh himself, one of the Royal Commissioners, was examined before a Royal Commission of this House on behalf of the Birmingham Corporation, and on that occasion he said that any river flowing through an enormous tract of agricultural country must produce water which nowadays they would not think of supplying. He knew (said Mr. Mansergh) that many districts would
    1388
    not have water from such a source; and he knew of places which had had to abandon costly works simply because of the water procurable from such a source being gradually polluted, and they did not want to repeat that in Birmingham. It was because they did not want to repeat that in London, and at any rate because they did not want to be forced into repeating it unnecessarily, that he raised opposition to the Bill at the present moment, and the House would see that there were many considerations about the supply from the Lea and the Thames. The Commission did not investigate any other supplies; they did not bring out what would be the relative expenses of supplying London from these and from external sources. They who opposed this Bill believed the Company would supply inferior water from the Thames and the Lea at a much greater cost than would be entailed by bringing water from external districts. They had also the important question of the impurity of the water from an agricultural district to take into account, and, on these grounds, they opposed the Bill being read a second time, because, as he had shown, it unnecessarily endeavoured to prejudge the question. The Loudon County Council was perfectly willing to make overtures for itself becoming the Water Authority. It had got these powers under the Act of 1892; it was willing to take this responsibility itself, and it had offered by resolution passed some time ago to treat with the Water Companies for taking over their undertakings on fair and reasonable terms. It had applied to this very Company, and to the other Company which had a Bill down, and they had refused to negotiate with the Council. ["No, no!"] Well, they did not accept the basis of negotiations which the County Council proposed, but they made no counter proposal. The County Council had passed a further resolution to the effect that, if the Company would not come to terms, the Council ought to move this House to determine the question. He might appeal confidently to Members on both sides of the House who represented great Municipalities to say that it was a fair and right thing for the County Council to endeavour to acquire these various Companies; but they did not want to acquire them with a dead limb of capital attached to them at this

    1389
    moment, when it was unnecessary, and which prejudged the question of whether they were going to get their supply through them or through other sources. Even if the County Council did not become the Water Authority, the body which did become such authority ought to be able to decide where the future supplies ought to come from; and even if it came from the valley of the Thames and Lea, it did not at all stand to reason that the first step in the undertaking should be more capital expended on a reservoir for the Lea when they considered the circumstances of the Thames. He contended that this Bill was absolutely unnecessary from the point of the supply of the quantity or quality of water, because it had been shown before the Royal Commission that there was ability in this Company to get vastly more than it required for the next 10 years from sources which the Royal Commission approved of, and which needed no further expenditure for works. The expenditure proposed by this Bill on reservoirs, filters, and pumping, was an expenditure for a far distant period, which should be incurred only if they required to get a supply for 40 years, or for a very long period of time, from the Lea. The other districts of London, Essex, and the borders of the London County Council district, were equally interested with the London County Council in securing that there should not be this dead limit of capital attached. This was a matter of vital importance to the health of the people of London and the surrounding neighbourhoods, and he asked this House to defend them against such a prejudging of this question as would take place if the present Bill be sent up to a Committee at the present time. If the Bill were thrown out—as he hoped it might be—he and his friends had no objection to its being brought up again so far as it related to the provision of mains, but they could not allow the Bill to prejudge the all-important question of where the London water supplies were to come from. He begged to move "That the Bill be read a second time upon this day six mouths."
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. J. Stuart.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. BOULNOISdid not propose to follow the hon. Member for Hoxton in the details which he had presented to the House upon this Bill, and indeed he looked upon the hon. Gentleman positively as an advocate for reading the Bill a second time and sending it to a Committee, because it was clearly evident to the House that it was quite impossible they could master the details which the hon. Member had put before them, and which were essentially matters for the ordinary Committee of this House to deal with. There were one or two principles involved in this question which he must shortly place before the House. Of course, it was quite impossible upon this occasion to dissociate the two Companies whose Hills were before the House to-day, because the statement issued by the London County Council not only classed these two Bills together, but went so far as to include a third, which was not even down for Second Heading. The position of those Water Companies applying now to Parliament for further capital and an extension of powers was shortly this: They had come to the end of their tether as far as money was concerned, and if they were to fulfil their statutory obligations to supply water they must have more money, because to supply the water they must have more reservoirs and more filtering power. Last year this Company applied to Parliament for further powers, the Bill being thrown out on the Second Beading, and the main reason then given by the hon. Member for Hoxton, who led the attack, was that there was a Royal Commission sitting, and it was quite premature for the Water Company to ask for further powers until such Commission had reported. That argument could no longer be urged. The Royal Commission had reported favourably as far as the Loudon water was concerned, and it was, indeed, entirely in consequence of the Report of the Royal Commission that those Water Companies sought further powers. The House would permit him to read one paragraph from the Report of the Royal Commission, which was perhaps the most important in the whole Report.

    1391
    The Commissioners stated they were strongly of opinion that the water as supplied to the consumer in London was of a very high standard of excellence and purity, and that it was suitable in quality for all household purposes. The Commissioners further stated that they were aware that a certain prejudice existed against drinking water supplied from the Thames and the Lea, but they did not believe that there was any danger of the spread of disease from the use of such water, provided there was adequate storage for it, and that the water was efficiently filtered before it was delivered to the consumers. It was because of the desire to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission, to provide adequate reservoirs and means to filter the water properly, that the Companies now came for further powers. The Water Companies in the last four or five years had been applied to from time to time by the Local Government Board with reference particularly to storage. He held in his hand a letter from the Local Government Board to one of the Water Companies, written at the close of the year 1891, which said—
    "I am directed by the Local Government Board to draw the attention of the Company to Dr. Frankland's Report for October, from which it appears evident that the Company are unable to deal satisfactorily with the water when the Thames is in flood, and I am to state that the Metropolitan Water Examiner reports to them that it is now necessary that the Company should consider the question of making such sufficient addition to their works as will enable them to supply water of better quality than is now done when the circumstances are as above stated."
    To that the Company promptly replied, pointing out, in reference to the state of the water when the Thames was in flood, that it was due at that time to the exceptionally heavy rains which had been of long duration, and they went on to say—
    "The Directors are fully alive to the importance of ample storage, and the desirability of increasing the present reservoir capacity would have been considered before this had it not been for the manner in which the Companies had been hampered by recent proceedings in Parliament. They are, however, quite prepared to entertain the question and to seek powers from the Legislature to raise fresh capital for the purpose, and I am instructed to ask if, on such an application being made, the Directors may hope that it will receive the support of the Local Government Board."
    1392
    So much for the Local Government Board and its application to the Water Companies to increase their storage and filter power. What happened at the London County Council in consequence of the Report of the Royal Commission? The subject had been very fully considered by the Water Committee of the London County Council. It was all very well for the Member for Hoxton to say that they wanted more time, but they had already considered and reported on the question very fully. He had with him extracts from the most important Reports which had been made to the London County Council. The first was the statement made by the Chairman of the Water Committee, Mr. Bassett Hopkins, an able gentleman who had taken a great interest in the question, and this was what he said—
    "The paramount necessity of acceding to any well-grounded demand for augmented supply may make such a demand irresistible, and in this case the policy of the Council is, while not opposing the demand (within the strict limits of what is required), to prevent its being accompanied by the inconvenience just referred to."
    Then there was a short paragraph from the Report of Mr. Binnie, the chief engineer to the Loudon County Council, who was himself a very eminent water engineer, and who clearly was not in favour of the supply of London being drawn from the Thames. Mr. Binnie said—
    "Mere opposition"—
    and that was what they had to-day—
    "Mere opposition to the applications of the Companies by the Council must be followed by certain and ignominious defeat, for the whole drift of the evidence placed before the Royal Commissioners by the witnesses for the Council went to show that London requires more water and extended works; and if the Companies are to continue to perform the duties imposed upon them further powers of some kind must be conferred."
    These were strong words, and if the Water Company were to base their ease on no other they would be justified in coming to Parliament. Mr. Cripps, the able Parliamentary agent of the London County Council, said—
    "… It would have been difficult to resist the contention of the Water Companies, those being the statutory bodies authorised to supply water in London; they ought to be furnished with ample capital powers to meet not only the present, but the prospective, demands upon them. The inquiry before the Royal Com-

    1393
    mission has now elicited and afforded to the Council probably all the best information available upon this subject. When, therefore, the Council opposes, as I think they should oppose, the large increase of capital, and possibly the new works proposed under the present Bills, it is. I think, obvious that the absence of any definite conclusion as to general policy may render it less easy to justify withholding' from the Companies the powers which they are now seeking."
    He had quoted these Reports of the officials of the London County Council in order to show that the Council had come to Parliament to oppose these Bills with their eyes wide open and practically against the advice of those responsible to them for giving advice. The London County Council claimed to act for the County of London, and he did not deny them the right to do so, but he did not think they had any mandate to take any part, for those outside the County of London—either in the Counties of Essex or Middlesex, both of which counties were touched by these Bills. The West Middlesex Water Company had 27 square miles of mains, 9½ of which only were in the County of London and 17½ outside, and yet the Loudon County Council came down and said not only that the people of London, but the unfortunate people outside the area of London, were to go without water, because that was what it would come to if this Bill were rejected. The London County Council themselves admitted that it would take from 15 to 20 years before they could mature a scheme for what they considered an adequate and proper supply of water for London, and he did not know what might happen in the meantime if the Loudon County Council, year after year, came down to oppose those who, by Act of Parliament, were now the Water Authorities of London—especially if they had such a summer as they had last year—because these works, though authorised by Parliament, could not be undertaken immediately, and could not be carried to fruition without a considerable lapse of time. The hon. Member for Hoxton referred to the fact that the London County Council were in treaty with the Water Companies. It was true that the London County Council made application to the Water Companies to know whether they would come to terms, but they attached such impossible conditions and terms to their application that it was quite im-
    1394
    possible that the Water Companies could accede to them. In the statement of the London County Council which had been circulated the bold assertion was made that the London County Council applied to the Water Companies to sell their undertaking to the County Council on fair and reasonable terms, but that the Companies had combined together and declined to negotiate. So far as these two Companies before the House were concerned, that statement was absolutely untrue. The Companies had not declined to negotiate, but they had said very properly, as any Water Company directors would do who acted in the interests of their shareholders, that they had a fine property which they did not wish to sell, but that if any proposition were put before them it should receive their best consideration. No proposition of any sort or kind had ever been put before the Water Companies by the London County Council. Until the County Council put their proposal in a definite shape and gave some figures which the Water Companies could deal with it, was not likely they would come to terms with the Water Companies, and it was extremely unfair to say they had offered to negotiate, and that the Companies had declined negotiation. He would point out that in these applications which were made for further capital and extended powers the shareholders would derive no benefit whatever. There was only one more point which, though a small one, should not be entirely lost sight of, and that was, that the London County Council were adopting what, he might term a selfish and dog-in-the-manger policy in this matter. They themselves would do nothing, and they asked Parliament to prevent the Water Companies doing anything, which was very much on all-fours with their improvement schemes. The County Council then came to Parliament and said they would do nothing in the way of improvements unless they gave them "betterment," and now they said to the Water Companies they would prevent such Companies getting any further powers unless they were willing to sell their undertakings to the Council practically at the price of old iron. That was a selfish policy which, he was sure, would not commend itself to this House. It must be re-

    1395
    collected that this money which it was proposed to expend would give employment to thousands of working-men of the labouring class during the winter months when employment was difficult to get. He maintained that these Bills ought to go to a Select Committee in the ordinary way, so that the details could be threshed out. The London County Council would have a full opportunity of putting their case be-fore the Committee, and they could ask the Committee to deal with all the questions which had been raised by the hon. Member for Hoxton as to whether the expenditure should be confined to mains, reservoirs, or filter beds, or whether less money should be given to these Companies. It was quite impossible for this House—especially with so much business before it—to enter into details of this kind. Even if the Select Committee upstairs passed this Bill as it was, or with amendment, the London County Council were even then not estopped from coming and asking the House to reject the Bill on the Third Reading. He threw aside altogether the suggestion dropped at the last moment by the hon. Member for Hoxton, that if the Water Companies would bow down to the London County Council and take out the essential part of the Bill and confine their application to mains for new districts, then the Council would not oppose them. He would remind the hon. Member and the House that mains alone were not of any use to a Water Company. They could not turn the water straight from the Thames or the Lea into these mains, and then distribute it to consumers. They must manufacture the water, store it for a reasonable period before use, and then filter it before it passed to the mains for distribution. He asked the House to adopt the usual course of sending these Bills to a Committee upstairs, which was the only tribunal recognised by this House as capable of dealing with such questions.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAW-LEFEVRE,): It will, perhaps, be to the convenience of the House if I rise somewhat early in this discussion for the purpose of stating what my opinion is as to the course the House should take in regard to the Bill before
    1396
    us. The Bill is one of three Water Bills which have been promoted by the Water Companies of London for the purpose of providing themselves with capital for the erection of very extensive works to increase the supply of water. The London County Council oppose this Bill on the ground, in the first place, that they have not yet had time fully to consider the Report of the Royal Commission of last year; that they ought to have time fully to consider that Report, with a view to determining what shall be the policy in regard to the future; and, secondly, that they will be prejudiced by the passing of this Bill in their negotiations with the Water Companies. I have carefully considered the subject at the Local Government Board, and I have come to the conclusion that there is a good deal of force in the objection of the -London County Council. This Bill is identical with the Bill which was presented last year—["No, no!"]—or almost identical. The Bill was rejected last year on the ground that the Royal Commission was then sitting, and it was not expedient to increase the powers of the Water Companies pending the Report of the Commission. The Commission, no doubt, has reported in the interval, but it only reported at the end of September last, and there was not time after that Report of the Commission was in hand for the London County-Council to come to a decision as to what should be done upon it, to frame proposals upon it and give notice to this House in the ordinary course. In these circumstances, it appears to me that the same policy ought to prevail this year as last year, and that this Bill ought not to be proceeded with at the present moment, but that further time ought to be given to the London County Council to deal with the whole subject. The fact is, that the Report of the Royal Commission has made a new position in the matter. The Royal Commission recommended, no doubt, that the Thames and Lea Valley water, with a sufficient storage and adequate provision for filtration, would be suited for many years to come for the supply of London, but they also made some further important recommendations. They recommended that a very large reservoir should be erected in the Thames Valley near to Staines. They recommended that further great

    1397
    reservoirs should be made in the Lea Valley; that further inspection powers should be given to the authorities for the purpose of securing that the water supplied by the Companies was properly filtered. A further recommendation of the Royal Commission was that there should be an inspection of all the tributaries of the Thames to secure the water from being polluted. On the other hand, the Royal Commission did not report as to the cost of these works. They did not give any indication as to what it would cost to provide reservoirs, and they did not consider any of the schemes which have been suggested as alternative to those now recommended. The schemes which are before us in the shape of the proposals of the Water Companies are not in accordance with the scheme of the Royal Commission. ["Oh!"] I believe I am fully justified in saying that. The East London Company, no doubt, proposes to make a reservoir in the Lea Valley, but the two other Companies, although they propose to add to the storage works, do not propose to add to them in the manner indicated by the Royal Commission. One would have expected that the Water Companies, after the Report of the Royal Commission, would have combined together for the purpose of propounding a scheme in exact accordance with the Report of the Royal Commission. They have not done so, but they have each come to Parliament with their separate schemes for their own works on their own lines without any joint action with regard to the long future; without making provision for these extensive reservoirs which were contemplated by the Royal Commission, without any method for increasing the extension of their water and for ensuring the purity of the water in the tributaries of the Thames. They have simply proposed to act upon the old lines of each Water Company ex-tending its own works without any joint or combined action and without any reference to the great scheme of the Royal Commission. I think, under those circumstances, it is well worthy the consideration of the House whether these Bills should be proceeded with this year. In my opinion, further time ought to be given for the consideration of the whole subject. There can be no doubt, in my opinion, that if these Bills are passed the position of the Water Companies will be
    1398
    greatly strengthened. They will be in-dependent of the County Council, and will be in a position to refuse to negotiate with them. ["How?"] Under these circumstances, I think the London County Council are justified in asking for further delay, and the only question is whether that delay will be prejudicial to the interests of the London people. That is no doubt a, very serious question, but I cannot bring myself to believe that a delay of one year will make any great difference in this respect. ["Two years!"] I have had some hesitation in coming to a conclusion on this point. But, after all, the London County Council should be the best judge in these matters. They must knew the wants of their own people, and it appears to me when a great Municipality like London comes before this House and asks for delay in coming to a conclusion upon a matter so vitally affecting their interests—when they come to this House and ask that they may have another year before a measure of this kind is passed and before further concessions are made to the London Water Companies, they are entitled to the patient and careful hearing of this House, and on the whole I am inclined to advise the House to listen to the demand in that respect of the London County Council and not allow this Bill to be further proceeded with this year. After all, it will amount only to a delay of a single year. In the interval the London County Council will be in a position to make the further inquiries which they contemplate, and for my part, while I advise this course to the House, I think it must be with this reservation: I think we ought to expect that next year the London County Council will come before Parliament with a definite scheme for dealing with this question—with a definite policy and definite scheme which will be elaborated in the interval. On the other hand, I think that the Water Companies ought on their part to take advantage of the interval for the purpose of combining together to produce a joint scheme to carry out the recommendation of the Royal Commission of last year, for the purpose of providing these increased reservoirs for the supply of water for London, and also for the purpose of carrying out all these further recommendations of the Royal Commission for the better securing the purity and im-

    1399
    proving generally the condition of the water supply of London. It is in this view, and considering that a delay of one year cannot make a serious difference in the supply of water to London, that I am of opinion that the House should follow the same course which it adopted last year, and postpone the consideration of this important and vital question for another year, and not proceed with these three Water Bills in the current year.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I should have been astonished at the course which the Government have taken upon this occasion if anything which the Government does were likely now to cause astonishment. The right hon. Gentleman says that on the whole he is prepared to recommend the House to vote against these two Bills, but there was a certain amount of timidity in the way in which he uttered the sentence, and I am not surprised at it. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to represent a London constituency of consumers of water, and I maintain that they are as much entitled to be heard as either the Water Companies or the London County Council. The right hon. Gentleman speaks as if the matter is one which affects the London County Council alone. But the Chairman of the Essex County Council is imploring the authorities to proceed with this Bill; and is Essex to be starved of water and a dangerous delay to be incurred in order that the London County Council may be given more time to elaborate a scheme for the purchase of the Water Companies? I am not thinking of the Water Companies, but rather of the consumers of water. What is the situation? What evidence does the House possess that this delay is justified? Unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared with a stronger conviction than he appears to entertain as to the propriety of rejecting this Bill he ought not to run the serious risk of delaying these operations. A year is of enormous importance when works of this kind are to be undertaken, and I protest, on behalf of the Metropolitan consumers of water, against the delay of another year in a matter of this importance. Let it be remembered that the question is not whether the Bills are to be carried or not, but whether they are to be examined or not. If the right hon. Gentle-
    1400
    man has got a case let it go to the Select Committee. Let them go to a Hybrid Committee, and let the whole matter be examined. The hon. Member for Hoxton, who represents the London County Council, gave us a good deal of detailed information. I wonder whether any one single Member of the House was able to follow the mass of details. It is eminently a question which must be examined by a Select Committee. The Select Committee would examine the question of capital; it would examine the question of whether there is to be a dead limb attached to the purchase by the County Council, as was suggested in picturesque terms by the hon. Member who opposes this Bill. But do hon. Members opposite and does the Government not trust a Committee? This might be not a Committee of Metropolitan Members, not a Committee composed of those acquainted with these matters, but representing probably what might be described as a microcosm, a miniature of the House? Is it not preposterous that a Government which makes speech after speech in favour of devolution should encourage a Debate of this kind, which consumes valuable time, because it fears to have the question relegated for inquiry to a Select Committee? The Government would have saved time if they had accepted this proposition and allowed a Select Committee to deal with the matter. Can we suspect that one of their motives is that a vote of this House will be different to what it will be on the Select Committee, and, at this moment, when we are asked that Scotchmen should be allowed to manage their own affairs, are Scotch and Irish votes to deprive the Metropolis of the power of having their water for another year? I would remind the House that the Chairman of the Select Committee last year appealed to the House that the matter should be referred to a Select Committee, and I think that, even then, neither the Government nor the majority listened to the Chairman of the Select Committee. No, it was to be referred to a Committee upstairs. If we are to be dealt with in this manner, if at the bidding of the County Council—because do not let us disguise the fact that otherwise the Government would have allowed these two Bills to go to a Committee—if this be so, may I ask

    1401
    those hon. Members for Scotland who think that Scotchmen ought to manage their own affairs to abstain from taking part in the coming Division, which is on a purely Metropolitan question? By their action we shall see the sincerity of their desire that each locality should manage its own affairs in which they have interest. I make the same appeal to the Welsh Members and to the Irish Members. Let the Metropolis decide this matter for itself, and if it is so allowed I am pretty certain how the Metropolis will decide. The Metropolis will ask for the water supply, and if it cannot get the water, at all events we wish that a Committee of this House should thoroughly inquire into the whole of this matter, and then they would be prepared to accept the verdict of such Committee. The ratepayers are interested on the one hand and the consumers of water on the other. They would have perfect confidence in the ordinary Forms of this House, and these Bills above all others are not Bills which ought to be rejected upon the Second Beading, but which should be read a second time and then referred to Committee.
    MR. J. STEWART WALLACEsaid, that his constituency considered there was no urgent need in this matter whatever, and their chief reason for so thinking was that the storage supply of this particular Company was almost double that of the average storage of other London Water Companies. Whilst the storage was almost double, the daily supply was over 20 per cent. per head higher than the average of the other Water Companies. His constituents, therefore, said there was no urgency whatever in the matter; and seeing that the Report of the Royal Commission had only been printed so recently the matter should not be pressed further, because no public interest would be endangered or imperilled by the delay. They considered that the time was most inopportune for bringing forward such a Bill, and seeing that the London County Council would probably come to Parliament and ask for powers to enable it to be the Water Authority for London, no possible increase to the charge of the ratepayers should be incurred at present. The case was not of such urgency that the Company should be empowered to raise this additional
    1402
    capital, seeing that in a comparatively short time the County Council might be seeking to purchase the property. He therefore hoped that the House would oppose the Second Beading of the Bill. He would like, in conclusion, to say a few words in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, who had gone out of his way to introduce much irrelevant matter. The right hon. Gentleman had said that if several parties in the House were sincere in their convictions, they would refrain from voting on this question: and he further declared that if the matter were left to London, there was no doubt what the voice of London would be. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman, Was not the London County Council the voice of London? and the London County Council had in the most unmistakable manner entered their protest against the passing of the Bill.
    MR. BANBURYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had stated that he opposed the Second Beading of the Bill on behalf of his constituency. But the Bill would not affect that district. Limehouse was already freely supplied with water by the particular Company in question: and the district that would be affected was a division in Essex which was not under the London County Council at all. The Chairman of the Essex County Council wrote to The Times the other day condemning the London County Council opposition to the Bill, and expressing the hope that the Bill would pass. He did not deny the adequacy of the water supply of the East London Water Company; but the Bill was not to increase the source of the supply of water, but to provide additional facilities for distributing the water; it was to increase the storage, the reservoirs, the mains, and the agencies for filtration and pumping. Out of the £500,000, £40,000 were to be expended on the extension of the high service reservoirs; £140,000 on the extension of the mains; £80,000 on the pumping arrangements; £45,000 on the filtration beds; £145,000 on additional reservoirs; and the balance of £50,000 was applicable to the various needs of the Company. The hon. Member for Limehouse had also stated that if

    1403
    the £500,000 were raised by the Company it would be added to the purchase money in the event of the Loudon County Council buying out the Water Companies. But the hon. Member did not know his case well. He forgot that new works could not be reproductive at once, and that there was a clause in another Act, applicable to this Bill, which compelled the Company to give the profits earned in the debenture issue to the Corporation of London, the Corporation to hold them for the benefit of the consumers, or towards providing funds for purchasing the Company if necessary. The profits did not go to the Company at all, and therefore that argument fell to the ground. The hon. Member for Hoxton also said that the London County Council, when they purchased the Company, would not require those new works, and, as the hon. Member put it, would be purchasing "a dead limb." But if the County Council did purchase the Company, they would have to distribute the water, and they could not distribute the water, from whatever source it was supplied, without mains, or without engines for pumping; they could not depend on a single main, which might burst; and they must have reservoirs to store the water, to take advantage of the rainy seasons, and to guard against drought. He presumed that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hoxton would not contend that the Comity Council would give more for two Water Companies than was proposed under the late Mr. Smith's scheme? Very well. The late Mr. Smith, in his proposal for purchase, in 1880, suggested that the debenture-holders of the different Water Companies should receive their income in Stocks of the Purchasing Authority. The Purchasing Authority in this case would be the London County Council. The County Council could raise money at a rate per annum of £2 14s. The East London Water Company could raise money on the Debenture Stock at a rate per annum of 3 per cent. The difference between that amount was 6s. per annum, and that on £500,000 was £1,500 per year, equal to 2d. per annum per house over the whole of the Company's district, or, on 30 years' purchase, capitalised £45,000. That was to say, that in the event of the Loudon County Council purchasing the East London Water Com-
    1404
    pany's business, they would be buying the actual works which would be created under the powers of this Bill at the actual cost of the works plus 9 per cent., or £45,000 for compulsory purchase. The hon. Member for Hoxton had said the district affected was not increasing. As a matter of fact, its present increase was at the rate of 4,150 houses per annum.
    MR. J. STUART: I said the district was not increasing, and I gave the exact figures of the engineers of the Company.
    MR. BANBURYsaid, that the exact figures which the hon. Gentleman gave applied to the whole of the district over which the money was not going to be spent. The money was to be spent on the division in Essex, where the number of houses was increasing at the rate of 4,000 per annum. He hoped the House would pass the Bill—first, because water was one of the first necessaries of life, and the Company was bound by its Act of Parliament to supply every house in the district with water; and, secondly, because, if the Company was not permitted to enlarge its works in order to carry out its obligations to Parliament, its stock would be depreciated, and the London County Council would be able to buy out the Company cheaply, which was the real motive at the bottom of this opposition.
    MR. BENNsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had given away the case with regard to the cry of a water famine, when he said that the proposal of the Bill was not to increase the water supply. If the Bill was not to increase the supply of water——
    MR. BANBURY: I said it was not to increase the source of the supply.
    MR. BENNsaid, he must have misheard the hon. Gentleman. But with regard to the question of a water famine, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, complained that the hon. Member for Hoxton had not gone into details with regard to that very important point. The Company in their Report to the Royal Commission made a statement which effectually disposed of the cry of a water famine. They stated that they had made every allowance for a possible increase of supply in their district; and could fur-

    1405
    nish water adequate in supply and excellent in quality for a period of 40 years, with a large surplus margin. Nevertheless, it might look like an unreasonable thing for the London County Council to ask the House to throw out the Bill. He would, therefore, ask the House to listen to the story of the London County Council's action in the matter. After the Report of the Loyal Commission, the County Council decided to approach the Water Companies in a businesslike way in order to solve the great question of the London water supply. They adopted the following Resolution, which contained the terms on which they were prepared to buy out the Water Companies—
    "That negotiations be entered into for the purchase of the undertakings of the Water Companies, or one or more of them, at a fair and reasonable price, on the basis of a desire to purchase and willingness to sell; having regard to any circumstances and statutory provisions affecting the present and prospective position, income, expenditure, incomes, obligations, and value of the Companies respectively, and their undertakings, including any present and probable future demands for improvements and extensions of works, and new or additional sources of supply, and on the understanding that if satisfactory terms cannot be mutually agreed upon, an application will be made to Parliament to determine in what manner and on what condition a transfer to the Council shall be arranged, provided that no monopoly light on the part of the Water Companies be recognised."
    He submitted that that was a very fair basis of negotiations between the London County Council and the Water Companies. He challenged the hon. Member for Peckham to produce the reply of the East London Water Company to that application.
    MR. BANBURY: I am ready to reply. The answer is as follows:—
    "St. Helen's Place, March 10th, 1894.
    "Sir,—I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 5th instant, setting out the resolution recently passed by the London County Council which has been fully deliberated upon by the Directors of this Company, and in reply to the question you ask, I am to state that the Directors do not see their way to enter into negotiations for the sale of their undertaking to the London County Council on the basis indicated in the resolution. The Directors, however, desire me to add that if any definite and practicable proposals are made for the purchase of their undertaking, they will be prepared to give them very careful consideration."
    MR. BENNsaid, it must be obvious to the House that the London County Council suggested a counter-proposal
    1406
    from the Water Company. The County Council definitely and clearly stated their views, and if those views were not thought sufficiently reasonable by the Water Company the Company ought to have consented to the arbitration that was suggested. The London County Council tried to do what other County Councils had successfully done—namely, in making agreements with the Water Companies, which agreements had been subsequently ratified by the House. The London County Council tried to bring the Water Companies to terms, but the Water Companies seemed determined to have nothing to do with the London County Council. Therefore, the London County Council came to the House and asked the House to take the extreme measure of rejecting the Bill of the East Loudon Water Company. The policy of the Loudon County Council was summed up in the words used by Mr. Speaker 15 years ago, when the great question of the London water supply was introduced by the late Mr. Henry Fawcett—
    "The supply of such a necessity of life as water should be maintained by a Public Body, and that that Public Body should not be subject to the caprice of commercial considerations, or the requirements of shareholders, &c, and to the fluctuations of policy to which such requirements would lead."
    The object of the Bill was to promote a commercial undertaking, to serve the interests of the shareholders, and not to improve the water supply of London. It aimed at enhancing the value of the Company with a view to the ultimate purchase by the London County Council. That was quite a common thing in the experience of the London County Council. If a new street was to be opened, it was wonderful with what facility buildings were added to buildings in order that the compensation might be as large as possible. He wished also to emphasise the point that if the Company were allowed to make this expenditure, and if the County Council afterwards purchased the Water Companies, an amalgamation would, of course, ensue, with the result that many of those works would be useless. In conclusion, he would quote the words uttered in 1879 by the late Mr. Henry Fawcett, who was a citizen of London—
    "If you place insuperable difficulties in the way of a great reform being carried out, we

    1407
    will carry out that reform in spite of you; at any rate, we are determined that the people of London shall not for ever be afflicted with the evils connected with the present system of water supply."
    MR. GROVEsaid that, as the Representative of an East London constituency, he felt bound to support the Second Reading of the Bill. It was with regret he ventured to oppose such a body as the Loudon County Council, for whom he had the most profound respect, inasmuch as he considered they had done for the poor of London, for the dignity of the Metropolis, and even for the beautifying of our great capita], more than any other Public Body, not only in this Kingdom, but throughout the whole of Europe. Therefore, it was with regret that he opposed the London County Council, but he did it now with thoroughness as equal as his reluctance. It was a curious thing that the result of Water Company Bills seemed to turn the stream of popular opinion entirely. The Progressive Party became reactionary, and the Reactionary Party became progressive. The effect of the water was to wash black white—he did not object to that—but it also washed white black very often. He thought the tactics of the London County Council were governed by a had and harmful principle. They did not come forward and say resolutely that they would not have this Bill. They first said that when the Royal Commission had terminated they would deal with the question of purchase. But the Royal Commission had now reported that wo had got no "forrider" with the London County Council. They still delayed. He appealed to the common sense of the House, were his constituents to go thirsty because the London County Council could not make up its mind? Were his constituents also to go dirty? This was the second year of a great drought, and if there was a continuation of droughts, which was not at all unlikely, there would be a great danger to the health of his constituency, which numbered nearly 224,000 people, if the supply of water was not adequate and ample. They had heard a great deal of theory from the London County Council. Let him give one ounce of practice. As the Representative of the constituency, West Ham, North, he frequently heard not only from the traders and manufacturers that the supply of water was not
    1408
    sufficient to carry on trade and business but he heard from the poor, whom he was proud to represent, that they were also in danger of being starved. He thought that statement of fact ought to go a long way against the arguments of the Loudon County Council. He was glad to see that the introduction of the Bill had had a good effect. It had made the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, a thorough Home Ruler. He would point out also that West Ham was outside the area of the London County Council. They should not presume to dictate to the London County Council, controlled as it was by eminent men—[A laugh]—he spoke seriously—if the London County Council confined themselves to the area of their own jurisdiction. What right had the London County Council to go to a place like Essex, and to West Ham, North and South, and say, "We shall manage your water affairs as well as the water affairs of the Metropolis?" Let the Loudon County Council manage their own affairs in the Metropolis as brilliantly and ably as in the past, but let them not interfere in the concerns of areas over which they had no jurisdiction. He would put it to hon. Members from the Sister Island, who may possibly cast their vote against the East London Water Company, how would they like it if the London County Council went to Dublin and said, "We shall manage your water affairs in such and such a way"? That was the case of the people of West Ham, and they insisted that they should have the right to manage their own affairs unintruded upon by the London County Council. It was because he looked upon the action of the London County Council as an unjust usurpation that he supported the Bill. He spoke entirely in the interest of his constituents, numbering 224,000, and not in the interest of the East London Water Company. In fact, if the Bill were read a second time, he intended, if in Order, to move as an Instruction to the Committee that in the event of the purchase of the Water Company by the London County Council—which he hoped would come to pass—the shares now issued should be purchased at par and not at an increased value. That would remove many of the objections which the London County Council had brought

    1409
    forward. He felt it to be a matter of importance that a Company which might possibly be purchased on behalf of the people should not be overloaded with capital; but because he also felt that the London County Council was encroaching on the rights of bodies over which they had no control, he would cast his vote in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill.
    COLONEL HUGHESsaid, he sympathised with the notion of the Water Companies being purchased by a Water Trust representative of the County Councils concerned, and he had no doubt that some day that object would be effected. The point however was, what was to be done in the meantime? The hon. Member for Hoxton had said they must march with the times; but in that march not oven Water Companies must stand still. For fear of damaging the public interest concerned, and the supply of water, he thought the whole matter should be referred to a Select Committee, whore the London County Council could oppose as much as they liked, and probably with success; and there would be an opportunity for considering whether too much power was being given to the Company, or too large an addition made to the capital of the Company. On the other hand, to deprive a Private Company of the right of placing their case before a Select Committee would be to defeat the Constitutional principle that everybody should be able to put their case before a proper tribunal it was all very well for the London County Council to say that they were only going to oppose the Bill for a year: but this matter would probably go on for 10 years. It involved so many County Councils and such large water schemes that it could not be settled in 12 months. Therefore, to prevent injustice to the Company and any danger to the public water supply, the matter should go before a Select Committee.
    MR. CAINEsaid, the authority which was responsible for the supply of water to the Metropolis was the various Water Companies. These Companies might be all that had been said of them, but the fact was that London was going to get its water from them in the immediate future, and there was no other source of supply. If the County Council had brought forward a
    1410
    scheme, or if there was a scheme which the House could look upon as sound and practical, he would vote for its consideration. He had voted against this Bill last year, but he should now vote for it being sent upstairs, as the Report of the Commission was known. The Water Companies who were responsible for the supply of water must from time to time send to Parliament for sanction of schemes, otherwise water could not be supplied. Therefore, he thought that, whatever might be the faults of the Bill—and there were a great many, no doubt, in it—the Water Companies were entitled to the opportunity of showing before a Committee whether the scheme they brought forward was right and necessary. The London County Council could be heard before the Committee. They could bring forward all the evidence they had brought forward to-day—careful and deliberate evidence, not mere statements. It would be hard on the Water Companies if the powers they desired, rightly or wrongly, to acquire should be refused at the dictum of the London County Council. He trusted that before long either the Loudon County Council or the Government would mature a scheme; but, unfortunately, the Government does not seem to have made up its mind, and the County Council has also failed to make up its mind. Therefore, he thought it hard that the only powers which now existed for supplying London with water should be put a stop to by the London County Council. When the Committee had considered the Bill, and had put into it powers for obtaining capital, an opportunity would be afforded to the County Council for bringing the subject again before the House when the Bill came up for Third Reading.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,)said, that the hon. Member who had just sat down, although perhaps not directly interested in this particular Bill, spoke as a Director of the New River Company.
    MR. CAINEsaid, it was true he was a Director of the New River Company, but he only sat upon the Board as representing an Insurance Company. He had no personal interest whatever in the Now River Company, and he might say that whatever fees he had received he

    1411
    had parted with to his Insurance Company.
    MR. S. BUXTONsaid, that in regard to these matters they wanted Water Companies and Insurance Companies, and all interests represented in Debate in the House. He had only intended the House to understand that his hon. Friend was connected with one of the interests represented in the Debate. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, especially the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, did not quite appreciate the position taken up by hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House. They argued the case for the Bill as a question of detail, as a matter for examination by a Committee. That was entirely contrary to the position which he, in common with the other opponents of the Bill, took up. They contended that this was not a question of the merits of the particular scheme, but a question of principle, as to whether, before there had been an opportunity of the County Council considering the water supply as a whole, these somewhat smaller matters should be dealt with and decided by a Committee of the House. What was the actual position of the Bill before the House? The Water Companies were coming for powers for a further capital expenditure of £1,750,000, and the House was entitled to say that before such an enormous additional expenditure was sanctioned there should be a proper opportunity of considering the whole question of the London water supply. The Royal Commission had been appointed to report whether any fresh water supply was required for London, and as to the best way of providing it. The case stood in much the same position as last year, for the Commission had only recently reported, and the County Council had not yet had an opportunity of considering the question as a whole. Until the Council had had that opportunity, it was only right that no large expenditure should be carried out to the prejudice of the ultimate settlement. All that was asked was that until that opportunity was afforded—an opportunity which the appointment of the Royal Commission was intended to give—no large expenditure of the kind contemplated in the Bill should take place to prejudice the ultimate settlement of the question of the London water supply.
    MR. R. G. WEBSTERsaid, the storage works proposed in the Bill were recommended by the Royal Commissioners as immediately necessary.
    MR. S. BUXTONsaid, that what the Royal Commissioners recommended was that extended storage works, mains, and so on, were required in London, a thing which no one for a moment denied. He did not think, however, that the Royal Commission specifically stated that the particular storage works to which the hon. Member referred were required. It seemed to him that the object of the consideration of the subject by a Royal Commission was to give an opportunity for the consideration of the subject as a whole. He understood that the Council were ready to consent to any reasonable proposal with regard to mains and reservoirs shown to be urgent, but that they were not ready to assent to such an enormous expenditure as that proposed in the Bill, believing that it would have the result of prejudicing the general question. He did not think that the delay of a year would matter, and if the Bill came up next year and the County Council were not then in a position to say what they would do, not having decided upon a line of policy, he, for one, would support the Bill. If the Companies had been able to carry on for 25 years without coming to Parliament, they could surely wait another 12 months. He appealed to the House if any great Corporation in the Kingdom, representing a large body of ratepayers, asked for a year's delay in such an important matter, would the House for a moment deny the claim?
    SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, he would not trouble the House long. He would not have troubled it at all had it not been for an extraordinary observation made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He could not help saying that the reference made by the hon. Member for Tower Hamlets—he might call it the sneering reference—to the hon. Member for Bradford was most uncalled for. Coming from the Government Bench and spoken on behalf of the Government, and when the hon. Member for Bradford had told them but a few minutes before that he had voted against the Second Reading of the Bill last year, such a reference was unworthy, suggesting as it had done that the hon.

    1413
    Member's vote was influenced by his connection with the New River Company. He would point out, after the details of the Bill had been considered in the Committee upstairs, the Preamble would have to be proved. What said the right hon. Gentleman? He suggested that this Bill was really promoted in order to inflate the value of the shares of the Company in view of possible purchase. What was the expenditure proposed under the Bill?
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: No, no.
    SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, that he thought the right hon. Gentleman had adopted the suggestion. If he had not, he (Sir R. Webster) withdrew the statement. The hon. Member for St. George's (Mr. Bonn) had made a distinct statement that the proposed expenditure was not required in order to enable the Water Company to fulfil its statutory obligations, but to inflate the value of the shares. No doubt the hon. Member would be candid enough to stand to his guns when that fact was stated. What was the expenditure which would take place under the Bill? It involved three things—reservoirs, filtration, and mains. How possibly could reservoirs, filtration, and mains inflate the capital of the Company? He spoke with some knowledge on this subject, although he regretted to say he had not 6d. in any Water Company in London. Anyone who said that, in a drought such as that of last summer, if a Water Company found itself unable to supply sufficient water to its consumers it could go and obtain it from its source of supply, knew very little about this business, however learned he might be in other matters. No one must imagine that a Water Company could dispense with ample storage reservoirs. He ventured to say that if any Water Company did not maintain an ample and increasing surplus of storage reservoirs, it did not do its duty to its constituents, judging from the experience of the past. Then, as to mains, expenditure in this direction did not mean putting money into the earth which would not earn a return. The Directors were not such fools as to do a thing of that sort. It meant that in those districts growing by their thousands it was absolutely essential that mains and supply pipes should be laid down, so that the consumers could get a proper supply. But the burning
    1414
    question had been whether or not there had been sufficient and proper filtration; and in order to keep the supply of water in proper condition it was only the duty of the Water Companies to maintain filtration in the highest state of efficiency. These were the questions on which the Water Company had to justify their proposals before the Committee. If the County Council had any real case against the Company, the proper place to examine into it was before a Select Committee, whore the witnesses who supported it could be cross-examined. A point which had been overlooked was this: He should like to know on what ground, either of principle or otherwise, the Loudon County Council had a right to say to the inhabitants of Essex they should not have the improved water supply they desired, and which this Bill proposed to give them? What had been the principle which had been recognised over and over again? Why, that each locality should supply itself with water and have control over its water supply. The)"had had that at Stockton, Middlesbrough, and at Birmingham, and in regard to this Bill the London County Council were arrogating to themselves a position they had no right to assume, and for which there was no precedent. He trusted that, whatever might be done in Committee and when the Bill came back to the House, in the name of fair-play and justice it would now be read a second time. Otherwise an impression would go forth that Her Majesty's Government opposed the Second Reading because they could count on a majority in the House which they could not count upon after the Bill had been examined. Under the circumstances, he hoped the House would see that the whole question was examined and sifted, and this could only take place before a competent Committee, constituted as they liked, where witnesses were examined.
    MR. CAINEsaid that, with the indulgence of the House, he would observe that he had not taken the remark of his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. S. Buxton) in the sense in which it had been understood by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir R. Webster).
    MR. PICKERSGILLsaid, he desired to say a word or two in reply to the remarks which

    1415
    had fallen from the hon. Member for West Ham. The hon. Member had made an appeal well calculated to impress the House on behalf of his constituents, whom, he said, suffered from a scanty supply of water. The hon. Member had asked if his constituents were to be thirsty and dirty because the London County Council could not make up its mind. It was quite true that the people of West Ham had suffered wrong, and had complained of their water supply. The London County Council knew the reason. Complaints having been made to the Council as to the mysterious scantiness of water, they made investigation into the matter, and found that it had been the practice of the East London Water Company to insert a plug in the pipe supplying the cisterns so that the water merely dribbled into them. In individual cases where complaint was made the Company removed the plugs, but had the unparalleled impudence to charge the customer with the cost of the removal.
    MAJORI RASCHsaid, he should like to say a word or two from the point of view of his constituents the inhabitants of Essex. He failed to understand the interest taken in the water supply of his constituents by the hon. Member for Hoxton, seeing that for every 100 persons within the jurisdiction of the London County Council supplied by this Water Company there were 1,000 people supplied outside that jurisdiction.
    MR. J. STUARTsaid, the hon. Member was mistaken. For every one person supplied in the Essex district two were supplied in the district of the London County Council.
    MAJOR RASCHsaid, that his information was exactly the reverse. They all knew that the object—the plan of campaign—of the County Council in taking so much interest in the water supply of the people of Essex was to cripple the Water Company, so as to be able to buy it up at half-price. The Company had been prohibited from taking any more water from the Lea, and they could not construct reservoirs with- out further capital. He had been Chairman of a Water Company for 10 years, and had some intimate knowledge of the subject. The matter was very simple. The Royal Commission had interdicted the East Loudon Water Company from taking more water from the River Lea,
    1416
    and therefore the Company had to construct fresh storage reservoirs. This they could not do without raising fresh capital. Even the London County Council would be unable to do so. What with betterment, worsement, taxation of laud values, and looking after the morality of music halls the people of Essex thought the London County Council had their hands too full already, and that they would do well to mind their own business and leave the County of Essex alone. He should vote for the Bill.
    MR. O'CONNORsaid, he should support the Bill. He felt some difficulty in taking that course, as he should naturally be inclined to support the County Council. He also found it a difficulty in supporting a cause championed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's (Mr. Goschen), who had said that he thought Scotch Members—and, he supposed, Irish Members—should not interfere in this matter.
    MR. GOSCHENwas understood to say that he had no objection to their voting on this Bill, but that he thought there should be reciprocity.
    MR. A. O'CONNORsaid, that when English Members left Irish business alone, Irish Members would leave English business alone. He could only regret that the right hon. Gentleman made it so difficult for an Irishman to support a cause which he advocated. He (Mr. O'Connor) would wish to help the London County Council within the sphere of their jurisdiction, but he could not follow them into Essex, when he found that the Council for that county were supporting the other side. As an Irish Member he might remind the House that there was a larger Irish population in London than in Dublin, and that a large portion of that population was in the district affected by this Bill. It was for the sake of the poor who lived in the small houses of the district to whom a good and a prompt supply of water was of the first importance that he supported the Bill.
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid, it was hardly worth while going in to the merits of the arguments which had been advanced, or even into the details of the Bill. But he would like to reply to the observations of the hon. Member for North West Ham, who had suggested that the London County Council were in

    1417
    favour of dilatory tactics in this matter, and that they had not submitted any scheme to the Water Companies. Now he ventured to deny that, and to assert that the hon. Member in this matter did not represent his constituency: he simply spoke the views of a few officials who happened to agree with the views of the Water Companies. What were the facts? At the end of a long and exhaustive inquiry the Royal Commission reported in September last. That Report did not reach the London County Council until November, and practically was not submitted to the Council until the beginning of the present year. Thereupon a Committee, assisted by the able engineer of the Council and other officials, drew up a counter Report, which had just been circulated, and which would be found to deal with the matter on fair and reasonable lines. In the circumstances, it did not seem to him that it was unreasonable to ask that the Bill should be road a second time that day six months. The Essex people had compelled the Loudon County Council to take over a large part of their main drainage system, and now apparently wished to dictate the conditions under which the water works should be purchased. The attitude of the Government was, in his opinion, right. The House ought not to allow the Members for Essex to dictate to 5,000,000 people the conditions for the purchase of these water works. The hon. Member for North West Ham had no right to ask the Loudon County Council to be the servant of Essex in respect of the unpleasant parts of its municipal work, and to deny it equal rights in determining under what conditions the water works should be purchased. If the London County Council were to pay the piper they ought at any rate to be allowed to call the tune. He thought the Government had adopted a sensible and correct view. They said that the London County Council, representing as it did an overwhelming majority of the people of London, was not unreasonable in asking that the Bill should be rejected, seeing that as yet it had had no time to consider the Report of the Royal Commission, and that until a definite decision had been arrived at the Directors of the Water Companies and a few Members for Essex ought not to be allowed to dictate to 5,000,000 of people as to the
    1418
    conditions under which they would purchase the water works.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I will not detain the House many minutes, but I wish to say a word or two on the general principle involved. Perhaps I should preface my observations by saying that I am not a shareholder in any Water Company, and that I speak merely as a ratepayer of London who has learned very much from provincial experience. What is the position of affairs? Sooner or later the London County Council are bound to decide whether or not they will purchase the property of the Water Companies, and I hope that they will purchase. Up to the present, however, they have not come to any decision, neither is there any power which can force them to come to a decision within a reasonable period, and the question for consideration is whether, until they shall have arrived at a final determination, no Water Company in London is to be permitted to increase its capital? The Loudon County Council does put forward a most exaggerated claim in regard to the water question. The Under Secretary for the Colonies says a similar demand by a Provincial Corporation has never been refused. I say unhesitatingly that never has a similar demand for delay been granted on the application of any Municipality. Birmingham has some knowledge of the ways of the London County Council. When Birmingham asked for power to obtain a supply of water from the Welsh hills, saying that within a short time the town would probably suffer from drought, the London County Council opposed the scheme, and averred that the statement was untrue. They said there would be no drought, but there was, which showed how little reliance could be placed on their scientific knowledge. The County Council opposed the scheme, asking for time to enable them to decide whether they might not themselves require the particular water supply which Birmingham had selected. The County Council should make up their minds to deal with the matter now under consideration fairly and speedily. Their demand for delay is monstrous. The hon. Member referred to the experience of Birmingham. Has he taken the trouble to find out what that experience was? I negotiated the purchase of the water

    1419
    works there. What did we do? We (the Corporation) asked them to come to terms. We were unable to do so. We then stated what price we were prepared to give, and asked the House for compulsory powers of purchase on those terms. That application was refused. We were told to go before an arbitrator, and by agreeing to terms we saved the expenses of an arbitrator.
    MR. BENN: That is precisely the course the London County Council propose. I think the right hon. Gentleman will find our terms are identical with those adopted at Birmingham.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I think I have been unnecessarily interrupted. I undertake to say that if the representatives of the London County Council are prepared to make the East London Water Company the same offer that was made to the Birmingham Water Company by the Municipality it will be accepted. The right course is for the London County Council to make up their minds as to what is the fair value of the property of the East London Water Company, and to make an offer accordingly. If the terms are refused by the Water Company let the County Council then come to Parliament and ask for official powers. If they do that I will support the Second Beading of the Bill. I think it is monstrous that before taking this course they should seek to interfere with every scheme for the extension of the water supply. I think they have had time to make up their minds. I have never known a Bill to be dealt with in this way before. I must say that it is a most dangerous precedent that a Private Bill should be dealt with in this House upon political considerations.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 228; Noes 227.—(Division List, No. 14.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL. (By Order.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND, in moving the Second
  1420
  Reading, said, the Bill sought to enlarge the jurisdiction of the Conservators of the Thames. The condition had been imposed upon them that if they did not bring in a Bill this year the London County Council would bring in one next year, and the result of the compromise arrived at had been that the Thames Conservators had brought in the Bill of which he had the honour of moving the Second Reading. The great point in its favour was that it would do away with no less than 32 existing Acts by which the Conservators were governed, going back as far as the reign of James I. The Bill, though not approved by the London County Council, deals with the representation on the Board of the Conservancy, which the London County Council desired to have a larger proportion on the ground that the representation should be in proportion to the population. The promoters of the Bill considered that the riparian owners and others in the upper part of the river had as great an interest in the Thames as those in the lower part, and the Bill would commend itself to all fair-minded people, because it gave fair representation to those who were interested in the upper and lower portions of the Thames. A great many Petitions had been presented against the Bill, and many of them were in reference to the representation on the Board. It was recognised that the Board had been well-managed by their Chairman; but he ventured to say, in reference to the suggestion that the Board should consist of 100 members, that it would be practically unworkable if the representation upon it were increased beyond from 25 to 30. Then with regard to pollution of the river, there was no doubt they asked for large powers in that respect; but he thought those clauses in the Bill were of a rather too arbitrary character and ought to be modified. The larger proportion of the Petitions lodged against the Bill referred to the question of pollution, and sufficient powers in that respect must be given, but he hoped that the clauses for that purpose would be made more satisfactory alike to the agricultural interest and the public. Strong objection had been taken to the inclusion of the tributaries of the Thames. The powers of the Sanitary Authorities would be brought into operation in regard to pol-

  1421
  lution of the River Thames where the Conservators had not considered that to be part of their duty, the surrounding County Councils having hitherto held back from the Conservancy. Those clauses the Conservators were quite willing to have threshed out in Committee, and they hoped the result would be that the water of the river would be kept quite pure, yet without interfering with the agricultural counties and interests in the future more than they had in the past. The great point was that the powers proposed to be given with regard to pollution were larger than they were before; but if it were desired, the Conservators were willing to give up the proposal mentioned, and the course taken by them would, he believed, to a great extent disarm opposition to the Bill. With regard to finance, the proposal was for amalgamation in reference to the upper and lower portions of the Thames, so that the whole river would be under one system of finance, and power would be given to issue £300,000 Debenture Stock, which he thought would be a sufficient sum to put into the hands of the Conservators for carrying out the purposes of the Bill. As to the Water Companies, he hoped they would think better of their threatened opposition to the Bill. They had statutory powers for taking certain quantities of water from the river; but they had been approached in this matter by the Conservancy, and it had been arranged that they should be allowed to take a certain quantity of water out of the Thames under agreement, in order to provide for the increased consumption of their consumers, and the question had been raised whether their claims in that respect were valid or not. The London County Council, no doubt, desired to treat them as invalid, so that they might buy up the Water Companies at a cheaper rate than was possible at present. The promoters considered that this question ought to be dealt with separately, and they had therefore come to an arrangement that whatever powers the Water Companies had should remain as at present. They would not break faith with the Water Companies, but this Bill did not propose to give those bodies greater statutory powers than they now possessed. The House would see, therefore, that the Conservators, while keeping faith with
  1422
  the Water Companies, were acting in the interests of the public. At present the Companies took 110,000,000 gallons daily from the river with power to increase the quantity to 130,000,000. For many years the Conservators had done all they could to preserve the purity and improve the navigation of the Thames, and no-body could have done its duty better, and the clearest testimony had been given that they had fully done their duty towards the public. They had not sold their water to the Water Companies. They had spent certain sums for the benefit of those Companies, but had in return received money from them for carrying out necessary works. The Conservators had certainly prevented a large amount of pollution; had equalised the flow of the river; and had secured a constant supply in summer by widening and deepening the reaches, and by other works. This Bill ought, in the circumstances, to be read a second time, and referred to a Select Committee for thorough examination and amendment rather than be thrown out now on Second Beading. The Conservators had no wish whatever to oppose the provisions of the Bill being thoroughly threshed out; on the contrary, they only desired to carry it through for the good of all who were interested in the Thames, considering not only the interests of the people of London, but those of the populations of Richmond, Reading, Oxford, and other places upon its banks. It must not be forgotten that the Counties of Gloucester, Wilts, Berks, and Bucks were equally interested with Middlesex in this matter, and the Conservators considered that the acceptance by the House of such a scheme as this would do equal justice to all. It would throw enormous work upon the Conservators, but he hoped it would be accorded a Second Reading, and that on reaching Committee it would be put in a, shape which would be satisfactory to all.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir F. Dixon-Hartland.)
  MR. J. STUARTsaid, he would not oppose the Second Reading, because, as the hon. Member in charge of the Bill had explained, the reasons which had led to the

  1423
  proposed opposition had been removed by the arrangement come to between the London County Council and the promoters of the Bill. The grounds of the opposition were that it was proposed to give larger statutable powers to the Water Companies than they had at present in reference to drawing water from the Thames. Those Companies had lately claimed increased rights under agreements of which the validity was disputed. However, he would not then go into the questions either of the validity of those agreements or the statutable rights of the Companies. Whatever their legal rights might be, they would not be interfered with in any sense by the Bill. That was the understanding arrived at with the promoters, and an Instruction to the Committee had been drawn up. If this Bill were not passed the bringing in of another would devolve on the London County Council, and it was therefore not their desire that it should be prevented from going to a Committee. But though not opposing the Second Reading, it must not be understood that the County Council approved of the Bill. On the contrary, there was a great deal in it of which they entirely disapproved. However, the framework was there, although he feared it was incapable of being made in Committee into a Bill which would carry their support, and they therefore desired to reserve power to themselves to oppose it if necessary on the Report stage or Third Reading if the various provisions to which the County Council objected were not amended in Committee. Many questions would arise, and, among others, that of the money which the Conservators required. As in the other respect referred to, the Bill left everything absolutely in statu quo, he would withdraw the opposition to the Second Reading, and move the Instruction which had been agreed upon between the promoters of the Bill and those whom he represented.
  SIR R. TEMPLEwished, as a Surrey man, to be allowed to say a few words. He was very glad the hon. Member for Hoxton had been good enough to withdraw his opposition to the Bill in which the Division of the County of Surrey that he had the honour to represent was greatly interested. The people there had come to the conclusion
  1424
  that in matters of this kind they ought to object to representation going by population instead of according to area, for by the application of that doctrine they would have greater authority and would prevent others having an undue amount of control over the lower Thames. Though they were profoundly concerned and somewhat anxious in this matter, they nevertheless desired to refrain at present from criticising this measure, because they had an honourable understanding with the promoters of the Bill that various Amendments would be accepted in Committee. In that expectation they had instructed him to recommend to the House that the Bill should be allowed a Second Reading.
  MR. ALBAN GIBBS, upon the question of representation on the Board, said, the shipowners of London paid in dues about £46,000, which was about half the whole sum expended on the River Thames between Staines and the estuary, and their interest certainly was inferior to none. They had no desire to oppose the Bill on Second Reading, but would appear before the Committee and do their best to amend it, and put it in a more suitable shape. He was instructed to explain to the House that they did not accept the Bill as a settlement. He hoped a Bill would be brought in at some future time which would give to the merchants and the shipowners of the Port of London a predominant control over the lower Thames. He considered that the City of London had a predominating interest in this matter, and should have a corresponding influence upon any Board of Control. Emphasising that they did not regard this by any means as a final settlement, he would not then trouble the House further or oppose the Second Reading.
  SIR W. HART-DYKEsaid, his constituents were much exercised with regard to their future under the Bill. To millowners the question of the Companies taking water from the river was of extreme importance. As the Bill now stood very harsh measure might be meted out to millowners and others. With every desire to prevent undue pollution, he was sure no Member of the House would wish to injure their vested interests unnecessarily in any shape or way, and he would urge that, assuming the Bill went to a Com-

  1425
  mittee, his constituents and others who were interested as respondents should have the power of modifying certain of its provisions as far as they deemed necessary consistently with carrying out the main objects of the Bill.
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, it was desired to increase the flow of water rather than to diminish it, and the promoters had no wish to interfere with the interests of the millowners. Some of the conditions appeared very hard indeed, and, as far as he was concerned, he would be prepared to do his best to assist mill-owners and the interests connected with agriculture. He could only say he would do all he properly could to have the Bill modified in those respects in Committee.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.
  MR. J. STUART MR. J. STUART moved—
  "That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill that no further powers of taking water from the River Thames than may now be legally exercised be given by the Bill to the Water Companies, and that, as far as necessary, the Bill be amended to give effect to this Instruction."—(Mr. J. Stuart.)
  Motion agreed to.

WEST MIDDLESEX WATER BILL. (By Order.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Heading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. J. STUARTintimated that, as the sense of the House had been taken upon the East London Water Bill, he did not now propose to offer any opposition to the Second Reading of this measure, considering it proper, after the close Division, to allow this Bill also to go before the Committee. The circumstances of this Bill, however, distinctly differed from those of the East London Water Bill. They had a very strong case against the West Middlesex Bill, for he held in his hand a statement issued by the Company in April, 1892, in which they described their works as in a thoroughly good condition, and capable of meeting all demands for the present and in the future by extension from time to time. Since then there had been only an increase of ½ per cent. in the demand for water, and the Company's capital was not yet exhausted. Thus the case against the
  1426
  Bill was a strong one, but the House being so evenly divided in would be as well to let this Bill also proceed to a Committee. He would, however, reserve the right on a future day to place before the House certain Instructions to the Committee on this and the other Bills.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

LONDON STREETS AND BUILDINGS BILL.

  BILL COMMITTED TO A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. HOWELLsaid, he had to move that the Order for the committal of this Bill should be discharged, and that the Bill should be committed to a Select Committee of 11 Members, six to be nominated by the House, and five by the Committee of Selection. If hon. Members examined the Bill they would see that it affected a large number of interests and was of wide extent, and he thought they would agree with him it was one which should be dealt with as a, Public rather than a Private Bill. He had to complain of the comparative secrecy with which Bills of this kind were dealt with, and he might point out in reference to this Bill that had he not taken the present course of moving to refer it to a large Committee very few of those affected by this Bill would have known anything of its existence. He wished to make known a fact that might surprise the House as much as it surprised him. The Bill was read a second time on March 22, the day before Good Friday, when very few hon. Members were present. The Vestry of Chelsea had made application for a copy of the Bill, and were told that it was under revision, and that a copy would not serve their purpose at that particular time. A second application having been made, the clerk of the London County Council, in a, reply dated on the very day on which the Second Reading was taken, stated that the revision of the Bill was not sufficiently advanced to enable a copy to be furnished to the Vestry. That he held to be a very serious statement. The importance of the measure might be estimated by the fact that it- repealed 10 Public Acts, including Metropolitan Building Acts and Metropolis Manage-

  1427
  ment Acts. It professed to be a Consolidation Act. Hon. Members were aware that he was a strong advocate of consolidation, but this was a Consolidation Bill of a very peculiar character, changing the whole aspect of the law in relation to the matters to which he had referred. That being so, and looking to its wide-reaching nature, he wished to see the Bill referred to a large Committee. He appealed to his friends on the London County Council to support the Motion. It would be remembered that last April they had to call in question Acts relating to Eastbourne, Ower Darwen, and Reading, and to complain that in Private Bills legislation was introduced dealing with Public Acts. The tendency of late years in the House had been to minimise Private Bill legislation and to maximise legislation by Public Act, and it was in pursuance of that policy he asked for the appointment of this Committee. Hon. Members very seldom saw the Bills which were submitted to the House. Although they very properly trusted the Committees upstairs, they had a perfect right to see the Bill, and, having examined this measure, he had come to the conclusion that in consequence of its far-reaching character this was not one which should be left in the hands of an ordinary Committee. He appealed to the House not only to pass this Motion, but also to be always on the alert to see that private legislation was not allowed to overshadow public laws.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Order for Committal be read, and discharged.
  That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Eleven Members, Six to be nominated by the House and Five by the Committee of Selection.
  That all Petitions against the Bill presented six clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; and that such of the Petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, Agents, or Witnesses, be heard on their Petitions against the Bill, if they think fit, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill against such Petitioners.
  That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  That Seven be the quorum."—(Mr. Howell.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir C. RUSSELL,)said, he had only a word or two in supporting the Motion. He wished to state that he had had communications from different parts of the Metropolis pointing out the ob-
  1428
  jections urged by his hon. Friend, and he hoped the House would see fit to support the Motion.
  MR. COHEN)said, he did not intend to oppose the Motion; but while sympathising with the general objections against attempts to alter public law by means of Private Bills, he submitted that in this case it was not only right, but almost the duty of the County Council to proceed in this matter by Private Bill. He had not been an advocate of the action of the London County Council in attempting to pass measures by means of private procedure, but he did fear that this Bill, which contained many valuable provisions affecting the health of the inhabitants of the Metropolis, would not have had the remotest chance of being passed if left to struggle in the crowd of public measures. He did appeal to hon. Members opposite to be a little consistent in these matters, and he would remind them that only this week the House decided that a Bill embodying very novel principles should go through by private procedure. Why should not this Bill have been treated in the same way. They had been told that in the last Parliament there were plenty of means of getting Bills like this through in the form of public legislation, and it was claimed that what was done by the last Parliament could be done by this. But he would reply to that that they now had not only a new Parliament but a new Government which was literally besieged by competitive claimants for Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, and it was probable that in the competition Bills to which nobody could object would lose all chance of becoming law. It was for this unfortunate but irresistible reason that he believed the London County Council were right in proceeding with that urgent measure by means of Private Bill legislation. Still, he welcomed the Motion of the hon. Member opposite, because he wished to see carefully examined some objectionable clauses which were contained in the Bill.
  MR. J. STUARTsaid, he was sure the House would be glad to hear he had no opposition to offer to that proposal. He was only sorry that advantage had been taken of that occasion to find fault with the action of the London County Council in their procedure in this matter,

  1429
  it being a difficult question to decide whether this ought to be a Public or a Private Bill. In making the present Motion his hon. Friend had only anticipated a step which the County Council themselves were prepared to take, as he had intended to move a Motion which would have secured the result aimed at by his hon. Friend. Under the circumstances, however, he would accept the Motion now moved.
  Motion agreed to.

  NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
  Alfred Money Wigram, esquire, for County of Essex (Southern or Romford Division).
  The Hon. Arthur George Brand, for County of Cambridge (Northern or Wisbech Division).

QUESTIONS.

  DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH VENEZUELA.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if it is a fact that Her Majesty has had no Minister in Venezuela since 1887, owing to the action of the then President of the Republic; and if he can cause an unofficial representation to be made to the new President, General Crespo, by the friendly offices of Count Kleist, the Gorman Minister, who extends his courtesies to British residents at, Caracas, that Her Majesty would be willing to resume diplomatic relations should a wish to that effect be expressed by the Government of the Republic and a friendly reception assured to Her Majesty's Envoy?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): Diplomatic relations with Venezuela were suspended on the 21st of March, 1887, and have not yet been resumed. Her Majesty's Government are desirous of a friendly and equitable settlement of the questions at issue between the two countries, and their views on this matter have on more than one occasion been communicated to the Venezuelan Government. As recently as last year negotiations were carried on with a special Venezuelan Envoy who visited England,
  1430
  but they proved unsuccessful. As the Venezuelan Government are already aware of the views of Her Majesty's Government, it is not considered necessary to make a special representation to General Crespo on the subject.

  CHRIST'S HOSPITAL.
  MAJOR DARWIN: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for North St. Pancras, I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether any Report has been obtained by the Governors of Christ's Hospital as to the suitability, or otherwise, of the site purchased by them at Horsham for the erection of the new school buildings; what is the nature of such Report; whether the site fulfils all sanitary requirements; when, and by whom, was the Report made; and will it be laid upon the Table of the House?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND, York, W.R., Rothorham): The question relates to a transaction completed more than a year ago by the Council of Almoners of Christ's Hospital, in the course of carrying into effect the scheme established under the Endowed Schools Acts for the regulation of the Hospital on the 10th of August, 1890. No such Report as is mentioned in the question has been communicated to the Charity Commissioners, and they are, therefore, unable to give the information asked.

  LUNATICS IN BELFAST WORKHOUSE.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of additional nurses and officials appointed to the lunatic department of the Belfast Workhouse since 1st November last; also the number of deaths in the lunatic department since that date, and the number on which inquests have been held; whether the epileptics are still kept in the lunatic department, and if the Local Government Board has instructed the epileptics to be so kept there; whether, at a recent inquest on an epileptice who died in that department, held in Belfast, the coroner's jury strongly protested against this practice; whether he will state by what authority epileptics are placed there, or lunatics kept under restraint in the

  1431
  workhouse; whether he is aware of the practice of exchanging patients carried on between the workhouse authorities and the Governors of the asylum at Belfast; and if some inquiry will be made into the whole system in relief of those helpless afflicted persons?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: At the same time, I will ask the right hon. Gentleman when he proposes to introduce his promised Bill dealing with the detention of pauper lunatics in Irish workhouses?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): (1) A medical officer and six male and female attendants have been appointed to the lunatic department of the Belfast Workhouse since November 1 last; 41 deaths have taken place in the lunatic department since that date, and the number of inquests held was 10. (2) Epileptics, I am informed, are still kept in the lunatic department, but the Local Government Board have not directed that they should be placed or kept there. The matter is one appertaining to medical administration, and rests solely with the responsible medical officer. I understand, however, that the epileptics occupy separate dormitories, day-rooms, and sick wards, and are only associated with the lunatics in the dining-hall. (3) The reply to the third paragraph is in the affirmative. (4) The authority for the employment of restraint in this, as in all civil hospitals, is the order of the responsible medical officer, who directs that it shall be imposed when he deems it, necessary for the safety of the patient or those about him. (5) The practice referred to in paragraph 5 did exist prior to March, when it was terminated by the Guardians. As regards the concluding paragraph, and the question which stands in the name of the hon. Member for South Tyrone; just before the Autumn Recess I stated that the whole question of lunacy administration was receiving my careful attention, and that I hoped to confer at an early date with the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums on the subject. In consequence of communications which afterwards passed between me and the Inspectors, I have caused a Bill to be prepared dealing with the whole question of lunacy reform, including the particular branch of the
  1432
  question referred to by the hon. Member for South Tyrone. The Bill, however, inevitably contains matter which I fear might be regarded as contentious, and in the present state of public business I see so little prospect of carrying it into law this Session that I do not think it worth while to include it. On the other hand the object aimed at by the question of the hon. Member for South Tyrone should not, I conceive, be regarded as controversial, and I shall see whether it is possible to introduce a separate Bill dealing with this branch of the subject.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I may explain to the right hon. Gentleman that the question was intended to refer only to pauper lunatics.
  MR. KNOX: Would the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman change the incidence of the charge from the poor rate to the county rate? Such a Bill would be most contentious.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I think the hon. Member had better wait till he sees the Bill.

  TOWN PARKS IN ICELAND.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the general dissatisfaction in Ireland, particularly in Ulster, with reference to the present state of the law relating to town parks; whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Land Commission in the ease of Mrs. Letitia M'Cann, tenant, and the Marquess of Downshire, landlord, recently heard at Belfast, wherein the village of Dundrum, County Down, which had a population of only 372 in 1881, was decided to be a town to which the exemption from the benefits of the Laud Acts applied; is he aware that the Land Commission had previously decided that Dundrum was not such a town at the passing of the Act: whether he is aware that the Cow-per Commission recommended that the exemption should not apply to any town under a population of 5,000, and that the late Government accepted in the House of Commons, in the Laud Bill of 1887, an Amendment providing that the exemption should not apply where the population was under 2,000; and whether some steps will be taken to preserve to tenants in towns in Ireland their property in such lands held outside the towns.
  MR. J. MORLEY: In reply to the first paragraph, it is very probable that some dissatisfaction is felt as alleged. My attention has been called to the matters stated in the second and third paragraphs in the question, and I am informed that the facts are as indicated by my hon. Friend. I am aware that the Cowper Commission made a recommendation to the effect stated. I am not aware, though I have no reason to doubt, that my hon. Friend is correctly informed as to the proceedings in Committee on the Bill of 1887. In reply to the last paragraph, I think it will be open to the Select Committee which I am proposing to appoint to suggest improvements in the law in respect to the matter alluded to in this question.
  MR. M'CARTAN: The right hon. Gentleman is probably aware that the Amendment adopted by this House reducing the limit of population was thrown out in another place.
  MR. KNOX: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason why a place which was not a town 10 years ago and has not increased in size in the interval is to be deemed to be a town now?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I cannot answer that question without notice.

  TENANTS' IMPROVEMENTS IN IRELAND.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the large number of tenants in Ireland whose holdings have been exempted from the benefits of the Land Acts; whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. John Robb, of Belfast, tenant, and the Marquess of Downshire, landlord, where the Land Commission decided to fix an extra rent on the improvements made by the tenant, without any contribution from the landlord, on the ground that such improvements were too good for the holding; and whether the terms of Reference to the proposed Committee will be so extended as to include inquiry into the cases now excluded by the defects of the Land Acts, but which are equally entitled to the benefits which these Acts were intended to confer on all the farmers of Ireland?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am not aware of the actual number of the holdings ex-
  1434
  cluded from the operation of the Acts. In reply to the second part of the question, the Land Acts do not entitle a tenant to exemption from rent in respect of improvements which are unsuitable to the holding, and I am informed that the Land Commission decided in this particular case that the improvements in question should not be exempted from rent because they were not suitable to the holding, treating it as an agricultural or pastoral holding. In reply to the third paragraph, I am not prepared to admit that the provisions above mentioned do constitute a defect in these Acts, or that the Legislature intended that these Acts should confer such benefits as the question refers to.

  EXAMINATIONS FOR IRISH MONITORS.
  MR. BODKIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in what cases, and for what periods, are schools deprived of the teaching services of monitors by reason of the failure of such monitors to pass the 1st of July examination; and will be recommend that for the future the appointment or apportionment of monitors to schools for each year shall take place after the monitors have passed these examinations, so that the schools may run no risk of being deprived of the assistance to which their attendance entitles them?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by me to this question on the 1st of March?

  LESSON BOOKS IN IRISH SCHOOLS.
  MR. BODKIN: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can furnish the particulars of any case in which the application of the manager of a national school for permission to use in such school lesson books other than those published and supplied by the Board of National Education in Ireland was complied with, and of the arrangements made in such case for the protection of the monitors and children in such school in regard to the examinations usually held in the special lesson books provided by the Board from the use of which such school had been exempted?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Commissioners of National Education report that there were numerous cases in which the managers of national schools applied for

  1435
  permission to use lesson books other than those supplied by the Board, but in none of these eases was exemption claimed for either pupils or monitors from examination in the Board's lesson books. In cases where other books were permitted, it was open to the Inspectors to arrange with managers and teachers as to the examination of the pupils. Monitors must be examined in the books prescribed in the official programme.
  MR. BODKIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me particulars of any cases in which permission was granted?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I think the cases referred to will be contained in a Return recently granted by this House, and now in course of preparation. It will be presented probably by the end of the month.
  MR. BODKIN: Am I to understand that in all cases in which permission was granted, the monitors, although allowed to use lesson books other than those supplied by the Board, were compelled to be examined in the books prescribed by the National Board?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I cannot add anything to the answer I have already given.

  HABITUAL OFFENDERS.
  MR. PAUL: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received a Memorial from a Conference attended by representatives of the Town Councils of Edinburgh, Dundee, Aberdeen, Greenock, and Perth, the Couvention of Royal Burghs, the Parochial Boards of Edinburgh, and a number of philanthropic societies in Scotland, praying for a Royal Commission to inquire into the best means of dealing, by means more effective than now exist, with habitual offenders, vagrants, beggars, and inebriates; and whether Her Majesty's Government will in the public interest issue such a Commission as prayed?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): I have received the Memorial referred to. The question of dealing with habitual drunkards was considered and reported upon in 1893 by a Departmental Committee appointed by the late Home Secretary. There was no Representative of Scotland upon the committee, which is matter for regret; but witnesses from Scotland were examined
  1436
  before it. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary proposes to bring in a measure, in accordance with the recommendations of that Committee, which will contain provisions applicable to Scotland, as well as England. It would, therefore, seem desirable to await the consideration of the terms of this measure before deciding whether a further Committee should be appointed to inquire into the mode of dealing with inebriates in Scotland. I will, however, consider whether a kindred inquiry of the same character might be conducted in Scotland into the important question of habitual offenders.

  THE FAILURE OF GEORGE BARKER AND COMPANY.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, although the estate of the firm of George Barker and Company has been in liquidation for nearly two years, only one dividend of 1s. has at present been paid to the creditors; and whether, considering that a large number of poor persons are interested in the winding up of the estate, the Board of Trade can take action to bring about a speedy settlement of its affairs?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): I am aware that only one dividend of 1s. in the £1 has at present been paid to the creditors in the joint estate of George Barker & Co., and 20s. in the £1 on the separate estates. The estate has been administered by two trustees and a Committee of Inspection elected by the creditors. The Board of Trade, in consequence of certain facts which were brought to their notice, removed the two trustees of the 6th ultimo, and the estate is now vested in the Senior Official Receiver of the High Court as Trustee. It is hoped that a further dividend will shortly be distributed.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: Can the Official Receiver act quite independently of the Committee of Inspection? If not, can the power to do so possibly be granted him, in view of the grave charges made against the Committee?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The trustees having been removed, the Committee of Inspection will come under the orders of the Court.

  ENFIELD AND SPARKBROOK FACTORIES.
  MR. A.C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any alteration in the orders to be given to the Enfield Small Arms Factory for Navy rifles has been made' since the Ordnance Vote was taken in March?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL,)(who replied) said: No alterations in the allocation of rifles to be manufactured during the financial year have been made since the Ordnance Factory Vote was taken on March 16. It was then explained by the Secretary of State that Enfield and Birmingham would be worked as part of one establishment, and that it had been arranged that 15,000 rifles required by the Admiralty should be allocated to Spark-brook, the completion of rifles in hand, the manufacture of cavalry carbines, and the conversion of Martini-Henry rifles for the Artillery, with other demands for the now current year, providing work at Enfield for a, number of hands not less, I hope, than those employed at the present time.
  MR. BENN: Will the sum voted for wages still stand?
  MR. WOODALL: Yes, the only change is that the two factories are now to be worked as part of one establishment.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: Is it not a fact that it costs 25 per cent. more to manufacture the rifles at Spark brook than at Enfield?
  MR. WOODALL: No, Sir.
  MR. WEIR: Then how much more does it cost?
  MR. WOODALL: If the hon. Member will give notice of the question I will come prepared with an answer.

  EASTERN PONDOLAND.
  MR. WHITELEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Government has further information as to whether the Colony of Natal will have any voice in the terms of annexation of Eastern Pondoland so far as relates to the trade carried on between the two countries; and seeing that the trade of Eastern Pondoland has hitherto been carried on through Natal, and Natal merchants and traders have invested capital in the country and upon
  1438
  the borders, whether the Government will provide that no restrictions shall be placed on the importation of goods from Natal, so as to divert the trade to the Cape Colony?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): I am afraid it would be inexpedient for me, at the present moment, to add anything to the answer I gave on the 20th of March to the hon. Member for the Kirk-dale Division of Liverpool.

  THE DUM-DUM MURDER.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if his attention has been called to the finding of a Court Martial, presided over by Colonel Steevens at Ahmedabad on the 13th of March last, when Private O'Hara, of the Leinster Regiment, was accused, and found guilty of shooting three comrades, two of whom were killed, when under the influence of liquor; and is this the same Private O'Hara who was condemned to be hung at Calcutta by Justice Norris and a British jury for the murder of Sheik Soleim at Dum-Dum, but who was afterwards re-tried before a Commission of Judges and acquitted, the Bench holding that Judge Norris committed a technical error in his Charge to the jury, although the evidence was clear with regard to OHara's guilt, and no doubt was attempted to be thrown on the justice of his sentence; and, if so, is it in accordance with the Rules of the British Army in India, that a man who has been proved guilty of the murder of a Native should return to his regiment, and continue in the Queen's service?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,&c.)(who replied) said: I have seen in the newspapers a report of the Court Martial at Ahmedabad on Private O' Hara, but not of the finding and sentence of the Court. The Private O'Hara referred to in the second paragraph of my hon. Friend's question was tried and convicted for a murder committed at Dum-Dum. In India, as in this country, power is reserved to refer questions of law to a Court of Appeal. This was done in the present instance, and the Court, with the express concurrence of the Judge who tried the

  1439
  case, decided that the conviction was wrong and must be quashed. I am informed that the soldier O'Hara, who was the subject of these proceedings, was discharged from the Army.

  THE STAMPING OF WEIGHING MACHINES.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if an Inspector is justified in seizing any weighing instrument which is not stamped in the county where it is discovered, though it has been stamped by the Inspector of another county; is it the duty of Inspectors under such circumstances to point out to the owner the special requirements of his own County Council, and so give him, before taking any proceedings, the opportunity of getting it altered so as to comply with their interpretation of the Act; if it is possible for the Board of Trade, without legislation, so to assimilate the various and differing requirements of County Councils with regard to the stamping of weighing machines as to obviate the frequent proceedings which are now inevitable; and, if not, will be introduce a Bill for the purpose; will be reduce the Inspector's fee from 5s. to 1s.; and will be arrange for costs to be borne by the parties sustaining the adverse verdict?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Weighing instruments, although stamped in the district of one Local Authority, may, under existing law, have to be re-stamped if used in trade in the district of another Local Authority. It rests with the County Councils who appoint the Inspectors to give owners of weighing instruments reasonable opportunity for complying with the provisions of the Act. It is undesirable to interfere with the discretion of County Councils in making requirements with regard to stamping weighing machines, as the administration of the law has been placed in their bands by Parliament. The Board of Trade have no power to alter the fees, which are fixed by Statute, or to amend the legal procedure as to payment of costs.

  REGISTRARS OF BIRTHS AS POLITICAL AGENTS.
  MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware
  1440
  that Robert Halliwell, the present Registrar of Births, Marriages, and Deaths ill Wigan, is the agent of a political Party in the town, and was a surety for the recent political Petition case in Wigan, and that he is now a political candidate for one of the wards in the town; whether these are permitted to any person holding such an office under the Government; and, if the conduct of the Registrar is contrary to the Rules of the Service, what course will be pursued by Government?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAW-LEFEVRE,): I learn from the Registrar General that Mr. Halliwell has held the office of Registrar of Births and Deaths for more than 26 years. He is also a Registrar of Marriages. The Registrar General has no knowledge as to the political views of Mr. Halliwell, or as to his being an agent of a political party. Registrars of Births and Deaths are appointed by the Guardians. They are not salaried officers of the Government, but derive their emoluments from fees. There is nothing in the Regulations which would prevent their undertaking any duties which do not clash with their duties as Registrars, and the Registrar General considers that he has no power to interfere with the officers in respect of the work which they may undertake out of office hours.

  INDIAN COTTON GOODS IMPORTS.
  SIR D. MACFARLANE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state what proportion of the total imports of British cotton goods into India consist of coloured and printed goods which are not manufactured in that country; and whether, in the case of the goods referred to, the Government of India would be permitted to impose such duties as were necessary for Revenue purposes?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): On the average of the last three years about 21 per cent. of the cotton goods imported into India consist of coloured or printed goods. The Tariff Act has been passed, and there is at present no proposal on the subject of Indian Import Duties before Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. WHITELEY: Are we to understand the 21 per cent. are all British goods?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I should not like to say that.
  SIR D. MACFARLANE: Is it the intention of Her Majesty's Government to allow the Government of India a free hand in dealing with these imported goods?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I do not quite understand the hon. Member's question. The Tariff Bill has passed into law, and there is no proposal before the Government with reference to the imposition of Import Duties.
  SIR D. MACFARLANE: I understood the objection was, that native goods were to be protected at the expense of British goods. I take it that that will not be the case.

  IRISH POST OFFICE CLOTHING CONTRACTS.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can now state whether it would be possible to have a condition inserted in the contract for the supply of clothing for the Irish Postal Service that, assuming price and quality to be equal, the material shall be of Irish manufacture?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): A fresh contract for finished garments is about to be made for one year on the lines of the old contract, and it will contain no stipulation as to the place where the contractors are to obtain the materials. It is proposed next year to separate the contracts for materials and for tailoring; and thou it will be open to Irish manufacturers to tender for the supply of cloth.

  THE REV. JOHN HERKLESS.
  SIR C. DALRYMPLE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the Rev. John Herkless, who has just been appointed to the Chair of Ecclesiastical History in the University of St. Andrews, has take na degree at any University, or whether he has otherwise gained distinction in literature, divinity, or general scholarship as a qualification for a Professorial Chair? Since I placed the question on the Paper I have discovered that I have been misinformed as
  1442
  to the facts; but, as the question appears, I think it only right to put it.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: Mr. Herkless, to use the words of the Very Reverend the Principal of the University of Glasgow, was one of the most distinguished students of his time at that University. Dr. Caird writes—
  "Seldom, if over, has it fallen to any student as in his case, to be equally eminent in the Faculties of Arts, of Theology, and of Medicine. He is as this University record indicates, a man of wide and varied knowledge; and any productions from his pen which I have seen show him to be possessed of no little literary faculty."
  His book on Cardinal Beaton, according to the Reverend Herbert Storey, Professor of Church History in the University of Glasgow, is marked by
  "great historical accuracy, critical acuteness, and freshness of presentment."
  The Reverend Alexander Mitchell, the predecessor of Mr. Herkless in the Chair of St. Andrews, writes—
  "I have always heard from my friends in Glasgow University that Mr. John Herkless was one of the very foremost students of his time, and carried off an amount of University honours in Philosophy, Science, and Theology such as falls to the lot of few. In the Class of Biblical Criticism he especially distinguished himself, and since leaving Glasgow University he has had ample opportunities of prosecuting that and other favourite studies, first by residence at the German Universities, and latterly in his quiet country manse."
  I do not think that the House would expect me to read a long list of testimonials from men admirably capable of judging, of which these are a specimen. When at Glasgow Mr. Herkless obtained by way of University honours:—The Cleland Gold Medal in Theology, the Rae Wilson Gold Medal in Theology, the University Medal in Mental Philosophy, the John Hunter Medal in Science, the Henderson Prize in Theology (equal), the Marshall Bursary in Divinity, the Smith Prize, given to the best student of the year in the Glasgow Presbytery, and in class work he won seven highest prizes in Divinity, four highest prizes and one second prize in Church History, four highest prizes in Biblical Criticism, three prizes in Moral Philosophy, and others which I need not recapitulate. I do not very well see how Mr. Herkless could have had a more distinguished University career. I have written to ask him what his degree is. He is not, I think, a Doctor of Divinity.

  THE DEFENCES OF COLOMBO.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has had his attention drawn to the opinions of Royal Engineer officers and other experts, in condemnation of the sites upon which the two batteries already constructed for the defence of the harbour of Colombo (Ceylon) have been located; whether, in view of that condemnation, the War Department will delay the further construction of similar works until such time as (be new harbour extensions resolved upon have been so far proceeded with as to enable a correct judgment to be formed as to the best positions in which such new batteries should be placed to ensure the defence of the harbour; and whether the War Department will send out qualified officers, independently of the present staff at Colombo, to consider the whole subject of these defences, and to report upon the alleged unsatisfactory position of the sites already occupied and of those proposed?
  MR. CAMPBELL- BANNERMAN: No Reports condemnatory of the sites on which batteries have been erected at Colombo have been brought to my notice. The sites are the best available, taking into account the other necessities of the Colonial Government in the locality, and they are sufficient for the defence of the harbour. The harbour extensions may, perhaps, involve some readjustment, but I see no present occasion for any special inquiry.

  ROYAL NAVAL ENGINEERING EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether, as Manchester is now a seaport, he would cause examinations of the Royal Naval Engineering College to be held there, as is done in certain other ports in the United Kingdom, and in view of the very suitable material to be found amongst the population of the district, of which Manchester is the centre, for adding to the engineering strength of the Navy?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,): I am happy to inform my hon. Friend that a proposal has been made by the Admiralty to the Civil Service Commis-
  1444
  sioners that Manchester and Birmingham should be made centres for the examination of candidates for entry into the Training: School for Engineer Students at Keyham.

  CEYLON RIFLE RANGE.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is acquainted with the fact of the insufficient length of the present rifle range at Mount Lavinia, Ceylon, and that, as a consequence, the men of the Royal Warwickshire Regiment, although supplied with the Lee-Metford rifle, have to be practised in rifle-firing with the obsolete Martini-Henry rifle; and whether instructions have been sent out to push forward the establishment of adequate ranges at Bandarawella and elsewhere in Ceylon?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: The facts are as stated in the first paragraph of the question. We are in correspondence with the Government of Ceylon as to the establishment of proper ranges for the Lee-Metford Rifle.

  "PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES" INDEX.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the Index of The Parliamentary Debates for Session 1893–4 will be ready?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): The contractor assures me that no pains are being spared to finish the Index referred to, but he cannot yet say precisely when it will be ready. I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate the exceptional character of the case owing to the length of last Session, involving almost double the usual number of volumes, and the fact that the indexing for the present Session has to be proceeded with concurrently.
  MR. BARTLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a mouth has now passed since the Session closed, and that the Debates are really inaccessible without an Index? Would not a private firm have made up the Index in half the time?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: It is certainly a month since the Session closed, but I may remind my hon. Friend the number of volumes has gone up from eight to 14,

  1445
  and we must make some allowance for the contractor under the circumstances.

  HARBOURS OF REFUGE ON THE EAST COAST OF YORKSHIRE.
  MR. HOLDEN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a copy of a Resolution, passed by the County Council of East Yorkshire, referring to the disastrous storm which swept the coast on the 18th, 19th, and 20th of November last, and urging the desirability of the construction on the East Coast of Yorkshire of a harbour of refuge; and whether he is prepared to take any steps in response to this resolution?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Yes, Sir; I have received the Resolution referred to, and have replied to the County Council that the Board of Trade cannot encourage the idea that the Government will construct harbours of refuge at the public expense, an idea which has been repeatedly discouraged by successive Governments.

  RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES.
  MR. RICHARDSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now fix the date on which he will bring in a Bill to deal with railway rates and charges?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I hope to introduce this Bill very shortly, but I cannot fix the day at present.
  SIR J. WHITEHEAD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an approximate time?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I cannot say more than that I hope it will be very shortly.

  LICENCE FEES.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state by what authority, whether statutory or otherwise, fees are levied by the Home Office on various licences and other instruments; whether the same fee of £7 13s. 6d. is charged for a licence to stop a footway, for a licence to establish a theatre, for a grant of Quarter Sessions, and for a suffragan bishop or prebendary; and whether he can state on what principle this exact sum is fixed in such dissimilar cases?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): Various non-statutory fees are taken at the Home Office in pursuance of very ancient usage. Such fees are all paid into the Exchequer. The sum of £7 13s. 6d. has been charged in regard to all the cases mentioned, all of which were carried out by Letters Patent. The principle would appear to be that the same fee is charged in respect of all such Letters Patent, irrespective of the purpose for which they were required. Such charges were sanctioned by the Treasury in 1881. As regards a footway, no application for Letters Patent appear to have been received since 1874.

  ALDERSHOT POLICE STATION.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Hampshire County Council sent plans for additional cells to the police station at Aldershot and for a new police station at Farnborough some six months ago to the Home Office for approval, and that the County Council has not yet, received any answer to that application: whether he is aware that additional accommodation is greatly required in the above-named places; and whether he will use his influence to prevent any further delay?
  MR. ASQUITH: In the event of a Local Authority desiring to raise a loan to defray the cost of the erection or improvement of a police station it is necessary to obtain the approval not only of the Secretary of State, but also that of the Local Government Board. The plans in question having been received from the Hampshire County Council in August, 1893, by the Secretary of State for the Homo Department were, after consideration by the Surveyor General of Prisons, forwarded to the Local Government Board, and the final approval of the suggested alterations has been deferred pending the usual inquiry by the Local Government Board, and such inquiry has been delayed owing to the omission of the clerk of the county to supply the Local Government Board with the information asked for in repeated communications from that Department.

  RELIGIOUS IMPARTIALITY IN INDIA.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to a notification, dated 9th December, 1892, in The Sindh Official Gazette, under which an educational qualification, including a knowledge of English, is required from Hindu candidates for Government Service, while a lower qualification, not including a knowledge of English, is required from Mahomedan candidates; whether such difference of treatment, depending on difference of creed, is in accordance with the requirement of the Queen's Proclamation of 1858; and whether he will disallow this notification as being inconsistent with such requirement?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: My attention has been called to the notification to which my hon. Friend refers. I am not prepared upon such information as I have received to express any opinion as to this particular case, but I will bring it under the notice of the Government of India.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry from the Government of India as to whether similar notifications have been issued in other parts of India infringing religious impartiality?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I am not prepared to order an inquiry. I think, if such a notification is carried out, it would be unfair, as it would seem to bear the complexion of religious partiality in favour of one portion of Her Majesty's subjects.

  TEXT BOOKS IN INDIAN SCHOOLS.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether it is the case that a large portion of the text books, both English and Vernacular, prescribed for use in the Government and aided schools in the North-West Provinces, have been compiled, as a private enterprise, by Mr. Nesfield, the Director of Public Instruction for the North-West Provinces; and whether such arrangement operates to create a monopoly, and to exclude other text books from those schools?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I have no information on the subject of my hon. Friend's question. The matter is one for the Local Government to consider, and
  1448
  would seem to be a proper subject for a question in the Local Legislative Council.

  DISTRICT COUNCILS.
  COLONEL GUNTER (York, W.R.,): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, in a case where a man is elected by co-optation a member of a Board of Guardians, does he also become by such election a member of the District Council?
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: The question as I understand refers to persons who are elected by Guardians from outside their own body under the provisions of section 20 (7) of the Local Government Act of last Session. Persons who are so elected by the Guardians do not thereby become members of either the Urban or Rural District Council.

  THE VOLUNTEER DECORATION.
  VISCOUNT WOLMER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that a Volunteer decoration is to be given to all Volunteer non-commissioned officers and privates, as it has already been given to all Volunteer officers, of 20 years' service and upwards, he will consider the possibility of making some adjustment of the Regulations to qualify those officers for a decoration who, although they have served for more than 20 years, are eligible for neither decoration, owing to the fact that part of their service has been in the commissioned and part in the non-commissioned ranks?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is not advisable to alter the conditions laid down by Warrant for the officers' decoration, but the new decoration will be open to any officer whose total service as a Volunteer entitles him to it, but who has not received the officers' decoration.

  SIR C. FREEMANTLE'S COMMITTEE.
  VISCOUNT WOLMER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of Sir C. Freemantle's Committee on the conditions of service and remuneration of office-keepers, managers, &c, in the Public Departments, with the Treasury Minute thereon of the 19th of February, 1894?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Report was that of a Departmental Committee,

  1449
  and, as such, a confidential document, and therefore I should not feel justified in laying it upon the Table, but I will at once lay the Treasury Minute of the 17th of February, 1894, referred to.

  EDINBURGH CASTLE ROCK.
  VISCOUNT WOLMER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what arrangement has been come to between the Treasury and the Town Council of Edinburgh to repay to the City of Edinburgh the £2,000 paid last year into the Treasury by the North British Railway Company in compensation for part of the Castle rock taken for the improvement of the Company's lines?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I am informed that the Corporation of Edinburgh have received a sum of £2,000 for their interest in the lands in question held by them from the Crown, and I do not understand what supposed arrangement is referred to, there being nothing left to arrange so far as the Woods and Forests are concerned. The compensation received by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests for the Crown's interest was carried to the capital account of the Laud Revenue.
  VISCOUNT WOLMER: Is it not the case that the Council of the City of Edinburgh have applied for repayment of the sum?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Yes; but they have no claim to it.

  EDINBURGH COMMISSARY OFFICE.
  VISCOUNT WOLMER: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he has yet been able to examine the case of the staff of the Commissary Office, Edinburgh, as he undertook to do during the discussion on the Estimates last year; and, if so, whether he can state to the House the conclusion he has arrived at?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: In accordance with the promise I gave the hon. Member, I have again considered the position of the staff of the Commissary Office in Edinburgh, and referred it for further consideration to the Treasury; but their Lordships have come to the conclusion that the question of placing these clerks upon the establishment of the Civil Service cannot be regarded by itself, as their case is practically the same as that of the numerous body of employés who constitute the staff of the offices of Government Solicitors and of
  1450
  other legal or quasi-legal Departments. I may add that the views of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury were fully communicated by me to the Head of the Commissary Office in December last; but that, on receipt of his reply, I did not feel that it would serve any useful purpose to again re-open the question with the Treasury.

  THE BURIAL ACTS.
  MR. G. ALLSOPP: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any Memorials have been received at the Home Office with reference to an amendment of the Burial Acts similar to the Memorial forwarded by the Corporation of Worcester; and, if so, to mention the towns that have forwarded such Memorials?
  MR. ASQUITH: About 34 Burial Boards, out of probably 1,100 or 1,200, have presented Memorials on the subject referred to. A list of them would exceed the ordinary limits of an answer, but I have given directions that a list shall be sent to the hon. Member.

  INSTRUCTION FOR DOCKYARD APPRENTICES.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that apprentices in the shipwrights' and fitters' trades in Sheerness Dockyard receive 11 hours' instruction per week, while in 10 other trades only four hours is given; and whether he can see his way to return to the old system—namely, all apprentices to attend the same school and receive the same instruction?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: The attendance at the dockyard schools, as quoted by the hon. Member, is in accordance with existing Regulations. The whole subject of the future management of these schools is now being inquired into by a Committee recently appointed by the Admiralty.

  MILITARY VERSUS CIVILIAN LABOUR.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the fact that soldiers are being employed by a contractor at daily wages unloading coals at Spike Island, County Cork, thus depriving the Queenstown

  1451
  coalporters of work; and whether, in the interest of free labour, he will take immediate steps to put a stop to this practice?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have caused inquiries to be addressed to the General Officer commanding in Cork, but have not yet received a definite reply. Meanwhile, any help the soldiers were giving has ceased.

  DELAGOA BAY RAILWAY.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the arbitration award on the Delagoa Bay Railway is likely to be promulgated; and, if not yet made, what is the cause of the delay; and whether the dispute was submitted to the three jurists at Berne, Switzerland, in August, 1891?
  SIR E. GREY: It is impossible to say when the award will be given. The Rules of Procedure were not finally fixed till February, 1892, and the British case was communicated to the Portuguese Government by the Tribunal of Arbitration in April, 1892. Several extensions of time have since been granted for the delivery of the counter case, the rejoinder and the reply, at the request of each of the parties respectively, and this has been the cause of the delay hitherto. The term fixed for the delivery of the Portuguese reply is now the 27th of next July.

  LISMORE AGRARIAN TROUBLES.
  MR. W. KENNY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to speeches made at Lismore, County Waterford, by, amongst others, an hon. Member of this House, on the 18th February last, at a meeting held for the purpose of denouncing a person resident in the locality who had taken a farm from which a tenant had been evicted 12 years previously; whether the police refused to allow the meeting to be held beside or on the farm in question, but allowed it to take place at a distance of one mile off; if the police have orders to permit such meetings provided they are not held in the immediate vicinity of the evicted farms; whether he has been advised that the meeting was an illegal assembly, and
  1452
  that the language made use of by the speakers was sufficient to maintain a criminal prosecution; and if he will state why such a meeting is permitted, and no step taken to prevent the use of such denunciations?
  MR. J. MORLEY: My attention was drawn to the speeches made at the meeting referred to, and the statement in the second paragraph of the question is accurate. As to the third paragraph, the police have no general instructions in the matter; each case is dealt with, as it arises, on its merits. I have not been advised that the meeting was an illegal assembly; and as regards the speeches made, I was advised they were not of a sufficiently violent character to sustain a criminal prosecution for conspiracy or otherwise.

  PUBLICANS AND MILITARY PENSIONERS.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department whether he will direct the police of the A Division to prevent the publicans in Great Peter Street and district, notably the proprietors of the "Star and Garter" and "Elephant and Castle," from selling liquor to drunken pensioners and reservists, and so prevent the scenes that regularly take place, and which on Monday and Tuesday of this week were particularly conspicuous?
  MR. JEFFREYS: Before the question is answered, I wish to ask Mr. Speaker whether it is in Order to insert in the question the words "drunken pensioners and reservists," which, I submit, implies an unfounded charge against a body of honourable and respectable men?
  MR. SPEAKER: Under the Rules of the House the hon. Member who put down the question is responsible for the, statement as to the condition of those: persons at that time.
  MR. ASQUITH: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that in the immediate neighbourhood to which my hon. Friend refers there are five registered common lodging-houses, which accommodate about 1,200 men. Immediately opposite the "Star and Garter" and' "Elephant" public-houses there is a registered lodging-house with accommodation for 400 men, many of whom

  1453
  are reservists and pensioners from the Army. At pension time (which occurred on Monday last) these men spend their money very freely in drink, and frequent quarrels take place. The attention of the police is at all times drawn to the locality, especially on pension days, but no serious disturbances have been noticed, and the people generally disperse when called on to do so. The Inspector who passed through Great Peter Street on Monday and Tuesday last, and the other officers engaged there, state that, although several persons were seen who were more or less drunk in the streets, they did not notice any irregularity in the public-houses, or it would have been at once reported. Publicans have been summoned from time to time for permitting drunkenness on their licensed premises, one so recently as the 3rd instant, when a fine of 40s. and costs were inflicted. The police are at times called by the landlords to eject drunken people, but they were not appealed to on Monday or Tuesday, and what quarrels there were occurred in the streets.
  MR. BARTLEY: Has the attention of the Secretary of State for War been drawn to the fact that pensioners are paid in comparatively large sums; and would it not be much better to pay them it smaller sums at shorter intervals?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If the hon. Member will put that question down on the Paper I will endeavour to answer it.

  CANADIAN ELECTION DISPUTES.
  SIR C. W. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government have received telegraphic information from Newfoundland to the effect that the Election Judges, having disqualified a portion of the Government majority on principles which are thought likely to apply to a large number of seats, including those held by the Government themselves, the supporters of the Government have petitioned the Governor to dissolve the Legislature elected last November, at the elections to which the largo number of Petitions against Government Members apply, while, on the other hand, the Opposition have offered to form a Government; and whether there is any objection to at once lay upon the Table, for the information
  1454
  of the House, the Papers which have been transmitted to the Colonial Office by cable telegraph?
  MR. S. BUXTON: The Governor has reported by telegraph that a Deputation of the supporters of the Government in the Assembly introduced by the Prime Minister had petitioned him to dissolve. Last night a further telegram was received stating that the Governor had received a strong protest from the Opposition Members against this course. The Governor is in communication with his responsible advisers, and no further statement can be made at present on the subject.

  THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE IRISH LAND ACTS.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now in a position to say when the Motion for the appointment of the Select Committee on the Irish Land Acts will be made?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I very much regret to say, in answer to the hon. Member, that I am still not in a position to say when this appointment will be effectively made. I have, as the hon. Member is aware, done my best to meet the objections taken to the form of Reference by hon. Members opposite, and I have altered it to that end. I understand that the alterations do not meet all the objections that are taken, I believe, as to the Committee making land purchase the first head of Reference. My own view is that the inquiry would probably extend through the whole of the present Session. The Committee, therefore, would have to be re-appointed, if the House thought tit, next Session, and that would be the time at which it would be perfectly open to gentlemen who object to this Order of Reference to state their objections. But I am not prepared, in face of the largo interest that I know is taken by all classes and by all parties in Ireland in the whole length and breadth of the Reference, to alter it further. I do not feel I would be doing my duty if I altered the form of it.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: May I ask whether, in view of the opposition to the Reference as it stands, the right hon. Gentleman will take an opportunity of allowing the House to discuss it, and come to a judgment on the matter, as

  1455
  every clay lost is of the utmost importance?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I quite agree with the hon. Member that every day lost is a loss of great importance, but I cannot at the present moment—considering the time now at our disposal, and the very heavy charges upon that time—I cannot at the moment think of allowing a day for its discussion.
  MR. CARSON: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman does he think it would be possible to report even within the time of three or four Sessions on this matter, and whether he would not take the first portion first as being the most urgent?
  MR. J. MORLEY: We shall take the first portion first as a matter of course, but I do not agree with the hon. Member that it would take the time of three or four Sessions to cover the whole inquiry. I may say that no doubt if the hon. and learned Gentleman were there and exerted his ingenuity that it would take some little time. But I assume that the Select Committee will follow the ordinary practical habits of Committees of this House, and I do not think in that case it will take so long.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would consider the propriety of restricting the Reference in this year to the first part of the Reference which is on the Paper? That is a portion which, I think, would meet with universal approval. Then next year we could consider the question of an augmented Reference, as he himself admits that the augmented Reference cannot be dealt with this year.
  MR. J. MORLEY: We do not know what accidents may occur, and I think the right hon. Gentleman himself will admit that it would be very rash for any Government to narrow the scope of an inquiry which they deem of the highest importance, and which the people of Ireland, of both Parties, generally desire to have instituted in as wide a form as possible.
  MR. SEXTON: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the Representatives of the great majority of the people of Ireland think that there are questions connected with the purchase of land quite as urgent as any connected with rent,
  1456
  and whether he would receive a suggestion that it would be well to go forward with what he considers urgent, and not waste time in endeavouring to conciliate an irreconcileable opposition?
  MR. J. MORLEY: No doubt in a very important part of Ireland the purchase part of the question is quite as important as any other.
  MR. DUNBAR BARTON: Might I ask whether the inquiry would not be expedited if the portion relating to the Lauded Estates Court were postponed, as that raises the question of incumbrances?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I think we are rather conducting a discussion upon this subject. In answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I will say this—that the Committee, as a practical body, would deal with the land purchase before they proceeded to the question of incumbrances.

  LUNATICS IN IRELAND.
  SIR T. LEA: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has yet decided to issue a small Commission of experts to inquire into the circumstances and causes of the great increase in the number of lunatics in Ireland?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums have not so far satisfied themselves or me that a new Commission of Inquiry is necessary, but I am giving the matter further and special consideration, and meanwhile, as the hon. Baronet is doubtless aware, I have laid on the Table of the House within the last few days a special Report which I had called for from the Inspectors on the subject of the alleged increasing prevalence of insanity in Ireland.

  GERMAN EXPORT TRADE.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the report of the foreign trade of Germany given in the last issue of The Statist and to the increase it shows in German exports in 1893, compared with 1892, in every line but one, and to a total amount of £8,525,000, even iron showing an increase of 12 per cent.; and if, having regard to the decline in British exports by £8,500,000 in the same periods, and by £45,000,000 between 1890 and 1893,

  1457
  Her Majesty's Government propose to take any steps to relieve the depression in trade?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The full particulars of German exports for 1892 and 1893 will be found in The Board of Trade Journal for March, and they show an increase in 1893 over 1892 of about £8,500,000. 1892 was the lowest year of German exports since 1885, whereas British exports in that year were £14,000,000 in excess of 1885. British exports in 1890 were £50,000,000 in excess of 1885, whereas German exports have not risen in any year to anything like the same extent as our own. It is impossible, therefore, to make comparisons by the rise or fall of a single year. There can be no doubt that German trade profited to some extent by the dispute in the coal trade last year, and the Government are anxious, as far as possible, to prevent such disputes, but they have no intention of changing the commercial policy of the country.

  THE BEHRING SEA AWARD BILL.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether the terms of the Behring Sea Award Bill have received the specific approval of the Government of the Canadian Dominion; and whether the Bill is identical, so far as can be, with the Bill on the same subject now before the Legislature of the United States?
  MR. S. BUXTON(who replied) said: (1) The Dominion Government are in general agreement with Her Majesty's Government as to the terms of the Bill, but have raised objections in regard to one or two points of detail, which will receive due consideration. (2) The American Bill differs in form from the Bill before this House, but it is understood to be substantially in accordance with the Bill which stands for Second Reading to-day.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: Will those points with which the Canadian Government disagree be considered before the House finally decides on the shape of the Bill?
  MR. S. BUXTON: I understand the points to which I have referred will arrive by mail either to-day or to-morrow, and they will therefore be in time for
  1458
  the Committee stage of the measure on Monday.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Was the agreement of the Canadian Government to this Bill given unconditionally, or as in the modus vivendi conditionally on compensation being given to the Canadian sealers?
  MR. S. BUXTON: The Canadian Government are in general agreement with Her Majesty's Government as to the terms of the Bill, and I do not understand that they attach any conditions.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: They have not asked for compensation?
  MR. S. BUXTON: Please give notice.

  LABOUR IN GERMAN CONVICT PRISONS.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to an article in The Hardwareman of the 3rd March last, purporting to be the description by a Special Commissioner (who had been sent to Germany for the purpose) of the concessionaire system now obtaining in some 20 or more of the German convict prisons; whether he is aware that, under this system, English goods and English patterns are pirated and copied by the German Prison Authorities, and turned out in tons by the convicts at a labour cost of 3d. to 1s. per day; that this convict labour is let out to a concessionaire or gaol manufacturer, who has only to supply the necessary plant and raw material, and who exports to England, as British-made goods, the articles made by the prisoners from pirated English designs; and that the higher class German dealers refuse to touch these prison-made goods, while the inferior tradesman who deals with them tries to conceal their origin; whether the above facts are generally known to the British public; and, if not, whether he will take steps to warn the public against them in The Labour Gazette, or otherwise; and also make representations to the German Government on the subject; and whether he can explain why it is that the Merchandise Marks Act is powerless to stop such fraudulent misrepresentation?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Probably the hon. Member has not seen my reply to a similar question put by the hon. and

  1459
  gallant Member for Central Sheffield. I am making inquiry as to the alleged importation of these goods. The provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act are sufficient to prevent goods coming into this country with false trade descriptions attached.

  THE EVICTIONS IN ARRAN ISLANDS.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the evictions now proceeding on the Arran Islands, and to ask him whether he is aware that the Islands are eight miles from the nearest land, and 40 miles from the nearest Courthouse; and whether owing to the failure of the fishing the people on these Islands have been left so destitute that appeals to public charity have been made on their behalf? In the second place, I wish to ask whether, owing to the evictions, a number of people, including aged persons and children, have been left without shelter, as well as without food, and what steps the Government have taken, or what steps they intend to take, to ensure the safety of the lives of the destitute people?
  MR. J. MORLEY: In answer to my hon. Friend, it is true, as he has already stated, that these Islands are some distance off, and that communication with them is not easy. My information is this—that yesterday six evictions were carried out, and that in three of the cases the people were re-admitted as caretakers. To-day two tenants settled with the agent, and eight evictions were carried out. Two of the eight persons were reinstated as caretakers. I have no information, as yet, as to the condition of the people yesterday and to-day; but I am perfectly sure that if the story which my hon. Friend states were true, and that any such persons had been evicted and cast out on the bleak hillside, the officers on the spot would have informed me of that fact. As to the condition of the poor people, I was informed some fortnight ago that they were likely to suffer extreme distress, independent of the evictions. We at once despatched an Inspector of the Local Government Board to make inquiries. He did so, and reported that the people were weather bound. He made exhaustive inquiry into the case of the South Island, which is the worst and poorest of the three, and his
  1460
  Report was that in his opinion the relieving officer had means at his disposal for dealing with any cases of emergency that might arise. This Inspector is today in Galway, and he has been directed to pay close attention to the circumstances of the people of Arran, and if necessary, to go over there at once. Meantime, the relieving officer has been told (a fortnight ago) the exact steps he is to take in case any circumstances of emergency arise.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question with reference to the business down on the Paper for Monday. I may remind the Government of the pledge given before Easter to put down the Navy Building Vote for Monday, and I presume that the idea of the Government is that the general discussion which has been promised shall be taken on the Vote. I wish now to call the attention of the Government to a decision given by the Chairman which greatly restricted the scope of that discussion, and to ask, whether they have in contemplation any method by which that Debate shall at least have the extension promised by the Government, and which I am sure the Government intend to allow?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I was not aware of any recent decision which would narrow the discussion. On the contrary, I understood that there was a general consent in all parts of the House that for convenience of business the discussion should be extended beyond the ordinary scope of the Vote. This has always been done in special cases and in special circumstances under the authority of the Chair.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the Chief Secretary can say whether in the event, which seems to be probable, of the Debate on the Scottish Standing Committee not concluding this night—["Oh, oh!"]—I will go further and say that it is absolutely impossible—will the Government make any change in the arrangements for Monday, or will the Navy Estimates still be taken on Monday?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I regret that, owing to the absence of the Leader of the House from circumstances of domestic affliction, I cannot answer the question

  1461
  specifically, but I cannot hold out any hope that there will be an alteration in the arrangement for Monday, whatever may be the fortunes of the Debate this evening.

  THE SOUTH AFRICAN MAILS.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if it is the case that the Union mail steamer Athenian arrived at Plymouth at 4 o'clock on Monday last, and that none of the letters were delivered in the City till the next morning, although they wore delivered in the Western District the same day? Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the cause of the delay?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The Athenian arrived in Plymouth Sound at 4.20 a.m. on the 2nd instant, and her mails, for the landing of which an hour to an hour and a-half would be required, were forwarded by the first train from Plymouth at 8.45 a.m. The correspondence for the Western District was sent out by the delivery commencing at 4.15 p.m., and that for the Eastern Central District by the delivery commencing at 5.5 p.m.

MOTION.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION FROM THE STANDING ORDER).
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the proceedings on the Motion for the Appointment of a Standing; Committee on Scotch Bills, if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order Sittings of the House."—(Mr. J. Morley.)
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 203; Noes 173.—(Division List, No. 15.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BEHRING SEA AWARD BILL.—(No. 123.)

    SECOND HEADING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir C. RUSSELL,)rose to move the Second Reading of this Rill. He said: I have now to ask the House to pass the Second Reading of what is shortly called the Behring Sea Award
    1462
    Bill, although that perhaps scarcely describes it, because the use of the Rill extends far beyond that. It might more properly be described as a Rill for carrying into effect the award of the Tribunal of Arbitration constituted under the Treaty between Her Majesty and the United States. Mr. Speaker, from indications made to me by hon. Members sitting in different parts of the House, I gather it is expected that I should—although I do not think it necessary to do so at any great length—recall to the attention of the House the circumstances which led to the Treaty upon which this Rill is founded, to the character of that Treaty, to the Award based upon it, and finally to the provisions in the Rill now submitted to give effect to that Award. In August, 1886, several seizures of vessels engaged in fur sealing were effected in the Behring Sea by cruisers of the United States, the vessels so seized belonging principally to British subjects, being Canadians. On the facts coming to the knowledge of Her Majesty's Government of the day, the late Lord Iddesleigh, who was then at the Foreign Office, addressed, on the 30th of October, 1886, an important Despatch to the then Representative of the Queen at Washington, in which he called attention to the fact that three schooners had been seized in that part of the North Pacific Ocean called the Behring Sea, and that the crews of two of these vessels had been detained. At that time, as it appeared when the full facts became known to the Foreign Office, one of the vessels had already been brought before a Court of the United States, and the Judge of that Court had condemned that vessel on the ground that she was pursuing the industry of pelagic sealing within the territorial limits of the United States, those territorial limits being claimed under the terms of the concession from Russia to the United States in 1867, which included Alaska and the islands in Behring Sea. The learned Judge who tried the ease decided that the ship was properly seized and properly condemned on the ground that she was violating the municipal legislation of the United States, and was so violating that municipal legislation within the United States territory. Lord Iddesleigh then proceeded to complain that in these circumstances

    1463
    the authorities of the United States had interfered with the lawful occupation of Canadian citizens on the high seas, and had taken possession of their ships, subjected their property to forfeiture, and visited upon their persons the indignity of imprisonment. That was the position assumed as early as October, 1886, by Lord Iddesleigh, and which has never since been departed from by those who represent the Government of the Queen. Following upon this expostulation of Lord Iddesleigh the vessels that had been seized were released and the proceedings stayed by the order of the then Secretary of State at Washington, Mr. Baird; accordingly, the vessels were released. At a later period further seizures followed. By March, 1889, there had been a change of Government in the United States, and the late Mr. Blaine had succeeded Mr. Baird in the position of Secretary of State, and there had followed a long diplomatic discussion between the Representatives of the Queen and the Secretary of State, the correspondence from Great Britain being conducted by Lord Salisbury, who had by that time succeeded to the Office of Foreign Secretary. On the part of the United States, in that correspondence it was sought to justify the action of their authorities in these seizures on the ground that the United States possessed territorial dominion in the Behring Sea under the cession of 1867 from Russia, and on the ground that their legislation applied to foreigners in the area where the seizures were effected, and finally, at a later development of the controversy, on the ground that the United States had property in the fur seal and in the industry founded on its pursuit, and in effect that their law was in the nature of properly protected Regulations for the safeguard of their property and interests. This position was combated—and I need not say ably combated—by Lord Salisbury in his correspondence. He maintained the position originally taken up by Lord Iddesleigh, and he complained that the rights of sovereignty of Great Britain had been violated by these seizures—that there had been a violation of International Treaty and the law thereby affected, but professed his willingness to submit the question to a properly-constituted Court of Arbitration. The questions of alleged property and of alleged jurisdic-
    1464
    tion set up by the United States Lord Salisbury also professed his readiness to submit to arbitration, and also the further question if and what Regulations were necessary for the preservation of the seal fishery in the Behring Sea. The answer to the latter question was one which was not exclusively of interest to the United States—although as the owner of the islands, that country had a special interest with regard to it—but was of common interest. I do not think that anyone can doubt the wisdom of the policy pursued by Lord Salisbury in advising that reference to arbitration. I think we must all agree that it would have been a deplorable thing if two great nations, sprung from the common stock, speaking the same language, living under systems of law largely alike, and having enormous interests in common bound up in the interests of peace, should have resorted to the rude arbitrament of force to settle the differences between them. Accordingly, on February 29, 1892, the Treaty from which this Bill took its origin was agreed to between the United States Government and the Government of the Queen, and that Treaty was ratified at a later date. It is necessary that I should call the attention of the House to some of the leading provisions of that Treaty. It recites that differences had arisen, and that both Governments were desirous of providing for an amicable settlement of those differences, concerning the jurisdiction and rights claimed by the United States in the waters of the Behring Sea, and also concerning the preservation of the fur seal fisheries in those waters and the rights of the subjects of either country as regards the taking of fur seals in and habitually resorting to those waters. The Court of Arbitration was thus constituted. Two arbitrators were to be named and were named by the President of the United States—namely, Mr. Justice Harlan, a distinguished Judge of the Supreme Court, and Mr. Senator Morgan, also a gentleman of high reputation; one was to be named and was named by the President of the French Republic, who nominated the Baron de Courcel, Senator and Am bassador of France; one was to be named and was named by the King of Italy, who named the Marquis Visconti Venosta, a distinguished Minister; and one was to be named and was named by

    1465
    the King of Sweden and Norway, who nominated Mr. Gram, a statesman and a distingnished lawyer. The Representatives of Great Britain were, as the House knows, that distinguished man who has lately passed away from amongst, us, Lord Hannen, and Sir John Thompson, the Prime Minister of Canada, I hope the House will allow me to say one word in reference to Lord Hannen. Great Britain owes a great debt to that very distinguished man. I do not propose to add one word to the eulogium upon him as a Judge which has been lately pronounced by more than one of his brethren on the Bench. But in relation to this arbitration I may perhaps be permitted to say that, in conjunction with his distinguished colleague he ably and with impressive dignity represented the interests of Great Britain. He discharged the weighty obligations cast upon him with unfailing zeal and with unflagging patience, and while he guarded the interests of Great Britain he never for one moment forgot the fact that he was present in a judicial character, and that he was, as it were, still clothed with the ermine of a, Judge. The tribunal met in Paris, and I think it right that I should publicly acknowledge the remarkable courtesy and hospitality that were displayed by the great Republic of France on that occasion. We have to thank the President of the French Republic in two respects—first, for naming as one of the arbitrators on behalf of Franco a most accomplished and courteous gentleman, the Baron de Courcel, to whose judgment, tact, and courtesy the result arrived at was largely due. As the House is aware, after a protracted hearing, the Award of the majority of the arbitrators was finally delivered on August 15, 1893. What was the effect of that Award? I will state its effect in general language and in few words. Two groups of questions were submitted to the arbitrators which wore essentially different in their character and having different considerations applicable to each of them. One set of questions related to territorial jurisdiction and the rights of property, and of protection in regard to that property, and the second set of questions related entirely to what were the proper Regulations which should be recognised to give effect to that which was one of the objects of the Treaty—
    1466
    namely, the preservation of the fur seal. As regards the first group of questions—those which touched territorial sovereignty, jurisdiction and rights of property—the position taken up by Lord Iddesleigh and Lord Salisbury was thoroughly and completely vindicated, and each one of these questions was decided in favour of the views advanced by those who represented the interests of Great Britain before that Tribunal. One result of the decision on this group of questions was that it stamped the seizures that had been effected as not justified by International Law, and therefore illegal and unjustifiable, thereby establishing the claim of British subjects injured to legitimate redress. I am glad to say, as one would expect from the Government of a great Power like the United States, that the President has not been slow to recognise these claims for redress, and when the legislation necessary to carry out this Award shall have been completed, it is arranged that a Convention shall be signed for the examination and adjustment of those claims with a, view to the just redress of those concerned. I must now call the attention of the House a little more in detail to one part of the Award—namely, that relating to Regulations. I have already stated with sufficient fulness the effect of the Award as regards questions of territorial jurisdiction and of property. But, after determining these questions, the Award proceeds to say that the determination of these questions has left the subject in such a position that the concurrence of Great Britain is necessary to the establishment of Regulations for the proper protection and preservation of fur seals in or resorting to the Behring Sea, and Articles 1 to 9 inclusive all lay down these Regulations. The first is that the Governments of the two Powers shall forbid their citizens and subjects to kill, capture, or pursue fur seals within a zone of 60 miles around the Pribyloff Islands, including the territorial waters. That is a permanent zone, and is unquestionably for the purpose of this Award an extension of the protected zone, as to which, apart from this Award, the Power in whose favour it is given would have no International rights. In the next Article the Award creates a close season from May 1 to July 31, that close season

    1467
    extending over the space included within the 35th degree of north latitude and eastward of the 180th degree of longitude from Greenwich till it strikes the water boundary described in Article 1 of the Treaty of 1867 between the United States and Russia, and following that line up to the Behring Straits. There are then some minor provisions as to the character of the vessels and their equipments, and it requires special licences and distinctive flags to be prescribed by each Government. These are broadly the provisions of the Award. I have to say further in this regard, that there is an addendum to the Award, which is to this effect—
    "The Arbitrators declare, moreover, that, in their opinion, the carrying out of the Regulations determined upon by the Tribunal of Arbitration should be assured by a system of stipulations and measures to be enacted by the two Powers, and that the Tribunal must, in consequence, leave it to the two Powers to decide upon the means for giving effect to the Regulations determined upon by it."
    Mr. Speaker, we are here to present this Bill as an attempt to discharge the obligation, which every one in this House I am sure will recognise, to loyally and thoroughly give effect to the provisions of that Award. Had the Award been less favourable to us we should equally, having agreed to abide by the decision of the Tribunal, have been bound and equally have been ready to give loyal and complete effect to it. I have road the Award at sufficient length to render it unnecessary to state the provisions of the Bill in detail. Not only have the Government had the advantage of the assistance of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight before the Arbitration, but he has also been good enough to give his assistance in framing the outline of the provisions of the Bill to give effect to the Award. The provisions of the Bill are shortly these: The measure is practically upon the lines of the modus vivendi Act of 1893, but the area over which it extends is, as I have said, wider. It sets out the mandatory provisions of the Award, and it constitutes the violation of these provisions a legal offence punishable by seizure or fine, or in some cases by imprisonment. It is in its operation, I wish the House to understand, a Bill which applies only to British subjects. It does not affect to bind, nor could it properly bind,
    1468
    American subjects any more than a Bill of the United States could properly affect to bind British subjects. But power is taken under it to authorise the officers of the American Navy to seize British ships under conditions conformable to the provisions of the Award, providing reciprocal power is given by the United States to British naval officers in regard to American ships. I may inform the House that the Senate of the United States have already passed their Bill for giving effect to the Award, and in that Bill similar powers are taken in order to give reciprocal advantages. I have had an opportunity of seeing a somewhat detailed statement of the United States Bill, and I am able to say that, although in form it is somewhat different, it in no substantial respect that I am aware of differs from the Bill now submitted to the House. Further, the House will desire to know what are the Courts by which the seizure of American vessels or British vessels is to be dealt with. In each case it is by the Courts of the country to which the ship belongs. If a British cruiser seizes an American vessel it will be our duty to hand over that vessel to the American authorities to be dealt with in the American Courts. If, on the other hand, a United States cruiser seizes British vessels they will be under a corresponding obligation to hand them over to the British Authorities to be dealt with in British Courts. I hope the provisions are ample to give loyal and thorough effect to the Award. It would be a thing greatly to be regretted if one single utterance by any Member of the House should for a moment lead to the possibility of the suggestion that we were not all most anxious with despatch and with thoroughness to discharge the obligations which undoubtedly internationally rest upon us to abide by the Award which has been made, and to give loyal effect to it.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Attorney General.')
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I rise not for the purpose of contributing to the Debate more than to say that the course which the Government have pursued seems to me to be a wise one. They have lost not one single moment in bringing in a Bill to carry out the obligations

    1469
    of this country; and in doing that piece of International justice they shall have the hearty support of all of us on this Bench and of all our friends.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    SIR G. BADEN-POWELLsaid, that those of them who were present had listened with pleasure and satisfaction to the extremely lucid and able speech made by the Attorney General; but he did think that many hon. Members would regret with him that that speech was not one of greater length. The Debate on the (Second Reading of this Bill was an historic occasion in this House. It was the first time in history that certain rights and claims to the harvest of the sea were put to International agreement by means of arbitration. Although the remarks of the Attorney General had a great deal to do with, and did describe, the Behring Sea Arbitration, he (Sir G. Baden-Powell) ventured very humbly to submit that the speech the hon. and learned Gentleman delivered did not refer to the real principle and matter of the present Bill, which was altogether outside the main Award. It was a Bill connected with certain technicalities, but all reference to technicalities were conspicuous by their absence from the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech. He (Sir G. Baden-Powell) did not for one moment speak in any sense against, or stand in the way of, this Parliament, or this country loyally adhering to the carrying out of the decision come to by arbitration; but they had now before the House a Bill which did not—although its title said it did—in any way legalise or authorise the main awards of that arbitration. He wished, in reference to the Bill and dealing with its principles, to criticise them in the light of certain knowledge he happened to possess and which he did not think any other Member of the House possessed or could possess. He was about to make certain statements, and he was confident that both the Attorney General and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight would agree with the truth of the statement he advanced and with the deductions to be made from that statement. But he regretted to say that in making that statement—which he
    1470
    would presently do—the House would see that this particular Bill was certainly not all that it should be he did not wish that anyone should imagine that he was going against the decision of the arbitrators. Before he sat down he thought he should have shown that this. Bill as it stood did not carry out the results of the arbitration. It was difficult for him in his position to avoid mentioning the theories and even the facts that had come to his knowledge officially, but at the same time he thought it was his duty, in the interest of a maritime industry connected with the Canadian Dominion, which he believed in the future as in the present would be of inestimable value to them in the Pacific, and to the seafaring populations on the western shores of Canada, to draw attention to certain faults in the Bill. First, in addition to the acknowledgment made by the Attorney General to the French nation, be would on behalf of himself and those with him cordially thank the United States for the great and liberal hospitality extended to them while they were there so many months. This hospitality took place not only at Washington, but up in the wilds of the Behring Sea, and was heartily appreciated by those who received it. This Bill, in dealing with principles, he must first of all point out—in addition to what the Attorney General had said—bore an incorrect title. The title "The Behring Sea Award Bill," as the Attorney General stated, was wrong in the matter of geographical area, because the particular portion of the award it dealt with was not confined to the Behring Sea. The matters referred to arbitration were five in number, and the award of the arbitrator was given on those five points. A Bill called "The Behring Sea Award Bill" necessarily should be a Hill dealing somehow or other with those awards, but this measure did not touch any one of them. And perhaps he might here say that no one appreciated more than he did the splendid work done by the Attorney General and his colleague, the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight, in Paris, where they had to fight America on those five points. The victory won there was no doubt due partly to the brilliant work these gentlemen did, but greatly to the correct and careful and elaborate manner in which the case was prepared. But, as he said,

    1471
    the Bill did not in any way refer to any one of the five points of the Award. The Award was given with regard to exclusive jurisdiction, and right of property in fur seals. The Bill did not touch one of these points of the Award. It merely sought to carry out a contingent decision of the arbitrators, who were requested in the terms of the Treaty under certain conditions to propose "Regulations for the proper protection and preservation of the fur seal." But a very cursory glance at the first Schedule of the Bill, in which was contained the principle of the measure—for the clauses were to enact that first Schedule—or a glance at any one of the clauses of the Bill, would show that the Bill was the very reverse of one for the proper protection and preservation of fur seals. The facts he should adduce in evidence would not be many. They were well-known both to the Attorney General and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight. In the first place, on the Preamble, he would call attention to the fact that it had been stated distinctly that the Regulations which followed were the Regulations approved by only four out of the seven arbitrators, and the three arbitrators who disagreed were gentlemen who had personal and national knowledge of the subject—that was to say, the gentlemen representing the United States and Canada. It would not be right, on his part, to go into detail in regard to the Articles of the Award; but he would briefly, on each of them, point out how it was that they would not result in a proper protection of the fur seal. The first Article spoke of a 60-milc zone around the Pribyloff Islands inclusive of the territorial waters; but every naval man knew that a zone at sea could only be effectually defined by lines of latitude and longitude. In Article 2—and here came the gravamen of his charge—they were told that the close season in which seals were not to be taken was to be from the 1st of May to the 31st of July. All the evidence that had been accumulated—and here he would remind hon. Gentlemen who took any interest in the financial affairs of the country that large sums of money were spent in collecting evidence on behalf of this country—proved conclusively that the only damage done and the only gratuitous destruction done at sea
    1472
    to fur seals was done at that period of the year when, owing to the necessities of the case—owing to the natural history of the case, so to speak—the greater portion of the seals taken at sea were females heavy with young. That—from all considerations of humanity as well as economy—if they wished to protect the animals at all, was a period at which they certainly ought to protect the fur seal. What did they find in the Regulations? They found, according to the statistics in the Blue Book, that the period at which this slaughter of females heavy with pups took place was early in the year, ceasing in the beginning of May, but they found under the Regulations that sealers were not only allowed but stimulated, encouraged, to take seals at that particular period—the only period when it was known that they did damage to the seal herd. He knew that this point—that of taking female seals in that condition—was a point which the sealers themselves—those excellent seamen who pursued the seal at sea—were anxious to avoid. It was recorded in the Blue Book that the sealers themselves, in considering a close time, urged that it should be earlier, covering this most destructive period. Yet they were insisting, right in the face of this evidence, that the close time should be such as to compel the men to go to sea and kill seals when they ought not to be killed. This was a matter which would attract the sympathy and attention of all those who, like himself, were supporters of the wholesale movement which had been so great during the present century against cruelty to animals. Article 3 was a useful Regulation in providing that only sailing vessels should be employed, but it did not cover other vessels—whalers, traders, and cod-fishers. The same remark applied to Article 4. As to Article 5, it had been proved over and over again that it was difficult to discriminate between the sexes of seals, and yet the Regulation required that the sex should be entered in the log book. Article 6 was a remarkable Regulation. It said shot guns might be used outside, but not inside, the Behring Sea, which was a ridiculous stipulation. If the use of shot guns was had outside the Behring Sea, it was had inside; and to say, therefore, that they might be used outside but not inside was to bring ridicule on the Regulation. As to Article 7, it was

    1473
    provided that the two Governments were to take measures to control the fitness of the men engaged in the fishery. He did not know what "to control the fitness" meant. The Regulation went on to say—
    "These men shall have been proved fit to handle with sufficient skill the weapons by means of which this fishing may be carried on."
    In other words, these men were not to be allowed to go into the water until they had learned to swim. They must be proved to be efficient in the management of boats and in the handling of weapons, results which could only come by actual experience. Article 8 was one which he hoped would receive the careful attention of all those who were interested in the rights of aboriginal races. Certain Indian races were to be left, within defined limits, to hunt the fur seals, but numerous other natives who had from time immemorial earned their livelihood by catching fur seals on the shores of Alaska wore to be prevented from hunting in future. Article 9 was one for which he was not aware of any precedent. It said that these concurrent Regulations should remain in force until they had been modified by common agreement between the two Governments, so that neither Government could change or denounce the Regulations without the consent of the other. He know of no precedent in any Treaty for such an arrangement. The concluding clause said that these Regulations should be submitted every five years for examination by the two Governments, but there was no provision to refer any dispute to arbitration. So that this first Schedule, as drawn, was distinctly and clearly unworkable, and would, he believed, prove destructive to the industry it sought to preserve. As he had said before, he did not wish to interfere with the decision of the Arbitrators, but he thought he had said enough to show there were great objections to these Regulations formulated in the Bill. So much for the acts of commission of the Government in the Bill. He would now, very briefly, deal with their acts of omission which still further militated against the particular value of these proposals. The first point he would urge was this: The Arbitrators had gone outside their instructions under the Treaty by interfering with the jurisdictional
    1474
    rights of the United States in territorial waters, and yet they omitted to recognise that no Regulations for the preservation of the fur seal could be effectual unless they covered all modes of slaughter, especially those on shore. There was no case in the world where the fur seal had been destroyed to an extent approaching to extermination except by slaughter on shore, and yet these Regulations did not refer to the necessity for any limits on shore. That he considered to be a grave act of omission if they had genuinely at heart the preservation of the fur seal. Then, there were two other grave omissions. There was no provision in the Act to control sealers of other nations or sealers of these nations flying other flags, and rendering entirely nugatory even the miserable provisions of the Bill. That, he was sure, was a matter which the Arbitrators would have taken up had it been pointed out to them. Then, there was no clause providing that the contracting parties should agree to cooperate in securing the adhesion of other Powers to the Regulations. The Solicitor General said that they could not do that in an Act of Parliament; but, at the same time, there were clauses in innumerable Acts of Parliament to the effect that the Act is subject to the adhesion of other Powers." Another point of omission was this: He had asked that day whether the United States Bill was identical with the one now before the House, but the only answer he received was that the Attorney General had seen the United States proposals in a somewhat detailed form, and there were no substantial differences. He considered it was a grave omission that the present Bill did not contain a provision that it should take effect only on the passing by the United States of a measure identical in its terms with the present Bill. These were his objections to the Bill; but, as he had said, he did not wish to stand in the way of or do anything which would militate against the success of the Award. It might be said that the defects which he had pointed out were the fault of the wording of the Treaty, which made it impossible for the Arbitrators to lay down any other Regulations. This evil could have been easily obviated had proper steps been taken to bring the Arbitrators to see that their deliberations could not, under the clause, issue in proper Re-

    1475
    gulations for the protection of the seals. He asserted that occasions did arise before, during, and after the Arbitration, when negotiations might have been opened which would have obviated the difficulty in which they now found themselves. If they examined the Blue Books they would see that the Foreign Minister of the United States, as long ago as June 21, 1891, suggested that if the Arbitrators found the duty cast upon them of issuing Regulations, they should consult experts before issuing them; but that point was neglected, so far as he could make out, in all recent negotiations. If experts who were acquainted with seal life and the conditions of seal hunting had been consulted, a Code would have been devised which would have had the result of really protecting the fur seals. He hoped he had not troubled the House at too great length. He thought it necessary to stand up and explain what a somewhat close personal acquaintance and sympathy with the men who conducted the fisheries had resulted in in his mind. He was speaking not only of the desire of our Canadian fellow-countrymen, but of the men in the United States who controlled the fisheries in the Pribyloff Islands; and they, one and all, wished to see the fur seal race protected and the industry continued. He thought, when they passed a measure of this kind, that they ought to have Regulations which would practically effect that object. Before he sat down he wished to bring one other argument before the House, and it was one of great importance. This Bill differentiated between two portions of the North Pacific Ocean. The fur seal fed and bred in all portions of that ocean. They were legislating for half of that ocean and leaving out the other half—namely, the feeding and breeding places which belonged partly to Russia and partly to Japan. In any measure of this kind, the object of which was to secure an industry and an interesting tribe of natural history from extermination, this consideration ought to have been taken into account. Immediately on the cessation of the arbitration in Paris negotiations ought to to have been not only opened but carried through to bring the other Powers into conference for the settlement of a Code of Regulations, which could have been perfectly easily devised, and which wôuld once for all have secured the preservation
    1476
    of the industry. In some respects the Regulations that had been made were almost inhuman, and they were certainly defective and inadequate. He was told that a Bill similar to this was being adopted in the United States, and that the great Canadian Dominion had no objection in principle to this Behring Sea Bill. If he found that this were the case he would raise no objection to the passing of the Bill, but he intended as soon as it was passed to do his best in the interest of the sealing industry, and he might also say in the interest of the fur seal, so to modify and improve the Regulations that they would secure the real protection and preservation of the fur seal.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that in many respects hon. Members were in an inadequate position to discuss this Bill. In the first place, they did not know what corresponding Bill the United States had introduced into their Legislature. The Attorney General (Sir C. Russsell) had stated that the United States Bill broadly corresponded with ours, but of course the matter was one of highly technical and complicated detail. In the next place, hon. Members were entirely unaware of the view that Canada took in the matter. Canada was far more directly and immediately interested in it than any of the inhabitants of these islands. It was the hardships suffered by and the illegalities put upon the inhabitants of Canada that first led to the raising of the question, and he thought it unfortunate that the House should be called upon to read the second time a Bill affecting mainly and principally the inhabitants of Canada without knowing in the least, beyond what appeared from the general statement of the Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. S. Buxton) whether the Canadian people took the same view of the Bill as they took of the modus vivendi of 1891. No Member of the House would be un-desirous of doing what in him lay to arrive at the conclusion of a proper agreement with the United States. Again, Members found themselves under a great disability, because many of them did not feel themselves at liberty to enter very fully into the Regulations laid down by the Arbitration Tribunal. Power was given to the Arbitrators to make Regulations, and, that being so, Members were

    1477
    almost entirely estopped from criticising their real merits. The Bill, however, could not be passed without some remarks being made on the events which had led to its introduction. He warned the House last year that the arbitration was certain to go against England. It was said, forsooth, that it had been entirely in favour of England, so it had as regarded the shadow, but not as regarded the substance. The first important point decided by the Arbitrators was that the United States had no exclusive jurisdiction outside the territorial limits of the United States. It required no tribunal to decide that question. It was of the commonplaces of the Law of Nations. The Solicitor General would have settled the question in five minutes. It was also decided as a natural consequence that they also had no properly in or right of protection for the fur seal outside those limits. That was the end of the question, because if the United States had no jurisdiction and no rights all the claims that had been advanced on behalf of the Canadian sailors were justified. Having, however, settled that there was no jurisdiction and that there were no rights, the Commissioners proceeded to create a new jurisdiction and new rights, and to make the United States and Great Britain joint guardians of them. Having given to England the whole of the abstract right, they took away from her the whole of the concrete seal. Having given us the shadow, they handed over the substance to the United States. He found no fault with the Arbitrators; the fault lay in the terms of the Reference to them. The questions proposed to them were the questions proposed by Mr. Blaine, haggled over by Lord Salisbury, and finally accepted in their entirety on behalf of England. They were questions which could not but lead to the result that had been achieved. There seemed to be a fatality about all these arbitrations. The San Juan boundary question was an instance in point. The Treaty said that the frontier should pass through the middle of the Channel, but the right channel was excluded from the purview of the arbitrator, for he was called on to decide which of two wrong channels was the right one. There were other cases in which the wrong question had been submitted to the arbitrator. He was not going to apportion the blame;
    1478
    the errors were due to the way in which our foreign affairs were considered and administered, and the absence of proper management. There seemed to be an unvarying fatality in all references by Great Britain to International arbitration. He hoped hon. Members opposite would see that that was largely due to the want of a permanent Committee on Foreign Relations, which was the great security for the protection of foreign interests and the continuity of policy in relation to foreign affairs in the United States. There was one point which he was not able to understand in regard to the Bill, and that was the delay which had taken place in its introduction, which necessitated the consequent hurry in which they had to pass it. The Award of the arbitrators was made on the 10th August of last year. They know that last year the House was sitting long after the 10th of August, and he was unable to understand why, in a matter of this kind, and when the Government knew it was necessary to come to a conclusion at an early date, there should have been this delay. This Bill deprived the subjects of Her Majesty of certain rights on the high seas, and disposed of—and some people said it destroyed—the rights and interests of some of Her Majesty's Canadian subjects as well. Were the Canadians going to agree to this destruction of their interests, or were they going to claim compensation from this country? It appeared to him that they would be called upon to vote something on account of this monopoly which was being created, and so be really subsidising the Alaska Company. This Bill did not only absolutely abolish the liberty of the Queen's subjects on the high seas; but it did worse, and enacted that by the euphemism of the "Queen in Council," which simply meant a clerk in the Foreign Office, or an official at the Board of Trade, these Regulations could be repealed, and an end put to the Act; and practically, therefore, when they had passed the Second Reading of this Bill, it would be one that could be put an end to by some person outside that House. For what reason was this to be done? They were told that the so-called Regulations were being made in the interests of humanity, and for the protection of the seals. A great deal of false sentiment had been expended upon the killing of seals in these seas. Where

    1479
    was the sentiment with regard to the monstrous cruelties, the horrible cruelties, perpetrated day by day upon thousands of seals on the Pribyloff Islands, which were left entirely outside the protection supposed to be enforced by this Act, and where the over-driving of seals was customarily practised. It was not in the interests of humanity that this Act was to be passed, nor was it in the interests of the American citizen, but merely in the interests of the Commercial Company, formerly the Alaska Company, which had the exclusive right of sealing on the islands—one of the most monstrous monopolies that every disgraced the face of the earth, and against which American citizens themselves protested. If they were to pay yearly compensation in the form of Votes by the House to Canadian fishermen, it would be in order to repay them for what the Alaska Company had taken from them. They would, therefore, practically be putting this money into the pockets of the Alaska Company, and taxing the English people for the benefit of this Company. After all that was done, what had we achived? We were to be taxed in order that the Government might subsidise the monstrous Alaska Company, and this country and the United States were to prohibit British and American subjects from sealing between latitude 358, which was about the latitude of Mexico, and the North Pole. But what about other nations? As was pointed out by Mr. Blaine himself, the two countries had absolutely no control over them. Hon. Members who did not appreciate the importance of the subject might smile; those who did would not. He would read an extract from the Correspondence.
    "The Company respectfully submits that it is not competent for Great Britain and the United States alone to declare what subjects shall be permitted to navigate those waters or fish in the high seas."
    Lord Salisbury pointed out, and Mr. Blaine himself admitted, that one of the objections to the arbitration arrangement was that whatever might be agreed to we had no power to bind other nations. True, Mr. Blaine also said he did not expect the other nations would go there to seal, but perhaps they would think it worth their while, when they found that the Canadians and Americans were prohibited from doing so, to take a voyage, kill seals, and come back
    1480
    with them round Cape Horn. British and American subjects having been prohibited, the seal-fishing was left open to the rest of the civilised world. Then the Regulations were so loosely drawn that it was difficult to understand them. The first forbade the killing, capturing, or pursuing of seals within a zone of 60 miles of the Pribyloff Islands; but was the distance to be measured from a central point or from some extremity? Were the Islands themselves within the zone? Was it intended to forbid the clubbing of seals on the Islands? What was a zone? What were the limits? Take the Torrid Zone; there you have two limits.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member was hardly treating the subject in a proper manner.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESwas only showing how loosely these Regulations were drawn. He supposed the Americans intended to retain the right of killing seals on the Islands, yet the loose language rather implied the contrary. Those were reasons sufficient for asking the House to reject the Bill; but since the matter had been submitted to arbitration under unfortunate conditions, and the word of England was pledged, the House had no choice but to pass the Bill; and there was no people for whom he would more cheerfully make a sacrifice than for our kith and kin across the Atlantic. Although subjects of difference might arise from time to time between the two countries, the people of our own race would always be found by our side, and should any peril ever menace the old country he believed that the voice of blood would not be heard in vain in the new. For that reason, though a considerable sacrifice had been made by England, he was willing it should be made in favour of our kinsmen beyond the sea.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I had hoped that my task would have been confined to expressing my concurrence with the admirable statement of the Attorney General; but it is absolutely impossible for me to permit the two speeches made on this side of the House to pass without comment. I trust that the House will not regard their criticisms and expressions of opinion as representing those of the Party with which they are associated. Before proceeding further I desire to join in the

    1481
    tribute paid by the Attorney General to the late Lord Hannen. Only those who, like myself, were present from day to day during the arbitration can have any proper appreciation of the ability and dignity displayed by Lord Hannen, one of the most distinguished Judges and jurists, from the beginning to the end, as a Member of that great International Tribunal. As to the criticisms of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale, who possesses very extensive technical knowledge on this subject, I cannot but think that, upon consideration, my hon. Friend will feel that he has not made a very wise use of that knowledge. What is our position? It is that we are bound to carry out the undertaking of our country to a friendly nation. We agree that we ought to abide by the decision of the arbitrators and pass whatever legislation is necessary to give effect to the decision of the arbitrators. It does not, then, seem the time or place to criticise the wisdom of the arbitrators. It is our duty, both in law and honour, to see that legislation is passed which will give effect to that decision.
    SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I hope there is no desire to misrepresent me, but those are the very words I have used.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: It is because I think that my hon. Friend does not quite appreciate his criticisms that I say he will acknowledge on reflection that his criticisms are slightly out of place. The questions raised are questions of International Law. There is no provision which the mind of man can suggest which will enable these declarations to be embodied into an Act of Parliament.
    SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: That is what I said.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I understood my hon. Friend to say that the Bill is not satisfactory because it does not carry out the Award and because there is no reference to the five questions. How-is it possible to put into a Bill a declaration that the United States have no claim to Behring Sea? It would be not only unnecessary, but extremely unwise, and I must conscientiously say that it is very inconvenient such observations should be made in the House of Commons about this decision before it has been put upon its trial. No one can deny that this is a question which
    1482
    is surrounded by difficulties. It is said that the Canadians have cause to complain of these Regulations. What is the position in which Great Britain is placed? Both nations are anxious for the preservation of the fur seal, and to prevent seal hunting, which would be disastrous. There are no people to whom that is of more importance than to the sealers of Canada. My hon. Friends are very severe because the arbitrators did not provide for interfering with the United States action upon the Pribyloff Islands themselves. But that is absolutely impossible. No nation would submit to the arbitration of foreign nations with regard to the laws they make within their own territory. It has escaped the hon. Members for Kirkdale and King's Lynn that, inasmuch as the decision can only be applicable to the high seas, the arbitrators are expressly of opinion that it should be supplemented by Regulations operating within the sovereignty of the two Powers who are parties to the agreement. Any suggestion, therefore, that the Regulations should be so framed as to enable the Canadians to carry on the sealing would be disastrous indeed, and one which could not for a moment enter into the mind of a person who has the real object of the arbitration in view, so far as the preparation of Regulations is concerned. Both my hon. Friend on this side of the House and hon. and learned Friends of mine in the Press have been exceedingly severe upon me because the Regulations of the arbitrators have not provided for interfering with the United States action in the matter. It is absolutely impossible that any nation can submit to the arbitration of foreign nations as to what laws they should make in their own territories. We can only appeal to the good sense and the good feeling of the United States. Neither with regard to the United States nor British territorial waters can it enter into the contemplation of anybody in the course of these negotiations that the arbitrators should have power to prescribe any laws which should be enforced either by Great Britain or the United States in their own territory. So thoroughly did the arbitrators themselves appreciate this that they pointed out that the Regulations could only be applicable to the high seas. They expressed the opinion that the Regula-

    1483
    tions should be supplemented by others applicable within the limits of the sovereignty of each of the two Powers, and that these should be settled by agreement. My hon. Friend has said that the 60 miles zone is an absurdity, because, in the first place, it includes territorial waters. Does my hon. Friend remember that British subjects have no right to kill seals within territorial waters, and, therefore, by excluding British subjects from killing seals within territorial waters they have only re-declared the law? The real fact is that the Regulations are concerned with sealing on the seas, and accordingly the distance within which pelagic sealing will have to be restricted is 60 miles. It has been proved beyond all doubt or question that from 90 to 95 per cent. of pelagic sealing is done at a distance of 100 to 150 miles from the Islands. That is a zone to which there can be no reasonable objection. It would be a most unfortunate thing if people outside this House, or our Canadian brethren, thought that the Regulations were likely to be worked unjustly to them. I believe that when the Regulations have been fairly tried and tested it will be found that they offer a reasonable solution of what is admittedly a most difficult question. In saying this, I do not in any way wish it to be understood that I regard them as perfect, or that they will not require amendment or modification. I have said publicly—and I am prepared to stand by what I have said—that this settlement boars the mark of the great thought and consideration that have been given to every section of it. I feel most confident that it will to a very large extent meet the evil of the wanton destruction of seals which now exist, and which both nations are most desirous to put an end to. The United States at first insisted on far more stringent Regulations than the settlement as it is now drawn up contained. But they admitted that the tribunals were satisfied that less stringent Regulations than those they had laid down at first would attain the object desired by both nations. It has been stated that the shadow has been given to Great Britain and the substance to the United States. That is unquestionably an utter misrepresentation of the result of the Award, having regard to primary claims which the United States made
    1484
    and what had really been decided. In the first place, there was a most substantial claim put forward by the United States to seize British vessels, and to confiscate their cargo and imprison their crews. My hon. Friend has said that everybody who knew the least little bit about International Law knew perfectly well what was the proper position of each nation. The Rules that govern the case are clearly set out by Grotius and every writer on International Law since his day, and, of course, everybody knows the works of that distinguished writer and historian perfectly. No one would doubt the great ability of Mr. Justice Hartmann, of the Supreme Court of the United States. Both he and the other American representative, a lawyer of great eminence, entirely concurred in the finding of the two arbitrators in favour of Great Britain and Canada. The statements which hon. Members have made in the House of Commons, that there is nothing in the finding in favour of Great Britain, would not be, I do not hesitate to say, endorsed hereafter when this decision comes to be referred to. The hon. Member for King's Lynn said that in the matter of Regulations the substance was also given to the United States, and that the whole of this legislation was for the purpose of bolstering up the monopoly of the Alaska Company. When I heard the paragraph read from the Blue Book by the hon. Member I interrupted and asked for the date, and the reply was March, 1887. This was seven years ago, and five years before the Treaty, when, as is known, there were parties in the United States who were hostile to the interests of the Alaska Company. The importance, however, of the position is this—that the United States has concurred with Great Britain in agreeing that the Regulations decided by the tribunal should be binding on the citizens of the United States just in the same way as Great Britain had agreed that these Regulations should be binding on the subjects of the Queen. The consequence is that it is not in accordance with a fair judgment of this matter to contend that these Regulations, which were less than the United States asked for, and not as liberal as I and my hon. Friend contended for on behalf of Great Britain, and which went in the direction to a large extent of securing

    1485
    seal life, would not achieve the object which Great Britain and the United States contemplated when the Treaty was first entered into. My hon. Friends are anxious that the United States should be induced to curtail the killing of seals on the Pribyloff Islands. It is obvious that the framers of the Regulations saw that the two nations ought to be left in a position wherein they would have something to deal with and to make a bargain with, so that in the event of further concessions made by Great Britain in the interests of the protection of the seals the United States may also have inducements by such concessions to impose Regulations which would get rid of those practices followed on the Pribyloff Islands tending largely to the reduction of the number of seals. The hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool asked, "What do we know what has been done in the United States?" It appears to me to be somewhat strange that this observation should be made without a question having been addressed to Ministers. It is no part of my duty to defend Her Majesty's Government, but I am permitted, however, by the courtesy of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, to say that the Bill of the United States has passed through the House of Representatives and the Senate, and is now law. The House has the assurance of the Attorney General that, having regard to the differences which must exist, substantially the legislation of the United States is based on the same lines as our own. It does not appear to me, therefore, to be right that the House should hesitate to pass this Bill, seeing that it is no more than this country is bound to do in order to implement the Award. I invite the hon. Member for King's Lynn, who appears to regard the carrying out of this statute as a perfunctory act of some official in a Department—such as a Board of Trade clerk—and not a matter of high policy, to look at the clauses of the Bill, and he will see that power is reserved to the Executive Government for the purpose of placing Great Britain in a better position if it should be necessary. The maximum penalty or restrictions that can be imposed on British subjects are a part of the Bill, but the Executive Government will advise Her Majesty to suspend or
    1486
    modify the Regulations to which objection has been taken in favour of British subjects. I think I have now noticed most of the points mentioned by my hon. Friends, and, in thanking the House for the attention they have paid to me, I would say that I believe, apart from any indirect or direct benefit, the gain, so far as the seals themselves are concerned, are great; and that the Treaty and the Act of Parliament making the provisions of the Treaty law are a distinct advance in the settlement of International disputes. The conclusion of the speech of the Attorney General in addressing the Paris tribunal was specially worthy of perusal. My hon. and learned Friend pointed out that the questions involved were not merely questions as to the conduct of sealing, but as to whether the nations should more and more feel pledged to settle their disputes by agreement if possible, and, if not, by arbitration, instead of resorting to those dreadful methods which after all never settle anything, and only leave heartburning on one side or the other. I am sorry that the speeches of some hon. Members should have made it necessary for someone to point out to the House and to the country the true position of affairs. I hope that to a large extent I have satisfied their misgivings. But I am certain that this Award will be regarded as a monument of what can be done by fair argument towards settling International disputes, and there is nothing in the whole course of my career on which I shall look back with greater pride than the fact that I have been associated with the Attorney General in this great event.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid that, as the person who brought the matter prominently before the public in 1888, he wished to congratulate this country and the United States on having been able to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. The whole matter had been thoroughly discussed on behalf of all concerned. While he congratulated those who were engaged in the case upon the spirit in which it had been conducted there was one matter to which he must call attention. It was with the greatest regret that he found that the zone round the Pribyloff Islands had been extended to 60 miles. A zone of 12 miles would have been quite suffi-

    1487
    cient to protect the nursing seal. Owing to the difficulty of obtaining observations in the Behring Sea sometimes for a week together, it was often impossible for a vessel to know whether she was 20 or 60 miles from any particular point; and this would be the cause of interminable disputes. There were some other Regulations which pressed hardly on the sealers, who were a most deserving body of men; but, with these exceptions, he endorsed what had been said by his hon. and learned Friend.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  STANDING COMMITTEE (SCOTLAND).

    RESOLUTION. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [2nd April]—
    "That, in addition to the two Standing Committees appointed under Standing Order No. 47. a Standing Committee shall be appointed for the consideration of all Bills relating exclusively to Scotland which may by Order of the House be committed to them, and that the provisions of Standing Order No. 17 shall apply to the said Standing Committee:
    That the said Standing Committee do consist of all the Members representing Scottish constituencies, together with fifteen other Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, who shall have power from time to time to discharge the Members so nominated by them, and to appoint others in substitution for those discharged:
    That Standing Orders Nos. 49 and 50 do apply to the said Standing Committee."—(Sir G. Trevelyan.)
    And which Amendment was, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words—
    "This House declines to sanction, in regard to Bills relating to one portion only of the United Kingdom, any plan by which the ancient practice as to the constitution of Committees of this House shall be fundamentally altered until it has had an opportunity of pronouncing upon a general scheme which shall extend a like treatment to Bills relating to each of the other portions of the United Kingdom."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
    Question again proposed,
    "That the words' in addition to the two Standing Committees appointed under Standing-Order No. 47' stand part of the Question."
    Debate resumed.
    SIR E. CLARKEsaid, he had feared that the resumption of the Debate would be postponed so late that he should have to thank Her Majesty's Government for suspending the Twelve o'Clock Rule in order that his speech might not be interrupted a second time. He had pointed out that among the Scotch Members there were those who did not by education or training represent Scotland, but only the particular constituencies to which they had been elected; and therefore a Committee of Scotch Members would include some whose authority on Scotch affairs was inferior to that of others who were ex-eluded. For instance, there were the two distinguished English lawyers on the other side, the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Birrell), both born and educated in England, and both representing Scotch constituencies, If they anted to find real representatives of Scotland—representatives of the great Scotch names of Stuart and Macdonald—one must go to the Tower Hamlets and Shoreditch, and when they had discovered these gentlemen they would probably find them, as upon that night, very active in endeavouring to prevent the people of London from having a proper supply of water. To establish a system of Grand Committees on the principle that those who knew most of the subject to be dealt with should be included, the suggested arrangements would have to be altered. Then, what effect would the establishment of this Scotch Committee have on the composition of the other Grand Committees? No Scotch Member would be able to serve on the Grand Committee on Trade or the Grand Committee on Law, because the duties would clash. Moreover, he ought not to serve on those Committees, even if he were able. The principle laid down by the right hon. Member for East Denbighshire was a true principle, though it carried the right hon. Member further than he realised. The right hon. Member said that if Scotch Members sat on this Scotch Committee they ought not in reason to claim to be represented on other Committees; and the consequence would be that every Scotch Member's name must be struck off those Committees. Then there were Bills concerning the affairs of England

    1489
    only which were referred to Select Committees. It would be the absolute duty of English Members to take care, if this Scotch Committee were established, to resist every proposal to allow any Scotch Member to sit on any Committee to which an English Bill was referred. He did not look forward with satisfaction to any such innovation upon the Constitution of the Committees of that House, but he maintained that that would be the natural and necessary consequence of the separate proposals which the Government had put before them. If they were to have the Scotch Committee constituted in this way, and if they were to have these corresponding changes in the other Committees, he wished to ask the Government what was their reason for proposing these changes. Let it be supposed that this now Scotch Committee was constituted, and that there had been referred to it some measure exclusively relating to Scotland. If that measure were absolutely non-contentious and did not raise any of the political controversies which were to be found in Scotland as well as in this country, he admitted that such a Bill might pass through the Committee without difficulty. But such a Bill would pass through any of the ordinary Grand Committees of the House with equal facility. But if the Bill partook of another character and involved matter of political antagonism, what would be gained by referring such a measure to this Scotch Committee? If such a Bill were referred to an ordinary Grand Committee representing in a smaller area, but in due proportion, the different sections of the House, the House would, of course, accept the decision of the Committee. But supposing that the Bill were referred to the proposed Scotch Committee, which had not the advantage of representing all sections of the House, and supposing the views of the minority were overborne by the vote of the majority, was it to be supposed that the minority would not appeal to the House against the decision of the majority? Therefore, at the Report stage of the measure every controversial question would be raised again and discussed in the House, with the result that the whole time that had been occupied in considering the Bill in Committee would be entirely wasted. If that were
    1490
    the case he should like to ask Her Majesty's Government bow far their present proposal was a practical one, and how far it was likely to conduce to the forwarding of the business of the House? He, however, did not think that he could attribute to the Government any desire to increase the speed of general legislative work in that House, or to relieve the House from any of the difficulties which the present Rules of Procedure imposed upon it. It was only the other evening that the Government had used their influence and had employed their Whips to defeat a proposal to inquire what means could be devised for expediting the business of the House. It must therefore be assumed that the Government had no real desire to secure that object in making this proposal. What, then, could be the object of the Government in sacrificing one of the golden weeks of their Session in discussing this proposal? They would have to obtain from the House a specific sanction for the reference of that Bill to the Scottish Committee, so that they would not be at the end of their labours when they had succeeded in passing the Resolution through the House. But let him suggest this to them also, that on the question of the time it would take to get Scottish legislation through they had to take into account, first, the time it took to pass this Resolution: secondly, the time, in regard to the reference of any Bill to any Standing Committee, in discussing the question of the exclusion of the Scotch Members from the Committee, the time that would be taken up for referring Bills to the Scotch Committee, and, lastly, the time that would be occupied in the appeal that would be made from the Scotch Committee to the House. When these matters were considered the Government would find that from the point of view of business their proposal was extremely unwise. They would find that it would cost a great deal more time than it was likely to save them in dealing with Scottish business. But there was just one other matter he should like to refer to. This subject had been put before the House by the Secretary for Scotland in a modest speech in which he spoke of it as merely a means of dealing with the business of the House. But there had not only been that remarkable incident,

    1491
    but there had been a Debate on Scotch Home Rule, and the Secretary for Scot-laud, who on Monday proposed the present Motion as a "practical and workmanlike measure," on the following evening gave himself the pleasure of supporting an unpractical and unworkman like measure—in which he had not the support of his Chief in the House and, so far as they knew, had not the support of his Chief in the Government—for giving Home Rule to Scotland. The sequence of the incidents was very interesting and curious. In his speech on Home Rule the Secretary for Scotland changed the position of this question from one merely of an arrangement of business into one of the existence of the Government. For he said—
    "The Government were determined to carry the Grand Committee through as far as they could by every means they could employ, and by staking everything upon it."
    It was a very curious situation that Parliament had been in during the present week. They all greatly regretted and sympathised with the cause which prevented the Leader of the House from being in his place to-night; but he hoped, in the right hon. Gentleman's absence, some one Member on the Treasury Bench would be good enough to supplement the speech which the Secretary for Scotland made on Monday evening, and tell them something in the way of explanation of the speech he made on Tuesday. It really looked as if there were two Parties on that Bench. They did not sit there at the same time, but some were in at one time and some at another. There was the Leader of the House, who did not vote in favour of Scottish Home Rule, and who, so far as they knew, was, like the head of the Government, not very enthusiastic about Home Rule at all. But there were two other Members who, having in their official capacity given their support to the "workmanlike, practical proposal" on the Monday, in a sort of unofficial capacity enjoying themselves in the absence of their Chief, on the Tuesday evening, took their share of the operation which he would not support, and voted in favour of Home Rule for Scotland. Surely they were entitled to know what it was that was the policy of the Government. Were they going in for Home Rule all round? (Cries of "Yes!"] There were some
    1492
    sponsors, it appeared, ready to answer for the Government, but the Government were not inclined to answer so promptly for themselves. Home Rule for Ireland they accepted long ago for various reasons. The question of Home Rule for Scotland was at present only a subject out of which to extract amusement on a Tuesday evening. Was it to be an integral part of the policy of the Party they represented?
    An hon. MEMBER: Yes.
    SIR E. CLARKE: Somebody said "Yes"; he should think it was a Welshman. Gallant little Wales was only waiting its turn to claim a Parliament in some part of the Principality—after civil war, he should think, because it would require civil war to decide in what part of Wales that Parliament should be situated. Could they not know what it was the Government were proposing to do? If their policy was a policy of Home Rule all round; if they were gradually being led and pressed on to accept bit by bit that enormous policy, what possible excuse had they for occupying the time of the House of Commons by discussing proposals of the kind, and what excuse had they for not going with the Opposition to the masters of all of them—the people outside in the constituencies—and setting their proposals before them? They knew that to indulge in this policy of reticence and gradual acquiescence would be of no use. They knew that no scheme of Home Rule for either country could possibly pass into law until there had been a specific declaration of the people on the point. If that were so, it was right that they should make an appeal to the people. It was a pity for their own sake that they should waste time over the discussion of this proposal and over the solution of the many difficulties which its acceptance would bring upon them if they were meditating the adoption of a policy so much larger, and a policy that would absolutely swamp and obliterate the necessity for this. It might be that they had persuaded themselves that, while a Scottish Grand Committee would for certain purposes be a good thing, it would in their judgment be a better thing to have a Scottish Parliament in Scotland itself, and that the distinguished Scotchmen whom now

    1493
    they were so glad to see on the Treasury Bench should take themselves to the North of the Tweed and occupy positions in a less important and even in a provincial Parliament; that might be their wish, but he thought the House was entitled to know it; and until the Government gave the House their plan and their policy on that point he thought he was entitled to point out to them that the proposal they had made to the House was one which would alter the whole system of Committee representation, which would introduce an entirely new principle of voting and estimating the position of the Members of the House, which would give the Government no advantage in non-contentious Scottish business, which would be rather a hindrance than an advantage on contentious Scottish Bills, and which could only result in a serious expenditure of the time of which they had none too much to spare, and which had not been supported in the House by any argument which could justify its acceptance.
    SIR C. CAMERONsaid, it might conduce to a saving of the time of the House if the discussion were brought back from the realms to which the imagination of gentlemen opposite had carried it into the business sphere embraced by the Resolution. They were not discussing Home Rule for Scotland, or anything that had anything to do with Home Rule. [Opposition laughter.] Of course, Members opposite laughed, but he thought they would probably admit that he knew more about the feeling of Home Rulers in Scotland than they did. He certainly said that if they (the Home Rulers) were offered this proposal as a substitute for what they intended to demand they would not take it. It had been said that some two or three years ago he described the proposal of a Scottish Grand Committee as a "peddling and pottering" proposal. He had only so described it as a substitute for Home Rule. He said it would be no substitute for Home Rule. It would be absolutely unworkable under certain circumstances, and it was put forward under present circumstances and in the present Session as a business proposal which would work perfectly well. It was more for the benefit of the House than of the Scotch Members, because certain business had to be got through, and whether
    1494
    it was done in the time of the House or in the time of a Committee made very little difference to the Scotch Members individually. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had said that the proposal of the Government was a plan by which the ancient practice as to the constitution of the Committees of the House would be fundamentally altered. There were, however, no traditions concerning Grand Committees which had not vet been 10 years in existence. The constitution of Committees had been for very many years back not at all antagonistic to the vast preponderance of those belonging to the nationality concerned in a Bill. In 1878 a very contentious measure, the Sunday Closing (Ireland) Bill, was referred to a Select Committee. That Committee consisted of 12 Irish Members, the Irish Secretary, one Scotch Member—himself—and one English Member. What was that but a miniature Irish Grand Committee? Of course, it might be said that as this Committee was constituted for the purpose of collecting evidence it had a different function from that possessed by Scotch Grand Committees. A Scotch Committee was constituted on similar lines to consider the Burgh Police and Health (Scotland) Bill. Only a single English Member had a seat upon that Committee. The House was now asked to sot up a Committee which would be in entire accord with its ancient practice, as far as it was illustrated by the Committees to which he had alluded. That Committee would be in accord with the political views of Her Majesty's Government and their supporters. It would work perfectly well under the circumstances. The hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had said that if the Grand Committee were set up Scotch Members must necessarily be excluded from other Grand Committees. Why should they be? There was nothing of the sort in the Resolution. The Committee of Selection had their instructions as to the Grand Committees on Trade and Law, and he supposed they would continue to follow them. Of course, Members could not be on two Committees at the same time, but did anyone imagine that all the Members of any Grand Committee were always present at the meetings of that Committee? As a matter of fact, the difficulty in many

    1495
    cases was to get a quorum. It was said that if a Scotch Grand Committee were appointed, a Welsh Committee and an English Committee would also have to be set up. There was nothing about that in the Resolution. A Scotch Committee had been asked for repeatedly by the Scotch Members, but the Welsh Members had never asked for a Welsh Committee. The reason was obvious. The Welsh Members were going to occupy a large portion of the time of the Session by the discussion of a Bill which could not be referred to a Welsh Committee, inasmuch as it concerned England as well as Wales. As to the English Members there had never been beard a word of any possibility of such a demand being made by them until it was brought forward to prevent the Scotch Members getting what they wanted. It was said that the proposal would not effect any saving of time, because whenever a minority were beaten in the Grand Committee they would appeal to the judgment of the House. Did any Member who was not absolutely unsophisticated and unused to the wiles of the House not know that whenever there was a chance of a minority overturning the verdict of a majority they appealed to the whole House on the Report, but did anyone imagine that in the case of a contentious Bill which had gone before a Grand Committee anything would be gained by a long discussion on the Report? He thought that the adoption of the Grand Committee system would result in the saving of a very large amount of time that would otherwise be consumed in Committee of the whole House. No doubt under certain circumstances the system would not work. A national Committee of which the majority of Members were opposed to the Government of the day would certainly not work, inasmuch as the Government would be obliged to reverse the decisions come to in Committee. When he said the Resolution had nothing to do with Home Rule he was laughed at, but he asserted emphatically that it would never be considered as in any way removing a single ground on which the demand was made for Scottish Home Rule. Among the Scottish Members there was a large standing majority of Liberals, and when a Liberal Government was in power a Grand
    1496
    Committee of such Members would work. When, however, a Conservative Government was in power, it would be impossible for a Scottish Grand Committee to work, and under such circumstances no one would want to appoint one. The Resolution, he was informed, only amounted to a Sessional Order, and he presumed that gentlemen opposite did not intend to cross the floor during the present Session. If and when they did cross the floor it would be for them to manufacture their own Standing Committee in such a way that they would facilitate the work of Parliament, and be consistent with the existence of a Conservative Government. When Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald was Lord Advocate he called a meeting of the whole of the Scotch Members in order to ascertain their views on a certain Bill, thus practically constituting a Scotch Grand Committee. The result was a great saving of the time of the House, although the Scotch Members gained nothing by it, because in the Lords all the Government Amendments objected to by the majority of the Scotch Members were inserted. The Scotch Members now wished for a Grand Committee, because they believed it would enable their business to be done more satisfactorily, as it would do away with the necessity of being content with odds and ends of time for their measures. They were willing to inflict greater labour upon themselves, and he did not see how anyone could object to that. As to taking the control of Scotch matters out of the hands of the House, that was an absurdity, inasmuch as all Bills would first be dealt with in the House that would be sent back to the House for the Report stage and Third Reading. Under these circumstances, he could not conceive how any fair-minded or impartial man could object to a proposal so moderate in its character. As to taking Scottish matters in any way outside the House, that was an absurdity. The Bill had to be ordered to go to the Committee, it had to come back here on Report, it had to go through the Third Reading. As well might they accuse a previous Conservative Government in appointing a Select Committee to consider Bills of going on to a Separatist route as accuse this Government of now making a proposal which had any tendency in that direction. He trusted they would discuss this matter on its merits, and

    1497
    without reference to Scottish Home Rule. To show the spirit in which the Scottish Members had asked this scheme, be might mention he was the medium through which their resolution on this subject was conveyed to the head of the Government. The resolution ran thus—
    "That pending the concession of Home Rule to Scotland we consider that it is hopeless to look for any Scottish business being got through, or that the hope is futile of any Scottish business being got through, unless we get such a Committee as it is proposed to appoint."
    There was one direction in which he thought the right hon. Gentleman's (Sir G. Trevelyan) Resolution could be improved. That was to do away with the part of it providing for a Motion of reference in the case of every separate Bill, for that gave only another stage in which obstruction could take place, not at the cost of the Scotch Members only, but of the time of the House. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman might, therefore, as well take this opportunity to improve the Resolution by adopting the Amendment of which notice had been given by his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: I rise to move the Adjournment of this Debate. I have sat for 20 years in this House, and I will undertake to say that the oldest Member of the House never can recollect an occasion upon which the House has been treated with such scant courtesy as they have been now. After what has occurred during the last three days, the conduct of the Government is an outrage upon all the decencies of Debate. On Monday the Scottish Secretary made a proposal which reversed the whole principle on which from time immemorial the Committee——
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That is a matter of argument.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: Then why do not the Government argue it? On Monday the Scottish Secretary asked the House to assent to the novel and, to our mind, dangerous principle as regarded the constitution of Committees—that is to say, to substitute the principle on which they have hitherto been nominated of reflecting the general opinion of the House for the principle of nationality, and yet, when we are told this evening that this was done in order to satisfy the "deep-rooted convictions of the Scottish people," the only hon. Member who has
    1498
    spoken to-night on behalf of this proposal says that the great merit of the proposal is that it is a Sessional Order, and that if a Unionist Government came into power he should not want this principle to continue. Then, on Tuesday we had the still more remarkable performance of the Scottish Secretary. He induced the House to accept the principle of Home Rule for Scotland—practically Home Rule all round. On the night preceding not one single Cabinet Minister attempted to take part in the discussion. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made a speech which everybody must admit was worthy of reply. My right hon. Friend on Tuesday again followed the Scotch Secretary, and again he pointed out the utter absurdity and inconsistency of the position the Government have taken up with regard to Scotch business. To-night, again, my hon. and learned Friend the late Solicitor General has made a masterly speech, showing the inconsistency of the proposal, and how utterly unpractical and unworkable it would be; but in reply we have not had a single, solitary word from the Government. Her Majesty's Government either make this proposal seriously or they do not. Do they know their own mind? If they know their own mind, they are bound to communicate what is in their mind to the House. If they do not know their mind, then it is a farce and a sheer waste of time to go on with this Debate. We have a special right to insist on declining to go on with the discussion until the Government clearly tell us what they intend to do. It was by the courtesy of the Opposition that the Government were able to get through their business before Easter. They bring forward this proposal with the most inadequate explanation. The Minister who made that proposal changed his mind the next night. The Leader of the House had been absent on all occasions on Monday, Tuesday, and to-night. [Mr. J. MORLEY interpolated an explanation which did not reach the Reporters' Gallery.] I apologise. I was not aware until this moment of the cause of the right hon. Gentleman's absence to-night. No other Minister has attempted to take the right hon. Gentleman's place on any one of these occasions. Under these circumstances, what is the use of continuing the Debate? I therefore move the Adjournment, in the hope that when

    1499
    the House meets again we may have a clear indication of what the Government intend; and when we have got that indication I hope they will adhere to it.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Lord G. Hamilton?)
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The noble Lord has given us one evidence to-night that he is of Scotch ex-traction, because he has no occasion to call on Providence to give him a good conceit of himself. For what is the noble Lord's argument in favour of adjourning the Debate? It is that one or two speeches which his colleagues have made on the subject have been so conclusive and unanswerable, and have remained so entirely unanswered, that it is no use attempting to discuss the matter further. ["No!"] What has happened? My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland made on Monday on the part of the Government an explanation of the reasons—[a laugh]—which may not have been satisfactory to the courteous gentleman who laughed—why the Government asked the House to agree to this Resolution. He was followed by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. That was one speaker against one. In that evening's Debate the late Solicitor General for Scotland spoke and was answered by the Lord Advocate in a speech of great length. The next speech was that of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, who has concluded his remarks to-night. Therefore, the only complaint which the noble Lord can make is that no one has risen at once to reply to the late Solicitor General. I will admit the noble Lord into a secret. I intended to speak in this Debate, but I was anxious to know what certain other gentlemen had to say. From the beginning of the Debate it was understood on all hands that the right hon. Members for St. George's, West Birmingham, Bury, the University of London, and I do not know how many more illustrious Members of the Opposition, intended to take part in it. It was only right, therefore, that the Government should wait until some at least of that formidable artillery had been discharged before making any further interposition in the Debate. I deny the right of the noble Lord or any of his colleagues to dictate to Members
    1500
    of the Government the manner in which we shall conduct our business. Then the noble Lord said that on Tuesday another Debate had been interposed, which altered the character and position of the Resolution now before the House. It would not be within the proper Rules of Debate for me, speaking on the Question of Adjournment, to discuss that matter; but I agree with my hon. Friend who has just previously spoken that the question raised on Tuesday had nothing whatever to do with the question now before the House, which is a proposal to adopt a Sessional Order which we think would be of advantage in expediting and facilitating Scotch business, and would also obtain a better expression and give better weight to Scotch opinion in matters affecting Scotland alone. The Motion on Tuesday was not a Government Motion, but was one of those Motions of private Members on Friday and Tuesday nights, upon which Governments frequently do not think it necessary or right to express an opinion one way or the other. The proposition of the noble Lord is that we should forthwith adjourn the Debate. I am not aware that there is any force in the argument which the noble Lord has adduced which ought to lead the House to adopt that course. I frankly admit that after so large a portion of the time of the House has been to-night so unexpectedly taken up by a lengthened discussion on Private Bills, that the situation is somewhat altered.
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: On a Government night.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Government have no control over the day on which Private Bills can be put down. Therefore, it is not the Government who fixed the day, but the supporters of the noble Lord, whose Bills they were.
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: My Bills?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is the supporters of the noble Lord who can choose the particular day for the discussion of these measures. I freely own that seeing that so large a part of the time of the House was taken up by Private Bills we can hardly expect—especially if all those important gentlemen to whom I have referred are going to favour the House with their views at great length—to conclude this Debate to-night. But the idea of cutting

    1501
    short the Debate before 12 o'clock—a Debate which has proceeded with perfect regularity and courtesy on the Ministerial side of the House—is a proposal to which the Government cannot possibly assent.
    Qustion put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 232; Noes 250.—(Division List, No. 16.)
    Original Question again proposed,
    "That the words 'in addition to the two Standing Committees appointed under Standing Order No. 47 stand part of the Question."
    SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: After the Division which has just taken place, the Government must see how useless it is to attempt to continue the Debate. Therefore I beg to move the Adjournment of the House.
    Motion made, and Qustion proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir F. Dixon-Hartland.)
    MR. J. MORLEY: We are unable to assent to the Motion of the hon. Member. The noble Lord who moved the Motion before this said he had for a long; time been a Member of this House, and in the name of the decencies of Debate he moved the adjournment of it. I have not been so long in this House as the noble Lord, but I venture to say, when I review the circumstances of to-night, that so great an outrage on the usages and proprieties of Debate in this House has never been witnessed as the attempt, of hon. Gentlemen opposite at this moment under those circumstances to stop the Debate. [Laughter.] Let me remind hon. Gentlemen who laugh—perhaps they have not been in the House—of the circumstances. Owing to circumstances over which the Government had no control, it was impossible to renew the discussion of the Motion before the House until, I think, 25 minutes to 11. [Several hon. MEMBERS: A quarter to 11.] I was in the House all the night, and I think that is so. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded his speech. He was followed by my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow; and then, at 25 minutes to 12, because no Member on this Bench gets up of equal Parliamentary rank, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War has shown, to reply, we are denounced for outraging the decencies of Debate by the noble Lord. I can only repeat what I have said, that
    1502
    if these tactics are to be persevered in they shall be persevered in, and persevered in long enough to mark them before the country.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If I may judge from obvious signs the temperature of the House has risen to a very un-necessary pitch. I do not follow the reasoning of the right hon. Gentleman, whose anger is entirely thrown away upon the House at this late hour. I really would respectfully suggest that we should consider the situation in a spirit of calmness. What has happened is this: On Monday a Debate of very great importance, in the opinion of those on this side of the House, and one involving- very grave issues of Parliamentary practice, was commenced by the Secretary for Scotland, in a speech which had many merits, but which amongst its merits had not the merit of discussing the question from a broad and Imperial point of view. We on this side tried to lay before the House certain arguments, with the object of showing that you could not deal with this as a measure relating to the Scotch measures alone. Perhaps feebly, I myself sought on Monday to put this view forward, and not only has no reply been made, but no reply has even been attempted. [Ministerial cries of "The Lord Advocate."] I hear the Lord Advocate mentioned, and I have a profound respect for that right hon. and learned Gentleman. I have the honour also to belong to the same clan as he does. He is a lawyer of great experience, he is one of our old Parliamentary friends, and is equally respected by both sides of the House, but he would, I am sure, be the last one to get up in this House and contend that in his speech be had attempted to go beyond the purely Scotch aspect of this problem, or had endeavoured to touch the larger question which we have endeavoured to bring before the House. What the Lord Advocate has failed to do no other Member of the Government has even attempted to do. Nevertheless, my hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Clarke), who began a speech on Monday which must have impressed everybody, concluded that speech to-night, and sat down at a time when it is usual and convenient that a Parliamentary authority of the first rank should reply, and yet no Minister rose to do so, and the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech is left abso-

    1503
    lutely unanswered by any responsible Member of the Government. The only endeavour to deal with that speech was made by an independent Scotch Member, who treated the subject from a purely Scotch point of view, and did not attempt to deal with the broad question. Have not the Opposition, therefore, even with some heat, the right to say that this is not the proper mode of treating a great question? That was the justification which my noble Friend had in moving the adjournment, and I suggest to the Government, even if they are disposed to take no further part in the Debate, even if they are anxious to rest their whole case on the speech of the Secretary for Scotland, that they should allow us to adjourn to-night until some other gentlemen may have an opportunity of laying their views before us. I hope before the resumption of the Debate the Government will have considered the subject, and will have discovered that it is not purely a Scottish question, but that it is of interest to England, Wales, and Ireland, and that some Minister will come forward and give us the views of the Government on the broader aspects which the question presents. We must all feel that we can hardly enter into one of these painful contests at this time of night, with Parties as evenly divided as they appear to be, with any prospect of bringing our discussion to a conclusion either creditable to the House or improving to the prospects of future legislation. Whether there was any heat before the late Division or not, that is all over now, and the time has come, I hope, when we may part with mutual goodwill, to meet again in a frame of mind suited to the discussion of what is, after all, a not unimportant Constitutional question.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 231; Noes 246.—(Division List, No. 17.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, the vote that had just taken place showed that the majority in favour of continuing the Debate was becoming smaller and smaller, and as it was admitted that the discussion must go over to another day, there was no object in carrying it further now. He therefore moved the adjournment of the Debate.
    MR. BARTLEY: I beg to second the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
    MR. J. MORLEY: If the interruption which has just now come to an end had not taken place—that is to say, if the noble Lord had not made his Motion for the adjournment five minutes less than an hour ago—gentlemen opposite would by this time have had their desire fulfilled and would have heard a Cabinet Minister, and we should have at this hour willingly consented to the adjournment of the Debate, and we should have avoided all that rise of temperature which the right hon. Gentleman opposite deprecated. It is not our fault that these desirable results have been missed. But, having regard to the hour, the Government will now no longer resist the adjournment of the Debate.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.—(No. 1.)
    Reported with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 2.)
    Reported without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; to be read the third time To-morrow.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.—(No. 3.)
    Reported with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

    NOTICE OF ACCIDENTS BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Burt, Bill for providing for Notice of and Inquiry into Accidents occurring in certain employments and industries, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Burt, Mr. Mundella, and Mr. Secretary Asquith.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 144.]

  GROCERS' LICENCES ABOLITION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. David Thomas, Bill to abolish the retail sale of Spirits, Wine, and Beer by Shopkeepers, ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Thomas, Mr. Lloyd-George, Major Jones, Mr. Alfred Thomas, Mr. Whittaker, and Mr. John Wilson (Durham).
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 145.]
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before One o'clock.