Sitting of 24 March 1896

STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW, ETC.
Ordered, That the Standing Committee on Law, etc., have leave to sit this day till half-past Three of the clock, notwithstanding the Sitting of the House.—(Sir James Fergusson.)
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LONDON WATER BILLS.

    CHELSEA WATER (TRANSFER) BILL.
    Order for Second Reading road.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
    *MR. J. STUARTobserved that there were down for Second Reading on behalf of the London County Council six Water Transfer Bills, with certain subsequent Motions. As they all embodied the same principle, he thought it would be for the convenience of the House that the general discussion should take place on the first of these Bills. ["Hear, hear!"] The Measures
    6
    of the London County Council with respect to dealing with the water question of London were all before the House to-day. They all contained the one great principle of purchase by the representative municipal authority—first, by agreement, and, failing that, by compulsory arbitration. The water area of London extended beyond the County Council area, and in the various Bills it was proposed to give to each outside area connected with the company concerned certain options. What these options were and the whole position of the Measures would be best understood if he referred to the Report of the latest important general Committee which sat on this matter—namely, that presided over by the present Home Secretary in 1891. That Committee recommended that power should be given to the London County Council to expend such further sums as might be necessary in investigating the whole question and coming to a conclusion as to the policy which should be adopted. The Report also set forth that, if the London County Council should so resolve, they should have the power to promote a Bill or Bills constituting themselves the responsible water authority of London, acting through a Statutory Committee, appointed either wholly by themselves or partly in conjunction with the Corporation of the City. The Report pointed out that the London County Council, if constituted the water authority, should be required to purchase the companies' undertakings by agreement, or failing that, by arbitration within a fixed period. Lastly, having put on the purchaser the duty of fulfilling the obligations which the companies purchased, they had said that, in the event of purchase by this new authority, power should be given to it and to the authorities outside the area to negotiate for the purchase by the outside areas of so much of the works of distribution as was appropriate to the district of such local authority, of the right to the supply of water in bulk, and possibly of some sources of supply which, with other works of distribution, it might be found practical and advantageous to separate from the general scheme. This Bill was an endeavour to embody this in a Measure before Parliament. Two features of the Bills had been specially commented upon. The first was that,

    7
    by the Council's proposals, failing agreement before a fixed date, the property on that date became vested in the purchasers, and the arbitration as to price proceeded. This had been called taking people's property before you had paid for it [Ministerial cheers], and even taking it without paying for it. But the fact was overlooked that by these Bills the County Council became responsible from that moment for the payment of the full dividends hitherto paid until the whole of the purchase-money had been settled. Had that arrangement come into force last year the shareholders of the water companies concerned would have been better off than they were. During the interval, however, they became secure of their income on a better security—vastly better—the whole rateable value of London. But the County Council were perfectly willing to modify that arrangement. The second point was as to the arbitration clause. A year ago, when two of these Bills passed their Second Reading, he gave an undertaking on behalf of the London County Council that they would, in addition to the arbitration clause which the Bill contained, give an instruction that everything favourable to the case of the purchasers should be considered by the arbitrator. The whole matter was threshed out at great length before an important representative Committee, the County Council formulated a new arbitration clause which substantially carried out certain directions of the Committee. It was said that arbitration not under the Lands Clauses Act would not give the water companies all they wanted, and therefore would not be fair to them. But the Council had the public to consider as well as the companies. Their interests were not coincident, and it was on the divergence of their interests that the principle of purchase in these Bills was based. Why was the Second Reading of these Bills opposed? Those who wished the water in private hands would consistently oppose them. But there was more powerful opposition from the Government, who had introduced a Bill seeking to establish a new water authority which would take over all the powers as to water which are now in the hands of the London County Council. Let the County Council pass its Bills and the
    8
    Government pass theirs, and the moment that was done the County Council would have to hand over their purchase to the new authority. The purchase would be effected at a time when it was eminently essential, if it was to be effected at all, that it should be. Nay, more, in this matter of purchase he had behind him the unanimous opinion of the London County Council.
    MR. C. A. WHITMORE: The hon. Gentleman has no right to say the County Council are unanimous.
    *MR. STUARTsaid he could, if necessary, quote a Resolution of the Council directing its parliamentary representatives to oppose the Bills of the water companies on the ground that the control of the water should not be in the hands of private companies, which was passed unanimously.
    MR. WHITMOREsaid members of the Council had over and over again publicly stated that they were opposed to the purchase of the rights of the private companies.
    *MR. STUARTstated that there may have been some members of the Council who disagreed, but they did not oppose the Resolution of the Council, which was passed unanimously; It was suggested that an adjournment should be sought, to come to some arrangement. But they had tried to come to terms with the Government and were willing to adapt their scheme to theirs. However, as a condition precedent to other considerations, they were called upon to accept Lands Clauses arbitration. That was the only way to get their Bills to a Second Reading. He did not say that this concession would secure for them a Second Reading. If they were to ask now for a further delay it could only be on the understanding that they were prepared to make that concession. But he and those who acted with him absolutely refused to accept this condition. Let the House observe what they were asked to do—to give away the whole of the ratepayers' case, to give the companies the whole of their demands, without investigation or a Committee to take evidence or hear arguments. The case was simply this: "Accept the companies' terms or lose your Bills." The Government might say these requirements arose, not so much from

    9
    any favour on their part to the companies or to that clause, as from the circumstances of complication, which made a general agreement necessary if anything further was to be done. He did not admit that anything could justify the water companies dictating their own terms. The complications which required this concession were entirely of the Government's creation, it was their action which prevented purchase except on terms most exorbitantly unjust in favour of the companies and against the consumers. The introduction of their Bill had been an immense boon to the companies. The London County Council had striven hard to pass these Bills. They recognised that it was impossible to pass them without the co-operation of this powerful Government. They had been anxious by concession to purchase this co-operation; but they could not pay for it the price of giving to the companies compensation which they had no right to claim. Now, it was important to note the circumstances under which the Government interference had taken place. The Government were about to kill the Bills of the London County Council and to postpone purchase at a grave crisis in the whole question of the London water supply. Purchase, if it was to take place, must take place quickly. Let the House look at the Notice Paper that day; when the County Council Bills were thrown out by the Government, they would come to the Bills promoted by the water companies themselves. These Bills the Government were going to pass. They were the confession that the companies had come to the end of their resources—that they were unable to fulfil their obligations. The companies, by these Bills, proposed to increase their present nominal capital of £17,000,000 by £3,800,000, or by 22 per cent. The whole structure of the Bills implied a general scheme—a general plan for altering the entire status of the Metropolitan water companies, which would let them escape from Parliament for a long time. They were to pass these Bills, and they fancied they were to shield themselves by limiting the companies to immediate necessities. What was their limit worth if there was no proposal for purchase? Somebody must bring water to London. If he
    10
    were prepared to purchase the companies, to constitute himself the water authority, the obligation and responsibility lay on him. But, the moment the probabilities of purchase were vague and uncertain, the moment purchase was relegated to the uncertain action of a body, whose very creation was still extremely improbable, then the water companies hold the field, and the concessions which, under these circumstances they would be bound to obtain, would rehabilitate them and would give them a totally new and improved status, while the water consumer and the ratepayer would be left naked and unarmed to defend himself. The House had before it two clear policies, and it, would have to choose between them to-day. There was the policy which the County Council brought forward and elaborated after the closest and most careful study, and after many years attention to every detail of this complicated subject—a policy strictly in accordance with the whole historical development of this question and with the present Home Secretary's Scheme. It was succinctly and clearly expressed in the latest Resolution on the subject passed by the London County Council—in a Resolution in complete harmony with every Resolution which that body has adopted:—
    "That the entire control of the water supply within the area of the county of London shall be in the hands of the London consumers, directly represented by the County Council in conjunction with the City Corporation; that the consumers in the metropolitan water area outside the county shall not be denied, or deprived of, similar rights in their respective areas; and that the purchase price of the existing water undertakings shall not be assessed under the provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, but shall be based upon the fair and reasonable value of those undertakings, due regard being had to the rights, special circumstances, and obligations of the companies; also that the Parliamentary Committee be instructed to Report as to the reply of Her Majesty's Government immediately after the Recess."
    And what was the Government policy against that? It was to make a new Asylums Board, a new Metropolitan Board of Works, removed as far as possible from the control of the electors; to separate the supervisory health authority from the water control; to take all water powers but those of fire out of the

    11
    hands of the Council. This new body would have to begin at the beginning again; it was endowed with very scanty powers; its control over the water companies, if it was to be in any way effective, would have, like its purchase of them, to be secured by subsequent Act of Parliament. It was a body of the precise character which was emphatically condemned by the Committee presided over by the Home Secretary. That Committee, which considered the whole Question of a trust and rejected it on April 23th1891, said:—
    "That no Bill can be satisfactory dealing with the questions referred to this Committee which merely constitutes a public authority to promote Bills in Parliament."
    Such was the policy of the Government. They might kill these Bills of the London County Council; but would they have got rid of the London County Council's policy? He ventured to think they would not. On the contrary, he believed that in the end they would have to come round to what the County Council proposed; but it would be only after an excursion and delay which would inflict on the people of London a heavy and a grievous burden and an irreparable wrong. ["Hear, hear!"]
    *SIR F. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, he moved the rejection of the Bill on two grounds—first, because, owing to the recent action of the Government, the Bill was not only unnecessary, but mischievous; and, secondly, even if that obstacle did not exist, the Bill was of a nature that the House ought not to accept. He did not exactly understand whom the hon. Member for the Hoxton Division represented in the matter, because he found that in October last the Parliamentary Committee of the London County Council reported in favour of an application to the Government to introduce legislation on the subject, and an Amendment to that Report that the Bills to take over the eight water companies should be proceeded with was, after a long discussion, negatived on a Division at a full meeting of the London County Council. It seemed to him, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman represented only himself, and not the London County Council, whom he claimed to represent. The Bills before
    12
    the House proposed that the water companies were to be taken over on a specific date and without any payment. The hon. Gentleman contended that it was an advantage to the shareholders that they should have their property taken over without any payment being made, for he said the shareholders would be secured in their income. The shareholders felt that their income would be more secure in the hands of the water companies than in the hands of the London County Council. When a person sold a thing he did not want to be assured an income, but to get the money for which he sold the thing, and it was a positive fact that, not only would the security of the bondholders be very much hazarded, which would make it impossible for trustees to hold it, but it would temporarily prohibit the transfer of stock of nearly 40 millions of money, which would become unsaleable until this question was settled. He was sure that that mode of confiscating private property, which would be injurious to the great body of holders of stock in the country, would not commend itself to the House. The hon. Gentleman also said, it was proposed by the County Council to constitute a water authority, which was to purchase from the companies by agreement, or, failing that, by arbitration. The arbitration proposed was, perhaps, the one feature of the Scheme that was most objectionable. It was not arbitration at all; it was confiscation! What did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham say of it? Speaking on February 22nd 1895, the right hon. Gentleman said—
    "Anything more absolutely one-sided, anything more unfair, than a condition of this kind, it was impossible to conceive."
    The Attorney General also condemned the proposed scheme of arbitration as one-sided, and as calculated to induce the arbitrator to speculate on matters which no arbitrator ought to take into account in matters of this kind. They knew that on the transfer of the tramways the shareholders had to submit to the purchase of their property at the price of old iron; and the stockholders and shareholders of the forty millions invested in the water companies were not prepared to yield up these concerns to be dealt with in the same

    13
    manner. The hon. Member for Shore-ditch had given an undertaking as to the Amendment of the Arbitration Clause; but what authority had he to give it? He was not a majority of the County Council, and what he had promised might be repudiated. The hon. Member said that last year the County Council strove to obtain the, passing of these Bills; but, on the contrary, he did all he could to prevent their passing by desiring to push forward two only, to be used as a lever to bring the companies to the feet of the County Council. It was quite impossible to suppose the hon. Member delayed the Bills in order to do good to the water companies. And, at the present, would not one Transfer Bill be sufficient? Could not one Bill have enabled the County Council to deal with all the companies? Again, it was on the principle of using one or two Bills as levers that eight Bills were introduced. The object was to weary people with the discussion of eight Bills when one would have been sufficient. They could not now discuss the Bill the Government had introduced in the other House; but the situation was changed by the fact that the Government had brought in a Bill dealing with the whole question; and there was no doubt some Measure would be passed, he did not say exactly on the lines of the Government Bill, because he strongly hoped the County Council would receive only an equal and not a predominant share in the Water Trust. But no doubt some Bill would be passed; it would give power to take over all these companies; and, therefore, it was useless to send these Bills to a Committee to waste its time in considering proposals which were not likely to be passed. It would be wrong that shareholders and ratepayers should be put to the expense of fighting these Bills in Committee; the money would be simply wasted and would not bring benefit to anyone. For these reasons he moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
    *MR. ERNEST TRITTONsaid, he hoped the House would allow a Conservative Member, who seldom interfered in Debate, to say a few words against the Second; Reading of this Bill. In order to avoid all misunderstanding it was almost necessary for him, as a man of business
    14
    connected with the City, to say that personally he was not in the slightest degree interested in any water company, and his Radical opponents would not find his name connected with that of any company in the world. He did not rise as an opponent of the London County Council as a whole. He was not aware that, either in this House or outside it, he had indulged in that strong language against the London County Council which some had used, and the use of which he most distinctly deprecated. He must confess he had great sympathy with the London County Council in the immense amount of work they were called upon to do; and, with the tenderest regard for the health and happiness of many of the Members of that most estimable body, he should deprecate putting any fresh burdens upon them. He should feel very great fear lest some of the Members, who really worked so hard, if by the action of the House they had the control of the water supply with all its ramifications placed in their hands, would suffer from water on the brain or some similar disease. [Laughter.] Undoubtedly water was a dry subject. (A laugh.) At the same time there was no subject to which the House of Commons could give its attention which was of more importance to the welfare, health and happiness of the dwellers in this great Metropolis than a plentiful supply of pure wholesome water. The hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Stuart) would not think he was wanting in courtesy if he said he objected to the Bill because of the quarter whence it came. It was the offspring of the Progressive Party, and that party had completely lost the confidence of the people of London. (Ministerial cheers.) The hon. Member for Shoreditch smiled. As far as this House was concerned the recent Elections showed that the Progressive and Radical Party in the Metropolis had completely lost the confidence of the people. To put it in a more homely way, all the Progressive and Radical Members sitting for London constituencies could at present be comfortably accommodated in two four-wheeled calls, in which each Member could have a corner seat to himself. It was true many of the opponents of the Bill desired very strongly that the

    15
    water supply should be taken out of the hands of companies and vested in some public authority; but they had not been able to see that the London County Council was a body that had the necessary capabilities and qualifications for taking over this large undertaking. Next, the County Council scheme, after all, was advanced by a very small majority on the Council itself, which overruled the resolution of its Parliamentary Committee, recommending that the Government should be asked to legislate on this subject very much on the lines of the Bill they had introduced into the Lords. He was dissatisfied with the Arbitration Clause, in spite of what had been said by the hon. Member for Shoreditch; and he objected to vesting the property of the company immediately in the London County Council, while leaving to the future the assessment of the price to be paid. He disliked the plan of the promoters in bringing in separate Bills, one for each company, and thus putting ratepayers and shareholders to undue expense. He disliked compulsory purchase by the London County Council, and preferred the discretionary powers given by the Government Bill. Some four years attendance in that House had shown him that no words were dearer to the heart of a Progressive Radical than the words "Compulsion" and "Prohibition"; but he supposed no words were more disagreeable to the hearts of Moderates and Conservatives. Further, this was a question of supplying not only Central London, but also a large outside area over which the London County Council had no control, the outside area being 620 square miles and the inner area 121 square miles. He based his opposition not on any of these arguments, but distinctly on a perfectly clear issue, and that, on the fact that the Government had brought in a Bill greatly appreciated by a large number of people, dealing with the whole question of the London water supply. The proposals of the London County Council embodied in these Bills were distinctly inconsistent with the proposals of the Government. Therefore the House ought to defer the Second Reading of these Bills until the Bill of the Government came down to this House, and they had an opportunity of discussing the details. Many characteristics were
    16
    attributed to successive Parliaments, and the present, like its predecessor, might be credited with common sense. To send these Bills to a Committee, and to put shareholders and ratepayers to great expense while all the time the Government had a Measure before Parliament, would be utterly opposed to the dictates of common sense. As a man of business and a London Member, he asked them to take a common sense and business view of the situation and not to pass the Second Reading, but to leave these Bills in a state of "suspended animation" until the whole question was fully before the House.
    MR. E. H. PICKERSGILLsaid that it was not only the Members of the Progressive Party in London who were anxious that the property of the water companies should be acquired by some public authority on fair and equitable terms. He would remind hon. Members opposite of the strong promises given by the Members of their Party at the last General Election, and at the County Council Election. It was generally agreed that the property of the water companies would have to be acquired in some way, and the great point was the terms of the acquisition. The constitution of the governing body was a secondary question for the people of London. It was objected that the arbitration clause was unprecedented; but in this matter precedents were rather rocks to be avoided than guides to be followed, for there was scarcely a local authority in the country which had had to purchase the property of a water company, and which had not had to pay through the nose for it. Besides, the interests involved in the present case were far larger than those of any previous case. The House was not asked to approve of the arbitration clause, but simply to send it for consideration to an impartial tribunal, before which the County Council could be heard. The Committee would consist of nine Members, four to be appointed by the House (two from each side), and five added by the Committee of Selection for their knowledge of the subject and impartiality. In refusing this tribunal it looked as though the water companies were afraid of submitting their case to arbitration, and as though the Government were now championing the water

    17
    companies. That was how the case would present itself to the people of London. The alternative Bills of the Government satisfied no one. The local authorities outside the County of London desired to have local control over the water supply within their own area. The County Council had already made satisfactory arrangements with those on the south side of the Thames, and there was no reason to suppose that they could not make similar arrangements with the authorities on the north side of the Thames. The Instruction which the President of the Local Government Board proposed to move in regard to the Staines Reservoirs' Bill was totally incompatible to the character of the Bill. The present time was really a crisis in the history of the water companies, and the House was being invited to give the companies another lease of life to the detriment of the London public.
    *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,)said that it would be convenient if he were to state at once the course which the Government proposed to take with regard to the 14 Water Bills on the Paper, and the view which the Government took as to the future supply of water to the Metropolis and the surrounding districts. In the first place, there were five Bills promoted by various of the water companies for the purpose of increasing the supplies of water which they possessed at present. Then there was a Bill presented by certain local authorities in Kent for the purpose of setting up a new and altogether separate water company. Thirdly, there were the Bills of the London County Council, whose object was the acquisition of the entire property of the eight separate water companies at present supplying London and the surrounding districts. With regard to the Bills in the first class, the course of the Government was clear. The Government would do nothing whatever to interfere with the progress of any Measure required for the purpose of increasing the water supply needed in the interest of the public. [Cheers.] Parliament had had some warning on this point already. In the summer of 1895, there was a sudden breakdown in the water supply of one
    18
    of the poorest districts served by the East London Water Company; and for a considerable period the supply was limited to three hours out of the twenty-four. What were the privations and hardships inflicted by this failure on the poor people of that district the House would understand when he stated that it was a district in which anything in the nature of adequate means of storage was the rarest possible exception rather than the rule. He had some opportunity of examining into the question on the spot, and, in his opinion, there were several days when the position threatened to become critical in the extreme. The difficulties were happily averted by a sudden change in the weather and by copious rains. He should express the opinion of Gentlemen in all parts of the House in declaring that it was intolerable that such a state of things should be even possible in London to-day. [Cheers.] At that time he was pressed in many quarters—and he should have taken the same course without being pressed—to institute an Inquiry, under the powers of the Local Government Board, into the causes of this failure. An Inquiry was conducted by two gentlemen—Colonel Ducat and Dr. Barry—with the greatest ability and impartiality, and he was glad to acknowledge publicly the services which they had rendered. Although he did not for a moment wish to rake up past controversies on this subject, he must say that the Report of those gentlemen made it absolutely clear that the failure of the water supply was in no way whatever due to failings on the part of the East London Water Company. ["Hear, hear!"] On the contrary, the evidence showed that the company had been anxious for a long time on the question of whether or not they had sufficient storage powers. They had made all the preparations to increase the storage, and in 1892 they came to Parliament with a Bill for the purpose. But what happened to that Bill? "That Bill," the Commissioners said, "was thrown out of Parliament on the Second Reading, and a large amount of evidence was brought forward to show the action of the London County Council with regard to this Bill, both in 1893 and 1894," and they went onto say that

    19
    "if it was afterwards refused to send this Bill to a Committee, the responsibility for the want of storage in 1895 cannot justly be saddled in any way upon the water companies." With that warning before them Her Majesty's Government were not prepared to take upon themselves the responsibility of any action whatsoever which might by any possibility lead to a recurrence of similar mischiefs in future, and accordingly, as far as they were concerned, they proposed to allow these Bills to go forward and to pass the Second Reading, subject, however, to the Instruction which it would be his duty to ask the House to agree to later on, the effect of which would be to limit the operation of those Bills to works which were required for an increase in the supply which was needed in the public interest and which, at the same time, would prevent undertakings which were unnecessary and which might be calculated to forestall or prejudice any future arrangement which might turn out to be either possible or desirable in the connection with the proposals which Her Majesty's Government had submitted already in the other House of Parliament. The Transfer Bills promoted by the County Council and the Bill promoted by the Kent authorities to create a separate water authority in that district stood on a totally different footing, for they came directly into conflict with the proposals made in the other House of Parliament, as he would show in a moment by explaining the policy of the Government. In doing so it would be sufficient to say that all authorities, all committees to whom the question had been in trusted, were practically agreed that the Water Supply for the Metropolis and the surrounding districts ought either to be in the hands or under the effective control of some public body which should represent the interests and command the confidence of the water consumers. On this subject the recommendation of the Committee of 1880, which was presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, was as follows:—
    "That it is expedient that the supply of water to the Metropolis should be placed under the control of some public body which shall represent the interests and command the confidence of the water consumers."
    20
    And then with regard to the constitution of that body, they proceeded—
    *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Read the sentence which precedes that.
    *MR. CHAPLIN: I will leave that to the right hon. Gentleman.
    *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: No, no. To leave the preceding words out would be a misrepresentation of the Report. That sentence begins in this way: "In the absence of any municipal body." [Cheers.]
    *MR. CHAPLIN: I am perfectly ready to read it if the right hon. Gentleman thinks it necessary, but I omitted it for the reason that there is no municipal body of which I am aware which is representative of the district.
    *SIR W. HARCOURT: Why omit the sentence?
    *MR. CHAPLIN: Because it did not appear to me ad rent, but, as the right hon. Gentleman desires it, I shall have the greatest possible pleasure in reading it:—
    "That, in the absence of any single municipal body to which these functions should be committed, a water authority of a representative character should be constituted, and that a Bill having that object be introduced at an early day by Her Majesty's Government."
    They went on to say—
    (4)… "Without absolutely prescribing the composition of such a body, your Committee are of opinion that it should include elements derived from the Corporation of London and the Metropolitan Board of "Works, together with a due representation of the districts at present supplied by the Metropolitan Water Companies which lie beyond the jurisdiction of the Corporation and the Metropolitan Board."
    And then, as to the duties to be entrusted to the new body, it made these suggestions—
    SECTION 11. "In the constitution of the water authority, your Committee would recommend that that body should be intrusted with the largest discretion as to the best method of dealing with the water supply of the Metropolis. Various courses might be adopted. It would be possible to proceed by regulation of the powers of the existing companies, as in the case of gas supply; or by the introduction of an independent water supply; or by the purchase of the existing undertakings. It would be the duty of the water authority maturely to examine which of these schemes, separately or in combination, would be most advantageous to the public."

    21
    Why, that was precisely the Bill which Her Majesty's Government had introduced! a Bill to create a representative body. It would be impossible, he thought, to devise a scheme more in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee than the Bill which had been introduced by the Government in the other House of Parliament. Now the object and the general effect of the policy of the Government with regard to the question might be described almost in a sentence. They sought to bring into existence a body which should be thoroughly representative of all the interests comprised within that district; they proposed to leave to that body, when brought into existence, the entire decision as to what their policy should be in the future, and they intended to give them the amplest powers to give effect to that decision [Cheers], subject, of course, to the sanction of Parliament. That was a reasonable, intelligent, and perfectly straightforward policy for the purpose of dealing with the question. ["Hear, hear!"] That being so, it must be obvious to the House that the Kent Bill and the Transfer Bills were directly in conflict with the policy of the Government. For the first of those Bills set up in one part of the area a counter authority to that which was contemplated by the Government, and the other Bills—namely, the County Council Bills—had for their aim the immediate acquisition of the property of the companies by an authority which would leave one-fifth of the rateable value and one-fifth of the population unrepresented altogether, and which would in no way be representative at all of 500 square miles out of the 621 square miles comprised in their district. Under these circumstances, the Government had no alternative except to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill of the County Council. Turning to the objection urged to this course—that it would be a mistake on the part of the Government to interfere with negotiations with regard to purchase which had come so near a conclusion—he observed that he was extremely doubtful as to the accuracy of that statement. There were numerous representatives of the different companies in the House, and they would be able to give testimony on the subject for themselves, but, unless he was entirely misinformed, these negotiations
    22
    were very far from having arrived at anything like a settlement. The Government believed that their action, so far from retarding, was much more likely to accelerate a final settlement of the question. In a memorandum which had been circulated by the County Council, they pointed out the great strength of the opposition which they had always had to encounter, and, like their predecessors the Metropolitan Board, the County Council "recognised the impossibility of successfully meeting the vast power and influence of the eight London water companies acting in combination otherwise than by co-operation with the Corporation of the City of London." The Government recognised this; and they were also aware that the County Council, during the years which had elapsed since its creation in 1888, had not been successful in making very great progress with this question. ["Hear, hear!"] Being anxious to aid in the solution, they proposed to put the County Council in co-operation, not only with the Corporation of the City of London, but in co-operation with all the outside authorities also; thereby creating a body which would be infinitely more powerful in conducting and completing negotiations in future than the County Council had been in the past. [Cheers.] The House must also remember that, subject to the sanction of Parliament, purchase was not the only new power to be conferred on the new authority. The acquisition of more effective control over the administration of the companies, or, if need be, of seeking for and acquiring further stores of supply, would be equally within their powers, which had been intentionally made by the Government as wide as they could be. It must be for the new body to decide entirely as to what their policy should be; but many persons thought—an opinion with which he himself agreed—that the obtaining of more effective control over the administration of the companies, while still leaving to them the duty of providing supplies, might; possibly in the long run turn out to be the best, most economical, and perhaps most satisfactory mode of dealing with the question. ["Hear, hear!"] The responsibility of acquiring properties which would impose a burden that was variously estimated at any sum

    23
    between £30,000,000 and £40,000,000 of the ratepayers' money, was very great indeed; and he did not think that the other alternative ought to be put on one side altogether. It was stated that the outside authorities interested would be very reluctant indeed to join in any combination such as that proposed by the Government; they would be afraid of being brought into a body which might possibly entail upon them a very large and very unnecessary expenditure in the future. He had been told also that they would prefer an autonomous existence, and that they were perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. He did not doubt it. There was absolutely nothing in the proposals of the Government to prevent arrangements of this kind from being made and carried out in the future. On the contrary, the outside authorities being strongly represented on the new body, they would be in a far better position than they were at present to come to any desirable arrangements. The Government had already inserted provisions in the Bill specially designed to facilitate this object, and those provisions could be easily strengthened if there should be any necessity for it. The hon. Member for Shoreditch had referred to certain communications which had passed between himself representing the County Council, and the Government, in which he was the intermediary. The object was to consider whether any arrangements were possible by which the Transfer Bills of the County Council and the Measure proposed by the Government might proceed more or less together. He acknowledged the appreciation which the hon. Member had expressed of his readiness to consider proposals of that kind, and he assured the hon. Gentleman that the appreciation was reciprocated. The difficulties of arriving at an arrangement were immense, and, to some exrent, he demurred to the interpretation which the hon. Member placed upon the particular cause of difficulty which terminated the negotiations. The possibility of any arrangement being made depended entirely on the speedy passage of the Government Bill, for a Committee upstairs could hardly conduct their deliberations with reference to a hypothetical body which had not yet come into existence; but to insure the speedy passage of the
    24
    Government Measure it was, of course, in the first place, necessary to disarm the opposition it would be likely to encounter. He soon discovered that to do this it was necessary for the County Council to abandon the arbitration clauses which were at present in the Bill, and to rely on the ordinary law. To allow these Bills to proceed, therefore, would simply entail enormous cost and trouble on a variety of interests which would be affected without any corresponding advantage to anyone. [Cheers.] The Government would make every effort to pass the Measure they had introduced in the other House. While greatly regretting the necessity which brought him at so early a date into conflict with the great representative authority of the Metropolis, he felt that he had no alternative except to oppose the Second Reading of the Transfer Bills. [Cheers.]
    *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: A good many years ago I was called upon to take an active part in the consideration of this question, and I think I ought to say a few words on the position which it occupies to-day. It was so long ago that the right hon. Gentleman might well have forgotten, if, indeed, he ever read, the Report of 1880. I should suppose that he had not read the Report, because I ventured to point out that he omitted to read the most important paragraph in it. ["No, no!"] I know something of the Report, probably more than the hon. Gentlemen who cry "No." I had the advantage of a most distinguished collaborateur in that Report in the Secretary for the Colonies; I think we may call it a joint Report. Now, the great want at that time was some central municipal body which should be intrusted with business of this character, of which Birmingham is a great example. There being no such municipal body at that time, we said in our Report that, in the absence of any single municipal body to which those functions could be committed, a water authority of a representative character should be constituted; but, of course, if there had been a single municipal body we should not have constituted another, and, therefore, the passage to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was really an inferior alternative to which we had recourse in the

    25
    absence of a single municipal body. That was at the beginning of the Government of 1880. They had in their minds at that time a Bill to constitute a single municipal body in London in a London Government Bill. I was responsible for that at the time, and having that in view, we looked to the constitution of a single municipal body in London. But we were not fortunate enough to constitute that single municipal body, though when our successors, the Conservative Government, came into power they did constitute it. ["No, no!"] They left outstanding the Corporation of the City of London, but when the Committee of 1891, presided over by the present Home Secretary, sat, reference was made to the Committee of 1880 and to the declaration that when a municipal body was formed in London they were the proper people to be the water authority. Therefore, the Home Secretary put upon the Report of 1880 exactly the interpretation that I did in contrast to the interpretation of the President of the Local Government Board. The argument used just now by the right hon. Gentleman is this, that the London County Council is not the single municipal body which was intended by the Report of 1880. Then the right hon. Gentleman is at issue with his colleague the Home Secretary. I will read the words:—
    "Your Committee therefore considers that it would he most desirable that the problem should be carefully and deliberately examined by this newly-constituted municipal authority"
    —namely, the London County Council. The interpretation of the Committee, then, was that the County Council should look after the interests of the water consumers in the Metropolis. In the view, also, of the Committee of 1891, the municipal authority that, ought to be charged with these functions was the County Council. They said:—
    "Powers should he granted to the County Council to expend such further sums as may be reasonably necessary in order that they may examine thoroughly for themselves, as the responsible municipal authority of London, the whole question of the metropolitan water supply, and may come to a conclusion as to the policy which, for financial and other reasons, it is desirable to adopt."
    26

    The Committee also said that, if the County Council should resolve to act,
    "they should have power to promote a Bill or Bills in Parliament for the purpose of constituting themselves the responsible water authority of London, acting through a statutory Committee."
    Well, one such Bill was now under the consideration of the House in accordance with the Report of the Committee. They went on:—
    "The London County Council, if constituted the authority, should be required to purchase, either alone or in conjunction with such authorities of outside areas as may be arranged, the undertakings of the eight water companies."
    Nothing could be more distinct. ["Hear, hear!"] The Government, they were told, had introduced a Bill dealing with the subject of the water supply, but that Bill did not constitute the London County Council the water authority. [Cheers from the Ministerial Benches.] Hon. Members opposite did not desire that it should. There were a great many representatives of the water companies in that House. Any body who had ever attempted to deal with the water question was well aware of the number of these Gentlemen and of their influence in that House. But it was not an influence which was exercised always in the interests of the consumer, and it was because it was not so exercised that it was desirable that the water supply should be placed in the hands of some public body, which should have the interests of the consumer primarily at heart. ["Hear, hear!"] What was the meaning of the Government Bill as interpreted by the water companies? Lord Knutsford, who was their representative in the other House, said:—
    "He was grateful to the Government—and he believed he spoke the general feeling of the companies—for having stepped in and put an end to the designs of the London County Council"
    —the very body which the Committee, presided over by the present Home Secretary, declared ought to have charge of the water of London in the interests of the consumer. What are "the designs" of the County Council? To acquire the property of these companies and to administer it for the benefit of the public; and the Government, according to Lord Knutsford, have stepped in to prevent

    27
    this being done. The Government propose to constitute a body in which the County Council will have an influence which will not be at all in proportion to the size of the population which they represent. The right hon. Gentleman has said correctly that the allegation against the policy of the Government is that it will postpone indefinitely any real reform. If they had introduced a Bill for constituting an authority which should have power to deal at once with this question, we could have discussed the subject on a proper basis. We should have seen whether the body to whom the power of purchase was to be given was a better body to exercise such a power than the London County Council. As far as I understand—and the right hon. Gentleman does not deny it—the outside bodies affected by the Bill of the Government do not want this scheme at all; they are not willing partners in the concern, and so you are going to set up a body with a number of persons on it who do not wish to be on it. The right hon. Gentleman says that they may make arrangements to get away from it; but surely a scheme cannot be very workable that provides for putting upon a body a dozen gentlemen who want to get away from it. Does the hon. Member for the Uxbridge Division, who represents the water companies, agree with that?
    *SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: I have nothing to do with the water companies in any form. I have not a single share in their property. ["Hear, hear!"]
    *SIR W. HARCOURT: I did not mean to make any personal imputation, but I must condole with the hon. Baronet—[laughter]—because I am informed that their shares are very substantial possessions. What I want to know is this: What is the probability, if these Bills are thrown out by the House, that anything practical will be done within a reasonable time? If these Bills were passed something practical would be done. The supplies of water for London would be acquired through the County Council. I am glad to see here the creator of the County Council. Whatever hon. Gentlemen behind him may think of that body, he, at any rate, has never disowned his offspring, and he has expressed perfect confidence that the Council if intrusted with the water supply of the metropolis, would
    28
    perform its task ably. But a large number of hon. Members opposite seem to think that it is a sacred duty to attack the County Council. I really do not know why this is so. The hon. Member for Norwood openly avowed that he attacked the proposals made in these Bills on account of the Progressive quarter from which they came. Is that a reasonable way of treating such a question as the water supply of London?
    *MR. TRITTON: I said that I admired the County Council on the whole, and I have never uttered a word against it. ["Hear, hear!"]
    *SIR W. HARCOURT: The hon. Member certainly said that one of his reasons for objecting to these Bills was on account of the quarter from which they came.
    *MR. TRITTON: Yes, because, as I maintain, the Progressives on the Council do not represent the bulk of the population of the Metropolis.
    *SIR W. HARCOURT: Well, the question is, How are we going to improve the administration of the water supply? I do not think that improvement will be facilitated by the rejection of these Bills or the constitution of a water trust which can do no possible good. The Bill of the Government is a measure that cannot work without the aid of further Bills. Looking at the whole history of this question, I regret extremely that the Government should have made up their minds to throw out, so far as I know, the only practical proposal for putting into the hands of a public body the water supply of the Metropolis. If you think there should be added to the County Council any other representatives, that might be considered, but there is nothing to prevent you taking over the agreements that have been made or may be made under these Bills, and consequently getting to work upon this matter at once. With reference to the Arbitration Clause, it could be altered by the Committee upstairs if it appeared to be unjust, and all I will say about it is that it is, practically speaking, the recommendation of another Committee. ["No, no!"] If it is not so, it is intended to be so and can be made so. I understand the Government have put their foot down against any variation of the Arbitration Clause, and have insisted on taking the Lands

    29
    Clauses Act absolutely. That is the position the Government take, and it is a position directly in conflict with the recommendation of the Committee over which Mr. Plunket presided. They are, therefore, in these two matters, in conflict with two Committees, the one over which the Home Secretary presided in 1891, and the one over which the right hon. Gentleman, whose absence from this House we all deplore—Mr. Plunket ["hear, hear!"]—presided in 1880 It is a strong thing to ask us, in conflict with such authorities, either to throw out these Bills because they would give an authority to the County Council, as recommended by the Home Secretary, and because they contain a deviation from the Arbitration Clause, which was recommended in principle by the Committee over which Mr. Plunket presided. ["Hear, hear!"] That is the reason why I do regret that the Government are determined to take the responsibility—and I think it is a very great responsibility—of throwing out these Bills. For my part, T shall vote for the Second Heading of the Bills, believing they are founded on sound principles, however much their details may be varied, and are likely, in the future, to give a better system of water supply to this great Metropolis. [Cheers.]
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The present House of Commons is in possession of the whole of this question of the water supply of London, and I do not think they are likely to allow their decision to be entirely controlled by the Reports of Committees which sat in 1880 and 1891, especially if those Reports, as I shall show, are in themselves inconsistent. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down claims me as being jointly responsible with him for the Report of 1880, and it is quite true—in the sense that I was a Member of that Committee, and voted for the Report—that I had a certain responsibility. But he does me altogether too much honour when he says, in effect, that I was his joint collaborateur in the preparation of that Report. I should not have alluded to this matter—I should have thought it hardly worthy the attention of the House—if the right hon. Gentleman had not been constrained to make this direct
    30
    appeal to me. His memory, I am sorry to say, is short in reference to the whole subject. I beg to call to his mind a memorandum I prepared at his request—which he has, no doubt, among his papers now—in which I advised him to take a totally different course from that which, in his greater wisdom and entire discretion, he ultimately took. [Laughter and cheers.] I am not complaining of the right hon. Gentleman for neglecting my advice, but I do think it is rather strong, after having rejected my advice, to claim me as a supporter and joint collaborateur of the Report which was ultimately adopted in entire antagonism with that advice. ["Hear, hear!"] What happened in 1880? The Members of the then Government believed, I think with reason, that the terms which had been arranged by Sir Richard Cross, now Lord Cross, with the Water Companies were exorbitant terms, and accordingly we persuaded the majority of the Committee to that effect, and we destroyed Lord Cross's Bill. My advice to the right hon. Gentleman was to put something in place of that, not to be destructive merely, but constructive also, and I very much regret, and I think London has to regret, that he did not take my advice. Because, what is the fact? That for the 16 years since that day not one step has been taken in advance in the purchase of the Water Companies, and now the price you will have to pay, under any fair arbitration, will be some millions more even than the exorbitant price which, as we thought, Lord Cross was prepared prematurely to offer, ["Hear, hear!"] I say, then, I cannot claim any special responsibility for the Report to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, but I think I can claim an equal right with himself to interpret it, ["Hear, hear!"] I think I know what that Report meant, even although I may not have been so enthusiastic an admirer as the right hon. Gentleman, its author. The Report meant this, that in dealing with the subject a representative authority should be constituted, and by a representative authority we said and meant representative of the water consumers, we meant and said not only the water consumers of London, but the water consumers of the whole surrounding districts. ["Hear, hear!"] It is

    31
    perfectly absurd, and an entire inaccuracy of the right hon. Gentleman to contend we had in view then, if there had been a single municipality in London, the intrusting to that single municipality in London the interests of the water consumers. We never meant, or said, anything of the kind, but exactly the reverse, as I find in looking up a letter. I find a Motion was made on an Amendment to the Report of the right hon. Gentleman by Mr. Sclater-Booth, who proposed to strike out the words "together with the representatives of the outside districts." This was supported by the late Mr. Firth, who was an advocate of a single municipality for London, but the whole of the Members of the Government present opposed that Amendment and adhered to the original proposal of the Report, which was that this matter should be dealt with by a trust which represented the water consumers outside London as well as in. ["Hear, hear!"] That is exactly what the Government Bill is, and under these circumstances it is somewhat strange that the right hon. Gentleman should get up now, 16 years later, and repudiate the imitation, which ought to be the sincerest form of flattery, which the Government have made of his own proposal. ["Hear, hear!"] It is quite true that in 1891 a proposal somewhat different was made. But I think the House is in possession of the whole facts and may decide the question upon the merits, and I would put this specially before the London County Council and others who take a great interest in this matter. As a result of my experience, I was convinced you could not adopt a more unwise course than to seek to keep the whole of this business of the water supply of the whole of the metropolitan area in the hands of the London County Council without representatives of the local authorities outside. I have had a good deal of experience in this matter. I was chiefly instrumental in purchasing the water companies and gas companies of Birmingham. In both cases we had to deal with outside districts, and we made the mistake of not sufficiently taking into account—I won't call it the interests because we thought we could be answerable for the interests of the districts—but the sentiments of the outside localities, and the result was, in the
    32
    case of the gas purchase especially, that we were put to an enormous expenditure because of the opposition to the Bill which we brought forward, and, further, we had to give to them powers of separate administration and purchase, the effect of which was undoubtedly the multiplication of comparatively small gas-producing authorities, with the result that the proceeding was not as economical as it might have been. If we had constituted, as we ought to have done, a gas trust, giving a fair representation to outside bodies, all this would have been avoided, and large sums of money saved. ["Hear, hear!"] Therefore, I say, in my opinion, at any rate it is to the interests of all parties concerned that outsiders should feel themselves to be fully represented in the water trust, and their interest will then be exactly the same as that of the metropolitan authority. I do not believe that it would be found that they would be a hostile element, or a source of any kind of conflict, and on the other hand I am quite convinced there would be very much less friction. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman expresses his regret that a greater advance has not been made, and that these Bills which promised some approach to a settlement are being rejected and the Government Bill substituted. I regret that very much, because I believe it is really an unnecessary result. There are practically what I call three contentious interests in this matter—the interest represented by the London County Council, the interest represented by the outside authorities, and the interest represented by the Water Companies. As regards the London County Council, I am not one of those who have ever attacked the London County Council as a great representative municipal authority. On the contrary, I have the greatest sympathy with their work. I do not suppose that they are more infallible than other municipal authorities, and I have blamed them when they have been wrong; but I have never, either in this House or anywhere else, made anything like a general condemnation of their proceedings. In this matter, so far as the main principle goes, I am entirely in agreement. I do believe that, after the fullest inquiry, you will always a come back to this, that the water supply of a great city ought to be in the hands

    33
    of a representative authority. I admit there is something to be said for the greater control which might he given without actually purchasing. But if you can make the purchase on a fair basis, it is desirable in the interest of everybody that what is absolutely a necessary of life, of what is one of the most important adjuncts to the sanitary condition of a great population, should be under the control of the representatives of the people. ["Hear, hear!"] Therefore I agree with the County Council in what I believe to be their main object, and agree with them also that it would be a most regrettable thing if now, when we are, as you may say, on the eve of a settlement once more, the whole matter should be thrown open, that it should be left to a new body to commence, probably at some length, on altogether new inquiries, and, having come to precisely the same conclusion, then to find they had got again to go through all these stages which have been partially accomplished already by the County Council. I think that would be very regrettable, and if that is the result of our proceedings very considerable responsibility must lie upon those who have brought it about. ["Hear, hear!"] It is because of that feeling that my right hon. Friend has gone to the extreme limit of making offers to all the interests concerned for the purpose of bringing about a general agreement. I must say (though I do not want to speak in a controversial spirit) that, in my opinion, the whole fault lies with the London County Council or those who represent it. As regards outside authorities I have already spoken. I believe their interest is satisfied when they are fairly and fully represented, as they have been in the Government Bill. It is quite true that these outside authorities have been over-represented if you have regard simply to population and rateable value. But that is a necessity, because you could not restrict them absolutely to representation in proportion only to their present population and rateable value. You have to consider whether they are distinct and separate interests, and I believe those interests are sufficiently safeguarded by the representation proposed in the Government Bill. The water companies have never
    34
    been obstructive in this country. They have always said:—
    "You have not approached us as persons anxious to make a fair commercial arrangement, but as persons desirous of confiscating our property."
    The water companies have always said—
    "We admit that the public interest is supreme, and, provided that private rights are respected in the same sense in which they have always been in the transactions of the House, and that those for whom we are trustees will be fairly treated in any purchase arrangements, we are prepared to dispose of our property."
    There you have the three contentious interests, and I maintain that they can all be conciliated. The water companies are conciliated if you give them the same Arbitration Clause that has been given in every other case in which a water company has been purchased by a Municipal Corporation. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green said that under this arrangement Municipal Corporations had claimed exorbitant prices. I do not know to what Corporation the hon. Member refers. It is not true of Birmingham. There we had the Arbitration Clause asked for by the London water companies, and, though we did not find it necessary to put that clause into effect, because we made a private agreement, we never contended that that clause imposed on the ratepayers any exorbitant price: and, so far as my knowledge of similar undertakings goes, there is no case in which more than a fair price has been paid. I ask the hon. Member for Shoreditch and others representing the London County Council whether they contend that it is their duty, representing the ratepayers, to get hold of this property at a price less than its fair value? That is not the duty of any representative body, and, that being so, they should be content to give to the water companies what they ask. If the terms on which they shall be purchased is to be settled by arbitration—which I hope will not be resorted to, because I should advise the parties to come to an amicable arrangement—they should have the same price that other companies in similar circumstances have had. I say that even at the eleventh hour I believe an agreement might be

    35
    come to if the London County Council would frankly agree that the Government Bill should go on and without opposition, on the understanding that the ordinary Arbitration Clause should be put in, and with the understanding, at the last stage, that the new Water Trust shall be substituted for the London County Council. In that event the position of the County Council would be that they would have—as they would be justified in claiming, having regard to the superiority of their representation as regards numbers and rateable value—a majority on the Water Trust. But I do not believe there would be, once this Water Trust were established, any sharp line drawn between the representatives of the metropolitan and the outside area. The interests are not conflicting, and I do not believe there would be any party or any permanent dividing line. The County Council would be fully and fairly represented. They have asked that this body should be a Statutory Committee of the Council. That would give the County Council an absolutely overbearing voice and vote on every proceeding of the Water Trust. We may as well hand the matter over to the County Council. It is an absurdity to ask local authorities from outside to discuss the matter, and then find the decision arrived at by the Committee, which has heard the whole proceeding, is to be opposed by the majority of the London County Council. That is not reasonable. The conclusion rests entirely with those who represent the County Council. They are blocking the way to a settlement. If they say, "We will not have a settlement unless you enable us to extort terms which have never been asked for in any previous case by a municipal authority," or say, "We will not deal with this matter unless you make us absolute master of the conclusions at which the Water Trust or authority will arrive"—then they are asking terms so exorbitant and unreasonable that they could not be conceded by the Government or the other interests concerned. But, if they were willing to accept the arrangement offered by my right hon. Friend, we might, even now, maintain these Bills, and by the end of the Session the new Water Trust would be constituted, with full power to carry out an amicable
    36
    arrangement with the companies or to go to arbitration. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONthought the speech of the Colonial Secretary would do much towards a settlement of this matter. With regard to the conditions as regarded the Government Bill that the right hon. Gentleman had laid down, no one would give a pledge not to criticise the Bill if they objected to it in principle.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid any arrangement would involve previous acceptance of the principles of the Bill. But that would not bar criticism of detail.
    MR. BUXTONsaid that he had not yet studied the text of the Bill, and until he had done so he could not undertake to accept its principle, which, to many of them, was not based on proper municipal authority. The second condition of the right hon. Gentleman was one which he did not see why, if there really was a desire for concession on both sides, some agreement might not be come to. The right hon. Gentleman forgot that Clause 6 of the Bill of last year had been withdrawn by the London County Council, as they proposed instead of it to introduce an Arbitration Clause, founded on the Report of the Plunket Committee, and which, in their opinion, carried out the proposals of the Committee. The hon. Member for Shoreditch had said, if it could be shown that the proposals of the Committee were not properly carried out, the London County Council, when that question was discussed upstairs, would be quite willing to accept any words which would carry out the proposals of the Committee. Therefore the County Council had already offered a compromise on the question of Arbitration. They did not wish to do injustice to either shareholders or ratepayers. He asked the House to listen to the clause it was proposed to substitute for Clause 6; it read as follows:—
    "And whereas (failing agreement as to sale and purchase) in order to determine the fair and reasonable value of the Undertaking, it is intended to provide that the Arbitrators should, in determining such value, have regard to all the circumstances of the case, and should hear and consider all matters, whether past, present, or future, laid before them by either party, relating to any such circumstances, and should not be precluded by any legal objection from entertaining the same:

    37

    "Be it therefore enacted—
    "There shall be paid by the Council for the transfer of the Undertaking such a sum of money as the Arbitrators determine to represent the fair and reasonable value of the Undertaking, together with such further sum us the Arbitrators may award, to meet the cost of reinvesting such money (in the event of no arrangement being made by the Council under which such money may be re-invested without cost) and the Arbitrators, in order to ascertain such sum, shall inquire into, and consider, all the circumstances of the case, and the contentions of the Council and the Lambeth Company respectively, and may deal with the same, or any of them, in such manner as they in (heir absolute and unfettered discretion think fit, on such terms and in such manner, in all respects, as they think fair, reasonable, and expedient, and as fully and effectually as could be done by Act of Parliament.
    "The Arbitrators may, at any stage of the proceedings, under the reference to them, and shall, if so directed by the Court, or a Judge, state, in the form of a special case, any question of law arising In the course of the reference and any question of law so stated shall be for the determination of the Court, subject to all rights of appeal as from a Judgment or Order of the Court."
    It would hardly be possible to devise words which would give the arbitrator more absolute freedom to do what all wanted to have done—to arrive at the fair value of the Water Companies' property for purchase. He did not see how the County Council could offer fairer terms to the companies than those recommended by a Committee of the House. He was afraid they could not at the present moment accept the other proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, which was that they would not offer opposition to his Bill in the future; but he did hope that one consequence of the Delate of that evening would be that the two parties would have made a nearer approach than on any previous occasion, and that this would help towards attaining what they all had at heart, namely the purchase, at n. fair price, of the works of the London Water Companies by some municipal authority whatever it might be.
    *MR. W. F. D. SMITHsaid, that the Members on the Ministerial side of the House had heard with satisfaction the speech of the President of the Local Government Board. The position now occupied was very different from that of last year. The proposal of a trust had entirely changed the situation, and therefore
    38
    they could not, as they did last year, take up a position in any way favourable to the transfer Bills of the County Council. At any rate, now there were two lines of policy which were sufficiently definite for Members to be able to distinguish between them. There was the policy proposed by the County Council and that initiated by the Government, and on that side of the House they were certainly in favour of the policy proposed by the Government. The question was one of very great importance to the metropolis, and, on the part of the Unionist Members, he urged on the Government the importance of pressing forward as rapidly as they could the Bill they had introduced into the other House.
    *SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, they had heard nothing yet in reference to the districts outside the metropolis. Many of them opposed the County Council Bills on different grounds from those which had been stated. No doubt it was true, as the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary had stated, that more would have to be paid for the works of the companies now, than would have had to be paid under Mr. Smith's agreement: but that was because the water companies had since that agreement spent a great deal on now Works; and this money would have had to be spent by the public if they had bought the waterworks at the time. Anyone listening to the hon. Member for Shoreditch would have supposed that he was speaking for almost the whole of the London County Council. When their Parliamentary Committee proposed an arrangement—totally different from this, the hon. Member moved as an Amendment that the present Bills should be proceeded with, and that Amendment was defeated in the London County Council. The fact was that opinions were almost equally divided. If the House went to a Vote on these transfer Bills, it would be found that, not only a large majority of London Members, but a majority of those representing outside areas were opposed to the Bills, because it was believed that, if they were passed, there would be an increase in the water rates that consumers would be called upon to pay.
    *MR. PERCY THORNTONsaid, it had been stated by the hon.

    39
    Member for Bethnal Green that local authorities in the south-west of London had expressed themselves favourably to the policy of the London County Council. The Wandsworth District Board of Works, representing Clapham, Putney, Streatham and Wandsworth, had petitioned against these Bills and in favour of a Water Trust. It might be true, as the hon. Member for Bethnal Green said, that people in his part of London favoured the acquisition of the water companies by the London County Council. It was certainly not so in the south-west of the Metropolis, where, although dissatisfied with the water companies, a majority desired to see a water trust as a halfway house, in preference to the domination of Spring Gardens.
    MR. PICKERSGILLsaid, his statement referred to local authorities outside the area of the London County Council.
    *MR. THORNTONsaid, a paper which had been circulated by the London County Council spoke of the suburbs.
    Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    The House divided: Ayes, 123; Noes, 287.—(Division List, No. 65.)
    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Second Reading put off for six months.

    EAST LONDON WATER (TRANSFER) BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made and Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time," put, and negatived.

    GRAND JUNCTION WATER (TRANSFER) BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time," put, and negatived.

    KENT WATER (TRANSFER) BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time," put, and negatived.

    NEW RIVER WATER (TRANSFER) BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time," put, and negatived.

    WEST MIDDLESEX WATER (TRANSFER) BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." put, and negatived.

    LAMBETH WATER (TRANSFER) BILL AND SOUTHWARK AND VAUXHALL WATER (TRANSFER) BILL.
    Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [24th February]—
    "That the Orders [17th February] that the Lambeth Water (Transfer) Bill and the Southwark and Vauxhall Water (Transfer) Bill be committed be read and discharged, and that the Bills be committed to a Select Committee of Nine Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Five by the Committee of Selection.
    That subject to the Rules, Orders and Proceedings of this House, all Petitions against the said Bills be referred to the Committee; and such of the Petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, Agents, or Witnesses, be heard on their Petitions against the Bills, if they think fit, and Counsel heard in support of the said Bills against such Petitions.
    That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
    And that seven be the quorum."—(Mr. James Stuart)—
    Read, and discharged.

    LAMBETH WATER (TRANSFER) BILL.
    Order for Committee [17th February] read, and discharged.
    Bill withdrawn.

    SOUTHWARK AND VAUXHALL WATER (TRANSFER) BILL.
    Order for Committee [17th February] read and discharged.
    Bill withdrawn.

    KENT WATER BOARD BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, that for the reasons he had already stated he was opposed to the Second Reading.
    Motion negatived.

    LONDON WATER COMPANIES BILLS.
    Ordered, That a Select Committee of nine Members be appointed, four to be nominated by the House, and five by the Committee of Selection, to whom all Bills promoted in the present Session by the London Water Companies shall be committed.
    Ordered, That all Petitions presented against the said Bills within the time limited by the Standing Orders 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 (he Bills, if they think fit, and counsel heard in support of the said Bills against such Petitions.
    Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
    Ordered, That five be the quorum.
    Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee (a) not to confer addiditional powers except so far as the same may be proved to the satisfaction of the Committee to be required for works or for the acquisition of land, the construction or acquisition of which cannot be postponed without detriment to the interests of the public; and (b) to insert in any Bill authorising the creation of further capital provisions which shall prohibit the application of such capital to any purpose other than the construction of the works or the acquisition of the land for which it is authorised by the Bill to be raised, or the expenses of the Bill.—(Mr. Chaplin.)

    CHELSEA WATER (SUSPENDED) BILL.
    Orders for Committee [17th February] read, and discharged:—Bill committed to the Select Committee on London Water Companies Bills.
    LAMBETH WATER (SUSPENDED) BILL.
    Orders for Committee [17th February] read, and discharged:—Bill committed to the Select Committee on London Water Companies Bills.
    STAINES RESERVOIRS BILL.
    Ordered, That the Bill be committed to the Select Committee on London Water Companies Bills.—(Mr. Chaplin.)

    NEW RIVER COMPANY BILL.
    Ordered, That the Bill be committed to the Select Committee on London Water Companies Bills.—(Mr. Chaplin.)
    MR. BIGWOOD MR. BIGWOOD (Middlesex, Brentford) moved:—
    "That it he an Instruction to that Committee to insert a provision whereby, before the company can acquire any portion of the Alexandra Park Estate, to which the public have rights of user and access under Section '25 of the Muswell Hill Estate and Railways Act, 1866, the company shall provide adjacent land equal in area and value to that which they propose to take."
    Objection was taken to the consideration of the Instruction, and
    MR. SPEAKERremarked that as the Instruction was not down by Order it could not be taken to-day.

    SOUTH WARK AND VAUXHALL WATER BILL.
    Ordered, That the Bill be committed to the Select Committee on London Water Companies Bills.—(Mr. Chaplin.)
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (ENGLAND AND WALES) (GRANTS REFUSED).
  Return [presented 12th March] to be printed.—[No. 120.]
  CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS (WEST RIDING OF THE COUNTY OF YORK).
  Return [presented 20th March] to be printed.—[No. 121.]
  TWEEDSIDE COUNTIES (CRIMINAL CAUSES).
  Return [presented 23rd March] to be printed.—[No. 122.]
  ARMY (CLOTHING FACTORY).
  Accounts [presented 23rd March] to be printed.—[123].
  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS (ARMY VOTES).
  Paper [presented 23rd March] to be printed.—[No. 124.]

  WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY GUARANTEE (BANAVIE TO MALLAIG LINE).
  Copies ordered,
  "Of further Correspondence relating to the West Highland Railway Guarantee (Banavie to Mallaig Line) and of an Agreement entered into between the Treasury and the West Highland Railway Company, dated the 10th day of March 1896, and of a Memorandum relative to the Bill which the Government propose to introduce this Session (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 449, of Session 2, 1895)."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
  Copies presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 125.]

  PETROLEUM.
  Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee on Petroleum in Session 1894 be referred to the Select Committee oh Petroleum.—(Mr. Mundella.)
  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1886) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred from Tomorrow till Wednesday, 20th May.
  WEST HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (SCOTLAND) WORKS ACT (1891) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred from Tomorrow till Wednesday, 20th May.
  SCHOOL BOARD ELECTORATE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred from Tomorrow till Wednesday, 20th May.
  COAL MINES REGULATION ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred from Tomorrow till Wednesday, 15th April.
  BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred from Thursday till Wednesday, 29th April.
NOTICES OF MOTION.

  SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (CIVIL DEPARTMENTS).
  MR. BROOKFIELD, on behalf of Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Belfast, W.): That the failure of successive Administrations to give employment in Civil Departments to Reserve or time-expired soldiers and sailors of good character is contrary to public policy and detrimental to the interests of the Service, and that this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to make larger provision for the employment of such persons, by allotting to them preferentially such posts in the public service as they are competent to 61). [Tuesday, 21st April]
  SIR EDWARD HILLgave notice of a similar motion for the same day.

  DECLARATION OF PARIS.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her to take such steps as may be necessary to withdraw from the Declaration respecting Maritime Law, dated the 16th day of April, 1856, and annexed to the 23rd Protocol of the Conferences held at Paris relative to the General Treaty of Peace in 1856. [Tuesday, 21st April.]
  APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS.
  MR. R. WALLACE: This day four weeks, or on as early a date afterwards as possible, he would move:—"That in the opinion of this House it is expedient that the appointment and dismissal of principal Ministers of the Crown should rest with the representatives of the people." [Laughter.]
  TRAWLING IN SCOTCH WATERS.
  MR. T. R. BUCHANAN: On an early day he would call attention to the subject of steam-trawling on the coast of Scotland, and the necessity of extending the territorial limit for fishing purposes, and move a Resolution.
QUESTIONS.

  FOREIGN TRADE COMPETITION.
  MR. J. BRIGG: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, in view of the frequent statements made in the Reports on Trade and Commerce that, in foreign, countries. British textiles and iron wares are being superseded by the manufactures of Germany, France, and Belgium, he will, in his instructions to the Consuls, impress upon them the desirability of their giving increased attention to these facts, and of their forwarding more frequently for the; use of Chambers of Commerce samples or descriptions and prices of articles which are believed to be taking the place of the products of this country?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,)The instructions already issued to Her Majesty's Consular Representatives abroad contain very specific directions concerning the competition of foreign trades and the forwarding of samples. In accordance therewith samples have been received from a large number of places, and have been communicated to the Chambers of Commerce. Inasmuch, however, as the matter is one of considerable importance, I propose to issue a reminder to the Consuls of their duties in this respect.
  MR. BRIGGasked if it would be possible to supply Chambers of Commerce with copies of the instructions.
  MR. CURZONsaid he would be happy to communicate a copy of the instructions to the hon. Gentleman if he desired it.

  CLYDE DEFENCES.
  MR. A. WYLIE: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for War, if it is the intention of the Government to complete the military defences of the Clyde at an early date, by carrying out the recommendations of the Committee of 1888 in regard to the armaments at the Cumbraes, and by protecting the mine field at Gourock, as reported on by Captain Callaghan last year?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): It is not known to what report of Captain Callaghan the hon. Member refers, but a certain amount of defence has been afforded to the mine field at Gourock. We are not in a position to make any declaration at present as to providing armaments for the Cumbraes.

  CONGO FREE STATE.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he is aware that maps have been published by Captain Lugard and others showing the, existence of Belgian posts in the territory leased by Great Britain to the Congo State, and abandoned by that State in consequence of the objections of France; whether, when orders were given in 1894 by Captain Paul Le Marine), one of the Inspectors of the Congo State, to withdraw the three Belgian officers who were in this leased territory in the direction of the Bahr-el-Ghazel, the most distant post commanded by a lieutenant, being 150 miles north of the Upper Welle, the march southward lasted from December 1894 until April 1895; whether information can be given to the House as to the present condition of the large Egypto-Turkish territory thus abandoned by the Congo State; and, with reference to the other leased territory not the subject of French remonstrance, whether Her Majesty's Government continue to regard the lease as binding, and Duffileh and Wadelai as posts properly to be occupied by the Congo State?
  MR. CURZON: The map published in Captain Lugard's work illustrates the expedition of Captain von Kerkhoven, who was killed in 1893. The posts marked, all of which were south of Lado, are understood to have been evacuated for purely local, reasons when the expedition retired. Her Majesty's Government have, however, no information on the subject which is not available to the public. Our information is that there were no posts occupied by Congo State, Forces within the British sphere in the direction of the Bahr-el-Ghazel. No information has been

  47
  received as to the retirement from posts outside this sphere to which the Question seems to refer. As I stated in reply to a Question on the 17th instant, we have no trustworthy information as to the present condition of the Bahr-el-Ghazel districts. Her Majesty's Government were not a party to, and have not been informed as to, what may have passed between the Congo State and any other Power in regard to the leased territory. They are consequently not at present in a position to state how the leases might be affected thereby. It must, however, be remembered that the portion of the territory in which Wadelai and Duffileh are situated was not leased by the Agreement of May 1894 to the Congo State, but to the Sovereign of that State for the period of his reign.

  TRUNK TELEPHONE SYSTEM (MANSFIELD).
  MR. J. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what is the cause of the delay in connecting the post office at Mansfield with the trunk telephone system, most of the requisite apparatus having been provided; and, when such connection may be expected to take place?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): Owing principally to the difficulty of procuring sufficient apparatus, it has been found necessary to proceed gradually with the transfer of the working of the Trunk Telephone Lines from the National Telephone Company. The arrangements will first be completed in that part of the country which lies south of the Thames, and the transfer will take effect there on the 4th of next month. The District comprising Mansfield is receiving attention, and it is hoped that it will be possible to effect the transfer there at an early date.

  COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether any appointment has yet been made to the position of Collector
  48
  of Customs under the provisions of the Treasury Minute dated 24th March 1891; and, if not, whether he can state why this provision of the Minute has not been carried into effect?
  MR. HANBURY: The hon. Member doubtless refers to the following sentence in the Treasury Minute of 24th March 1891:—

  "The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary agree with the Board, who will in future promote Surveyors to be Collectors, when the public interest allows."
  No promotion of the kind has been made since the date of the Minute. In connection with this I may say that there is reason to think that the passage in question has given rise to somewhat exaggerated expectations on the part of the Outdoor Department of the Customs. From the nature of the case it is not possible that the promotion of a Surveyor to a Collectorship can be a matter of frequent, still less of regular, occurrence. The initial salary of a Surveyor is £350 per annum, from which it results that there are not more than 30 Collectorships that would tempt a Surveyor, even in his first year as Surveyor. As he advances in emolument (and a glance at the Estimates will show what good prospects he has) the number, of course, diminishes. But these 30 Collectorships constitute the places to which the Collectors and Superintendents below the £350 class, some 60 in number, have to look for promotion. Many of these men have made considerable sacrifice of immediate emoluments in order to enter that line of service, and, looking to all the circumstances, there is no question that, personal qualifications apart, an Officer already in the Collectors' line has a stronger claim on the higher Collector-ships than an Officer of the Outdoor Department. On these facts it is clear that the promotion of a Surveyor cannot be a frequent occurrence, and must be dependent solely on personal fitness, not on class claims. The Minute of March 1891 in fact did not do more than confirm and announce the intention not to revert to the system which had obtained until a short time previously, and under which Surveyors were practically ineligible for promotion to the rank of Collector.

  WHITCHURCH WORKHOUSE
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether his attention has been called to a case of cruelty in the Whitchurch Workhouse on the part of a pauper nurse, who in a fit of temper put a child into hot water and scalded one foot badly and the other slightly; whether he will have the ease investigated; and, whether he is taking any steps to press on Boards of Guardians the importance of establishing a system of trained nursing in workhouse infirmaries, and abolishing the custom of relying on paupers as nurses?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): I have made inquiry respecting the case referred to, and I find that, in consequence of several cases of measles having occurred in the Workhouse, mostly of the made type, three inmates were directed to look after them, although, under ordinary circumstances, paupers are not employed to look after the sick. I am informed that on previous occasions, under similar circumstances, instructions were given by the Guardians that an additional nurse should be employed. It is much to be regretted that these instructions were not carried out when these additional cases occurred. The conduct of the pauper referred to was no doubt most reprehensible, and the Guardians communicated with the police with a view to its being considered whether a prosecution should not be instituted against her. I am glad to learn, however, from a certificate of the Medical Officer, that the injuries were not of a serious character, and that the child is now quite well. The Board, by a circular letter issued on the 29th of January 1895, urged upon Boards of Guardians the importance of appointing only trained and experienced nurses, and at the same time stated that "whilst the Board are not prepared to lay it down as a rule that in no case should pauper inmates act as attendants in sick wards, as dearly distinguished from nurses, they consider that their services should only be used with the approval of the, medical officer, and under the closest supervision at all times of paid officers. The importance
  50
  of attention to these matters is urged upon the Guardians by the Board and their inspectors.

  FEATHERSTON ESTATE COUNTY GALWAY).
  MR. D. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether he is aware that Mr. William Farran, residing at Toorleitra, Woodford, County Galway, two years ago, by representing to the tenants on the Featherston Estate, that, having purchased the property and become their landlord, got two years rent together, with arrears, from almost all the tenants except a tenant named Michael Hennessy, who refused to pay unless Farran showed title; (2) whether he is aware that Mr. Farran sued Hennessy for the rent at last Quarter Sessions, and after swearing that Hennessy owed him the rent, had to admit on cross-examination that he could not show any title to the property, and the case was dismissed with costs; (3) also that Mr. Farran served an ejectment on a widow, named O'Dea, got a decree, and evicted her last August; and, (4) whether, seeing that Mr. Farran was appointed to the Commission of Peace for the County of Galway a few months ago, he will take these statements into consideration for further action thereon?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I am informed that about two years ago Mr. Farran purchased the property in question from the former landlord, and that the tenants in general paid their rents to Mr. Farran with the exception of Hennessy, who, at the January Quarter Sessions, took defence to a process which was dismissed without costs—Mr. Farran not being then in a position to produce a conveyance of the property owing to the death of the late landlord. A decree had been previously obtained against Mrs. O'Dea, who owed fourteen years' rent and made no defence, but she was readmitted as caretaker. Mr. Farran would appear to have acted in a bona fide manner throughout these transactions, and no action is called for as suggested in the last paragraph of the Question.

  AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS' OUT- RELIEF (MEDICINE POST).
  *MR. A. K. LOYD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in order to save labourers in rural districts from having to walk long distances, amounting often (there and back) to 10 or 12 miles, to fetch medicines for their wives or children in receipt of outdoor medical relief, the Post Office could arrange for a gratuitous medicine post, by which Poor Law medical officers could send medicines to pauper patients in such districts?
  MR. HANBURY: There is a strict rule against sending glass by letter post; and packets containing bottles of medicine cannot therefore be accepted for transmission as letters. The Parcel Post, however, is available at reasonable rates for medicines whether in bottles or otherwise. I may also state that, for the convenience of the public in urgent cases, the ordinary rule prohibiting mail cart drivers and rural postmen from carrying private parcels has been so far relaxed as to enable them to carry small packets of medicine. The Postmaster General sees no reason why the duty of the free conveyance of medicine should be cast upon the Post Office.

  MILITIA BOOTS.
  COLONEL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whether he will consider the feasibility of giving a second pair of boots to Militiamen when they take part in manœuvres?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): It is not contemplated that under ordinary conditions the wear and tear of the Militiamen's boots will be so much greater at manœuvres than it is at ordinary trainings as to require a double issue of boots. Should exceptional conditions arise, the question will be considered.

  ENFIELD SMALL ARMS FACTORY.
  COLONEL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, who is now the Superintendent of the Factory at Enfield?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The appointment is vacant, but the question of a successor to Mr. Rigby will shortly be decided. Meanwhile, the arrangements in force are those which obtained when Mr. Rigby was absent on leave.

  GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTION IN LIEU OF RATES.
  MR. W. F. D. SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether it is possible to distribute to local bodies the Government contribution in lieu of rates at an earlier period in each half year, having regard to the fact that local authorities have to meet the precepts from the London County Council and School Board before the Government contribution is paid, and consequently are forced to make a higher rate than would otherwise be necessary?
  MR. HANBURY: The question of the date of paying the Government contributions in lieu of rates has recently been under consideration, and the Government has decided to pay within the half year in which the rates which form the subject of the contributions are made instead of after its close. My hon. Friend will recollect that a Supplementary Vote of £92,000 was taken last month, in order to enable the Treasury to give immediate effect to this change. Out of this Vote the necessary payments are now being made, and they will be completed before the new financial year opens on the 1st of next month.

  COLONIAL SURGEON (BRITISH GUIANA).
  DR. R. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he has recently appointed Mr. J. F. S. Fowler, late Surgeon Captain Army Medical Staff, to the post of Colonial Surgeon in British Guiana; if so, whether, at the time of making the appointment, he was aware that Mr. Fowler had recently left the Army Medical Department, and of the circumstances under which he retired; and whether, before making the appointment, he received any special recommendation of Mr. Fowler from the Army Medical Department?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I have made the appointment in question, and with a knowledge of the circumstances referred to. Dr. Fowler's reputation in the Service, before the events which led to his retirement, was excellent; and the medical authorities were consulted before he was selected for employment under the Colonial Office.

  DONEGAL MILITIA.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Donegal, Mr. SWIFT MACNEILL, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether the headquarters of the Donegal Militia, which it was authoritatively announced some time ago, was the intention of the authorities to fix at Ballyshannon, have been again fixed at Lifford this year; whether Lord Wolseley when Commander of the Forces in Ireland, visited Ballyshannon for the purpose of directing the arrangements necessary for the establishment of the headquarters of the Donegal Militia in that town; what has led to the departure from the original arrangement; and, is it in contemplation, having regard to the exceptional advantages of Ballyshannon for that purpose, to establish in future the headquarters of the Militia in that town?
  *MR. BRODRICK: There has been no change in the intention to move the headquarters of the 5th battalion of the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers from Lifford to Ballyshannon, but the Commander of the Forces did not think it desirable to do so until certain other troops could be moved from Ballyshannon. The re-appropriation of the Ballyshannon barracks is now being dealt with, but the training must take place this year at Lifford.

  GROUPING OF MILITIRAY FORCES.
  MR. A. M. BROOKFIELD: On behalf of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth, Sir JOHN COLOMB, T beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether he will take an early opportunity of explaining to the House, either by a Memorandum or otherwise,
  54
  the general principles which have determined the grouping of the Military Forces in the Paper (107) presented by Her Majesty's command, showing approximately the cost of Military Forces as divided under Colonial Garrisons, Field Army, Depôts, &c., and of stating:—why the 79,000 Army Reserve is distributed in the proportions stated under the different heads, only 5,000 of the whole being placed under the heading "Troops held in Reserve;" why the Militia Reserve of 30,000 is not also so distributed, but placed under one head "Troops held in Reserve:" why a Yeomanry Force of 8,200 is placed under the heading "Troops held in Reserve," and only 1,500 placed under head of "Defensive positions at Home;" and the reasons for including under the same headings troops available and troops not available for service beyond sea; and, whether, in the form of a Memorandum or otherwise, he will state the total force of Cavalry, Field Artillery, and Infantry respectively, now in the United Kingdom and available for service beyond sea?
  *MR. BRODRICK: It would be impossible within the limits of a reply to a Question to give the information asked for, and it seems hardly desirable to justify in a Memorandum the exact allocation of troops. But generally speaking it is desirable to hold in reserve some troops of each arm, available, to reinforce the field Army, whether for service at home or abroad.

  WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY.
  MR. A. WYLIE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he is aware that, when the West Highland Railway was promoted, the support of the inhabitants along Loch Long and Loch Goil was sought and obtained by the company on the express understanding that a station would be placed at Portincaple, which is situated on Loch Long, Dumbartonshire, opposite Loch Goil, and conveniently situated for the traffic of both lochs. Has his attention been called to a petition by the inhabitants regarding the failure of the railway company to implement their promise. And, can he makes any representations to the company, or take any other steps to secure the opening of this station?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): I have seen the Memorial referred to, but the Company deny that any promise was ever made to the inhabitants along Loch Long and Loch Goil as to the erection of a station at Portincaple. The only obligation upon the company in the matter is that contained in Sub-section 2 of Section 29 of their Act of 1889, with reference to the erection of a station at the instance of the Luss Trustees. The company also inform me that the question of a station at Whistlefield has been for some time under consideration and a plan is at present in course of preparation.

  VACCINATION PROSECUTIONS.
  MR. F. A. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he is aware that Mr. H. Hancock, of Oundle, has, between 23rd August 1894 and 9th January 1896, been prosecuted and fined five times for non-compliance with the Vaccination Acts, in respect of one child, the total fines and costs amounting to 50s., and twice for another child, the fines amounting to 34s. 6d.; and that Mr. E. Bradshaw has been prosecuted four times between 13th June 1895 and 5th March 1896, in respect of the same child, and has had to pay 64s. in fines and costs; and, whether, having regard to the recommendation of the Interim Report of the Vaccination Commission as to repeated prosecutions, and to the previous practice of the Local Government Board, he will direct a copy of the Evesham letter to be sent to the Guardians with the intimation that repeated prosecutions in respect of the same child should not be insisted on?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I have made inquiry of the Guardians of the Oundle Union, and I find that the statements as to the number of proceedings instituted in the cases referred to and the amount of penalties and costs are substantially correct. I have no authority to give such instructions as are suggested, but I have directed that a copy of the Evesham letter shall be sent to the Guardians.

  CAMPAIGN PENSIONS.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether, having regard to the present
  56
  very general assent to the principle of making some provision for old age pensions, Her Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of immediately assigning a pension to all the remaining Crimean veterans who are not already in receipt of pensions?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The Secretary of State does not at present see his way to the great increase of expenditure from Army Votes which would be involved by any serious departure from the restrictions which now govern the grant of "Campaign" pensions.

  NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, how many of the appointments on the staff of the new National Portrait Gallery have been allotted to pensioners of the Army, Navy, or Police, and how many to civilians?
  MR. HANBURY: The subordinate male staff of the National Portrait Gallery consists of I head porter, I head messenger, 10 curators, and 8 messengers. Of these 10 are Army, Navy, or Police pensioners, 3 have served in the Army but not long enough for pension, and 7 are civilians. Sixteen of the 20 are new appointments and, of the 16, 12 have served in either the Army or the Navy.

  INCOME TAX (NAVAL OFFICERS).
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Income Tax is deducted from the pay of officers of the Royal Navy serving afloat; and, if so, whether he would consider the possibility of remitting it?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): The answer is in the affirmative. The tax could not be remitted in the case of officers in the Royal Navy without conceding a similar remission to officers in other branches of the public service, which would be obviously undesirable. ["Hear, hear!"]

  INDIAN STAFF COEPS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that considerable dissatisfaction still exists among officers of the Indian Staff Corps

  57
  in consequence of their suppression by the line; whether he is aware that the concession of temporary rank to commandants and seconds in command of native regiments does not appreciably prevent their suppression by the line (seeing that officers having permanent rank take precedence of all those serving with them having temporary rank of the I same grade), while it creates wholesale suppression among staff corps officers themselves; and, whether he will ask the War Office to reconsider the decision arrived at last year, so as to meet the views expressed by Lord Lansdowne, on; behalf of the Government of India, as shown in the Return presented to this House last Session, entitled East India (Staff Corps Officers)?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORCE HAMILTON,): No further representation from the Government Of India has been received on the subject to which my hon. Friend refers, and in the absence of any such representation, I do not propose to reopen the question.

  BALLYMONEY POST OFFICE.
  COLONEL HUGH MCCALMONT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that much inconvenience is caused at Ballymoney owing to the situation of the Post Office, it being a considerable distance from the railway station and from the centre of the town; and whether he will take steps for its removal to a better site?
  MR. HANBURY: The Post Office premises at Ballymoney, which are provided by the Postmaster, have been in their present position for upwards of 15 years, and, though not in the main street, are considered to be reasonably convenient for the inhabitants generally. No complaints on the subject have been received, and it is not considered to be necessary to require the Postmaster to move.

  SUB-POSTMASTERS (IRELAND)
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what is the standard of
  58
  education and limit of age required for appointments as sub-postmaster in Ireland; was a coastguard pensioner, named P. Scully, aged 60 years, who was recently appointed sub-postmaster at Baltimore, examined on behalf of the Postmaster General to test his fitness by education for the position, and did he produce a certificate of age; and, whether he is aware that a number of people of education, having considerable property in Baltimore, were candidates for the office, and will he state what were the special circumstances which caused the appointment to be given to Mr. Scully in preference to one of those; and, whether, considering the importance of the office, he will inquire into all the circumstances of the appointment?
  MR. HANBURY: For the appointment of sub-postmaster no particular standard of education or limit of age is prescribed; and, accordingly, Mr. Patrick Scully, who has been appointed sub-postmaster of Baltimore, was not required to produce a certificate of age or to undergo any educational test. He was, however, strongly recommended to the Postmaster General as in all respects fit for the appointment, and it was ascertained that he could read and write well, and that he is about 57 years of age. It is the case that he is a coastguard pensioner. Of the other four candidates who applied, three were considered ineligible—two because they kept public-houses, and the third because the situation of the house was inconvenient. As between the fourth and Mr. Scully, the balance of advantage, was all on the side of Mr. Scully. The Postmaster General sees no reason for making any further inquiry than has been made already.

  NEDDS POINT FORT (COUNTY DONEGAL.)
  MR. THOMAS B. CURRAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, if, in connection with work now being carried on at the Nedds Point Fort, Buncrana, he will consider the advisability of the War Department constructing a road from the town of Buncrana to that fort along the shore, seeing that the existing road to the fort is practically inaccessible and hardly ever used, and that the

  59
  Officer of Engineers at present quartered at Buncrana is of opinion that this new road is highly desirable?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: However convenient the road referred to in the Question would be, it is not required for military purposes; and the cost of its construction could not be defrayed from Army Funds.

  MILITARY EXPEDITION TO DONGOLA.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether Her Majesty's Government can produce Lord Cromer's Dispatches in reference to the proposed expedition to Dongola?
  MR. CURZON: NO Dispatches respecting the advance up the Valley of the Nile have been received from Lord Cromer. The communications from him have been by telegraph, and could not be laid before the House.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I should like to ask the right; hon. Gentleman whether any Papers are going to be laid before the House or not?
  MR. CURZON: No, Sir; I know of none.
  MR. ALLEN: May I ask whether the expedition was undertaken in consequence of the recommendation of Lord Cromer? ["Oh!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that Question. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. HENRY LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the assent of any of the great Powers to the proposal to take funds from the reserve in the Egyptian Caisse de la Dette, in order to meet the costs of the expedition towards Dongola, was assured before the assent of all was asked; and whether he can say if the statement that two-thirds of the bonds of Egyptians loans now in circulation belong to Frenchmen is approximately correct?
  MR. CURZON: No, Sir; the application was made simultaneously to the Governments of all the great Powers. There is no information in the Foreign Office showing the proportion of Egyptian bonds held by Frenchmen.

  PERFORMANCES IN HYDE PARK.
  MR. H C. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he is aware that a troop of actors perform twice every Sunday in Hyde Park, attracting an audience by shouts of "Murder," and requesting and securing contributions before, during and after the dramatic performances which they render; and if these practices are in accord with the existing police regulations?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOE THE HOME DEPARTMENT (SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): I am informed that character sketches and similar performances have been given in Hyde Park for many years past, and that in most cases collections are made by the performers. None of the performers, however, have been heard by the police to shout "Murder" for the purpose of attracting an audience. These practices do not appear to infringe any of the existing Park Regulations, which, I may add, are not Police Regulations, but are either statutory or are made by the Office of Works.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
  MR. W. J. GALLOWAY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he is aware of the widespread dissatisfaction there exists with regard to the compulsory declaration, to be made before a Justice of the Peace by friendly societies' officials as a preliminary to the registration by the Friendly Societies' Registry Office of amendments of rules; and, whether the Treasury will undertake either to make a new Treasury Regulation under the authority of Section 38 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1875, abolishing such declaration; or, if this course is not practicable, to amend the Oaths Act, or other Act dealing with this matter, so that this requirement may be done away with?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am not aware that there is widespread dissatisfaction on this subject. There may, of course, be occasionally some difficulty in remote country places in the attendance of friendly societies' officials before a Justice of the Peace, but that cannot be considered as sufficient justification for the abolition of

  61
  a regulation which is the only protection to the members of a friendly society against the registration of amendments not duly made by the society.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. D. CRILLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he is in a position to say how soon after Easter he will submit his proposals for the development and extension of light railways in Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not yet in a position to assign any date to this Bill. I hope, however, that it will be read a second time before Whitsuntide. I desire to have the advantage of communication on the subject with the new Chairman of the Board of Works.

  CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND).
  MR. L. P. HAYDEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Roscommon (Mr. J. O'KELLY), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether he has inquired if any fund at the disposal of the Congested Districts Board is allocated to certain counties; (2) whether he is aware that, by Section 35 of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, it is provided that the Irish Reproductive Loan Fund be placed at the disposal of the Congested Districts Board, with the condition that it should be applicable only in any county in which the fund was before the passing of that Act applicable; (3) could he state what was the amount of that fund applicable to the county of Roscommon; how much of it, and in what manner has it been expended; and (4) how much of the general fund of £1,500,000 from the Irish Church surplus entrusted to that Board has been expended in the county of Roscommon?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No fund and no moneys at the disposal of the Congested Districts Board are allocated according to counties or other territorial divisions. The provisions of the 35th Section of the Act of 1891 are correctly set forth in the Question, so far as they go, but it omits to state that the Reproductive Loan Fund was
  62
  placed at the Board's disposal for the purposes of the Act generally, and not merely for the purposes of making loans, as formerly, under certain conditions. The hon. Member will see the position of this fund fully explained in the annual Reports of the Board which have been presented to Parliament. The total value of the fund when handed over to the Board was about £65,000; out of which a sum of £33,000 has been expended up to the present date. The expenditure has been mainly incurred in the construction of piers and boat-slips, and no portion of the fund was expended in county Roscommon. One of the counties to which the fund was applicable before it was handed over to the Board was Roscommon, but the fund was not apportioned in any way between the several counties concerned. As regards the last paragraph, no portion of the capital sum of the Church Surplus Grant has been expended in Roscommon or elsewhere, but the interest on that grant has been expended in the manner described in the annual Reports of the Board.

  FEE GRANT RETURN.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he will consent to the Return relating to the Fee Grant (England, Ireland and Scotland) on the Paper for to-day; whether he is aware that the 18th Section and the Fourth Schedule of the Irish Education Act, 1892, lay upon the Commissioners of National Education the imperative duty of distributing the whole sum voted by Parliament as a fee grant among the teachers; and, whether the Commissioners have, nevertheless, returned in each year an unexpected balance to the Treasury?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this Question. I am writing to the hon. Member for Londonderry suggesting a slight amendment in the proposed form of Return. On the amendment being made the Government will consent to the Return.
  MR. KNOXcalled attention to the last part of his Question.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURwas understood to say that an unexpended balance had been returned each year.
  MR. KNOX: What is the opinion of the Treasury as to the legal question?
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, the hon. and learned Member must ask that question of the Treasury.

  EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he intends to introduce the Irish Education Bill before Easter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Not before Easter, but, I hope, shortly after the introduction of the Land Bill.

  MADAGASCAR.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether Her Majesty's Government have received any notification from the French Government of a modification of the French Protectorate over Madagascar; and, if so, whether he can give a definite assurance that British Treaty rights, as guaranteed by the Declarations of 5th August 1890 will be maintained?
  MR. CURZON: On February 11 Lord Salisbury received a note from the French Ambassador, stating that in consequence of difficulties that had arisen in the exercise of their Protectorate, the French Government had been forced to military intervention in Madagascar, and had been impelled to occupy the island and to take possession of it. It is understood that a similar note was addressed to the other Powers. Lord Dufferin was instructed to ask what was implied by this phrase. No reply has yet been received, but it is understood from a recent speech by the French Minister for Foreign Affairs that a notification respecting the Treaties with Foreign Powers is about to be made by the French Government. Until this has been received and examined, it would be premature to make any statement on the subject.

  PARISH MEETING (PYWORTHY, DEVON).
  MR. H. C. F. LUTTRELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board
  64
  whether he is aware that the chairman of a parish meeting for the election of councilors for the parish of Pyworthy, Devon, on 9th March rejected the nomination of Mr. Coombe, a farmer of Pyworthy, on the ground that in the column requiring a statement as to whether a candidate was qualified as a parochial or a residential elector the word "both" was inserted; and whether this would be a case in which the County Council might, under the Local Government Bill, 1896, interfere?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I would suggest that, if the intervention of the County Council is desired, a full statement of the facts should be submitted to them, and I have no doubt that, if the County Council are of opinion that they are empowered to make any order in the matter, and that the circumstances are such that they can properly do so, they will take such action as the case may require. I have no authority, assuming that I were in full possession of the facts, to decide as to the powers which can be exercised by the County Council in the case.

  PEMBROKE DOCKYARD.
  LIEUT.-GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he is now in a position to inform the House of his decision in regard to the construction of a jetty at Pembroke Dockyard, and as to affording other facilities for the finishing of vessels?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY(Mr. G. J. GOSHEN,): I am now able to inform the hon. and gallant Member that the Admiralty have determined to carry out the plan for building a jetty at Pembroke Dockyard which was discussed in the last Parliament. The cost will be between £80,000 and £90,000. Progress will be made with the work in the course of the coming financial year.

  DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE.
  MR. J. H. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether the proposal for a special pension to His Royal Highness, the late Commander-in-Chief is made with the concurrence of His Royal

  65
  Highness; whether any intimation has been received by the Government that His Royal Highness does not intend to avail himself of the proposed provision; and, whether the Government have any intention of withdrawing the proposal for a special pension.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,), said, I have no information to give the House or to the hon. Gentleman on this subject in addition to the answer I have previously given to a Question on the same matter.
  MR. DALZIEL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that in regard to his previous answers no question was put to him as to whether the Government was going to proceed with the matter. Are the Government going to withdraw the pension?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Sir, I am afraid I have nothing to add.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  *SIR C. DILKEasked the right hon. gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury whether he still proposed that the Vote on Account should be the Second Order on Friday, and whether in that case arrangements might be made to bring it on at a earlier hour than had been proposed.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that when the House adjourned on the previous night there had been some exception taken to the suggestion that the Debate on the previous matter should be adjourned at half-past nine, and the conclusion of the Debate on the Vote of Account taken between half-past nine and twelve o'clock. He had then said that he was desirous of meeting in every way he could the views of the House, and that he would make the adjournment at seven o'clock instead of at half-past nine, on the understanding that no difficulty was made as as to the conclusion of the Debate.

  ESTATES TAIL ABOLITION.
  Bill to prevent the creation of Estates Tail, ordered to be brought by Mr. Hopkinson, Mr. Bigham, Mr. Cozens-
  66
  Hardy, Mr. Cripps, Mr. Hobhouse, and Mr. Schwann; to be read upon Monday next.—[Bill 155.]

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Criminal Law and to provide for the punishment of incest; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Henry J. Wilson, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Heath, Sir John Kennaway, Colonel Lockwood, Mr. Spicer, Mr. W. F. D. Smith, Mr. Samuel Smith, Mr. Whittaker, and Mr. John Wilson (Durham). Presented and read 1a; to be read 2a upon Tuesday, 21st April.—[Bill 156.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  FAIR WAGES RESOLUTION, 1891.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONcalled attention to the Fair Wages Resolution of 1891, and moved that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the question of the administration of the Fair Wages Resolution of February 1891. Of the new departure which was taken in 1891 they had now had some experience, both as regarded the administration and the interpretation of the Resolution, which had been somewhat vaguely worded. There had been a large number of complaints from many of the working classes, and especially from the trade unionists throughout the country as to its administration and interpretation. If those complaints were well founded a remedy ought to be found, and it ought to be known publicly whether the Departments were administering the Resolution properly. He understood that the Government were practically prepared to accept this Committee, but invited discussion of the matter. Five years ago, when he moved the Resolution, he had been able to show, he believed to the satisfaction of the House, that the new departure would be in the best interests of the community, the employers, and the workmen. The

  67
  principle of the trade unionists was not to undersell each other, and they had been largely debarred in the past from taking Government contracts. Since 1891 they had had extensions of the principle of the Resolution. Two years ago, the then Government, on complaints being made that certain men were excluded from work on the ground that they were trade unionists, came to the conclusion that in regard to Government contracts no preference should be shown as between unionists and non-unionists. In his view no class of the community would grudge the cost necessary for carrying out the principle of fair employment. What had been the result of the experience of the working of the principle of the Resolution during the last five years? It had unquestionably shown that a great deal of good had been done in the direction intended in regard to certain classes of labour, and he should like the House to understand that in bringing forward this Motion on that occasion he had no desire to censure any Department of the Government. Under the old system the course taken was a very simple one, because the lowest tender was usually accepted without any condition being made as to the terms upon which the workers employed in carrying out the contract were to be treated. That system had given rise to a considerable amount of dissatisfaction on the part of certain persons employed in particular classes of labour, who complained of the way in which the Resolution was administered. The question, no doubt, was beset with difficulties, but they were difficulties which might and ought to be overcome. In his view the chief advantage of the appointment of a Committee would be to smooth down those difficulties, and to place the principle laid down in the Resolution upon a firmer basis, so that it should be more fairly administered in the future than it had been in the past. There had been a lack of uniformity in the administration of the principle of the Resolution
  68
  by the different Departments. As the mover of the Resolution of 1891, he had received a large number of complaints during the past few years, and he desired to bear witness to the great for bearance and consideration which the Departments had shown with regard to those complaints, and to the attention which they had given to the subjects of those complaints. He had no intention of going into the particulars, of those complaints upon that occasion—it would be time enough for him to do so when the Committee for which he asked was appointed. He hoped, however, that his hon. Friend who had undertaken to second his Motion would give the House some instances which would show that there was some foundation for the complaints to which he had referred. The complaints had come from almost every class of labour employed by Government contractors, from persons engaged in the building, printing, engineering, shipbuilding, clothing, accoutrements, and other trades. The nature of the complaints was that in spite of the Resolution, the Government contracts were frequently given to notoriously unfair houses—that where it had been agreed that a certain rate of wages should be paid it was not paid, that the conditions of work with regard to hours and overtime were such that the best workmen, and especially trade unionists, could not accept employment under Government contractors, that unskilled labour was employed instead of skilled labour, and that where it had been agreed that work should be done by hand it was executed by machinery. There was also much dissatisfaction with regard to the mode in which all inquiries were conducted by the Departments, some complaining that their cases were only partly investigated, others that their complaints were ignored or almost so, while again others lamented the delay that had occurred in investigating their complaints, which had been so protracted that the decision was not given until the

  69
  contract had terminated and there was no opportunity for reopening the questions raised. For some of those complaints no doubt there had been little or no foundation, and no suggestion had been made that there was a want, of courtesy or of attention on the part of any of the Departments. He had attempted to lay before the House the nature of the complaints that had been made. He by no means endorsed those complaints, but he had referred to their existence as a ground for his suggestion that a Committee ought to be appointed. The appointment of such a Committee would give general satisfaction, and would enable it to be ascertained whether any remedies could be found for the grievances which had been put forward if they existed at all, because it was quite possible that in many cases the complaints were unfounded. A question had arisen as to whether there had not been an evasion of the spirit of the Resolution. There was a great want of uniformity in the way the Resolution was administered in the different Departments, and he believed that the appointment of the Committee would bring the different Departments together, and, by drawing attention to the Resolution, secure greater uniformity in its administration, and to have an authoritative interpretation as to its meaning. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty had lately made an alteration in the wav in which contracts concerning his Department should in future be issued to persons tendering. The Resolution, in effect, pointed out that it was the duty of the Government in all Government contracts to make every effort to secure the payment of such wages as were generally accepted and current in the district where the work was to be carried out. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, had, in the exercise of his discretion, omitted from the terms of the Admiralty contracts the words "current it; the district where the work is to be
  70
  carried out." That alteration, in his view, involved a departure from the principle which the House had laid down in the Resolution of 1891. In his opinion that alteration had been made in view of certain matters connected with the shipbuilding operations upon the Thames. To his mind, this question of the words in Government contracts had absolutely nothing whatever to do with the question of shipbuilding on the Thames. As far as firms interested in shipbuilding on the Thames were concerned, they already paid the current rate in the district, and therefore no Resolution was necessary to force them to pay it. He wanted to discuss this simply from the point of view of the fair-wages Resolution of 1891, and the interpretation that ought to be put upon it. The right hon. Gentleman, in his letter explaining the action he had taken, said that while he adhered to the letter of the Resolution, the words in Admiralty contracts were an amplification of the Resolution of 1891. It was true that they were additional words, but he denied that they were in any sense an amplification. The words used were that the wages paid should be those generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen. In a certain sense, he admitted, that form of words did obey the Resolution: but they must be read in the light of the Debate that took place, and must be looked at from a common-sense point of view. The object of the House was certainly not that the Government of the day should in any sense fix the rate of wages, but that they ought to recognise existing rates of wages. To his mind, if all Government Departments put upon the Resolution the interpretation put on it by the Admiralty, the Resolution would practically be a dead letter altogether. There was no general current rate of wages throughout any trade in the country, but there was a district rate. He would venture to read a passage from the speech he made in

  71
  1891 in moving the Resolution upon this point. He said then:—
  "No one proposes or desires that the Government should fix the rate of wages. All that is asked is, that the Government should accept as fair wages those rates of wages which prevail in any particular trade—the rate that has been fixed by negotiation between employers and workmen. There is no mystery about this matter. A standard rate of wages, for the time being, prevails in every large trade, and it is perfectly well known. They are recognised on the one side as fair by the representatives of the men, and on the other paid without demur by all good employers."
  He then went on to say:—
  "It is trade prices, not trade-union prices, of which I have been speaking—prices indeed accepted as fair by trade unionists, as for the moment all they can get, though not necessarily all they could desire."
  It was perfectly obvious from that and from the rest of the speech, as well as the other speeches made in the Debate, that what was in the speakers' minds was not a. general current rate, but the different district rates applicable in different places, and it was certainly evident to him that the only way in which the Resolution could be properly interpreted was by having regard to the fact that the current rate of wages in one district might be higher than in another. In fact, he would point out that the Government themselves had adopted that idea by paying their labourers at one dockyard higher than those at another. He believed that if the form of words used by the Admiralty were generally adopted, the Resolution would be practically a dead letter, and the tendency of Government contracts would be to break down the rate of wages. It would encourage contractors to pay a lower rate than the custom of the trade would allow them to pay in other than Government contracts. It was, he contended, as much to the interest of good employers as to the interest of the workmen that the Government should not throw their weight into the scale in favour of lower wages. He did not know that the House appreciated the amount of in-
  72
  dustrial conflict this proposal, if carried out, would lead to. He believed that the other Departments of the State had for some time past been interpreting the Resolution properly, but if the Admiralty took the step they were contemplating, he was afraid the other Departments would follow their lead. He wished now to make a suggestion or two as to the way in which he believed the Resolution might be more properly and fully carried out. There had lately been set up a Department in which everyone had considerable confidence, he meant the Labour Department. He believed it had been the custom of other Departments to consult the Labour Department on this question of fair wages, and it did seem to him that such use should be made of it. He would give that Department very considerable authority in dealing with complaints on this subject. Their officials had an expert knowledge of the matter which the officials of no other Department possessed, and he would suggest the appointment from that Department of Clerks of the Works, Superintendents, or Inspectors, who should not only be responsible for materials used in contracts, but also for seeing that there were proper pay-sheets and proper wages paid. He thought, also, that when the rate of wages had been decided and a proper agreement come to, lists of wages ought to be exhibited in the workshops in which work was being done. There were also many minor matters of administration with which a Committee might deal with great advantage. He thanked the House for allowing him to make this rather long statement, and he apologised for its length. There was only one other thing he wished to say in conclusion. In moving this Resolution he did not wish it to be thought that the principle of the Fair Wages Resolution was at present in question. He thought he could give a very good precedent for the proposal he made, and that was, that the other day a Committee was appointed

  73
  to deal with one small branch of the subject, the Instruction to which was that they should inquire whether the present system of issuing invitations for tenders and of making contracts for Government printing and binding sufficiently secured compliance with the terms and spirit of the Resolution of the House of 1891. It was on that basis that he trusted the Committee would be appointed, and he hoped that the government in granting it, as he believed they intended to do, would give the House a pledge that no attempt would be made to go behind the principle laid down in the Resolution of 1891; but rather that it should be the duty of the Committee to make that Resolution more effective than it was at present. He felt confident that in no quarter of the House was there any desire to depart from that principle. He begged to move the Resolution which stood in his name.
  MR. C. FENWICKin seconding the Resolution, said, that his hon. Friend had taken a very great interest in this question and had done a great deal to secure for the men employed on Government contracts fair conditions of labour and fair wages. Five years ago he had had the honour of seconding a Resolution on the same subject, moved by his hon. Friend, who persuaded the House to declare on that occasion that it was the duty of the Government to take steps to remedy the evils revealed by the House of Lords' Inquiry on sweating, and the abuses of sub-letting contracts; and to secure for workmen engaged on such contracts the wages current in such trades for competent workmen. That was in 1891. He wished to associate himself with the statement this Resolution was in no sense a Party Resolution; but he saw that the hon. and gallant Member for the Central Division of Sheffield, in a letter to the Sheffield Telegraph, declared that there was a Party object behind the Resolution. The hon. and gallant Member proclaimed himself
  74
  an ardent supporter of the fair wages Resolution of 1891; but he expressed his amazement that the proposers of this Resolution should not be able to see that the placing of orders in foreign countries would defeat it absolutely. What could that mean but that, by insisting on the Government carrying out the fair wages Resolution in its entirety, the upholders of the Resolution were likely to compel the Government to give out the contracts to foreign firms. He refused to believe that the present Government, at all events, were at all likely to give their contracts to the foreigner at the expense of our own workmen. The vague and indefinite terms in which the Resolution of 1891 was framed had led to confusion in its administration. The chief difficulties which had arisen were in consequence of differences of opinion as to the interpretation to be placed on the words "wages current in each trade. Were they the wages demanded by the trade union, or the average wages of the district; or the wages which the individual contractor had been accustomed to pay for similar work? They were entitled to assume that the Government were going to grant the Committee of Inquiry asked for; and he would suggest that it should be an Instruction to the Committee not only to define the phrase "current rate of wages" but also to find some more efficient method of administering the Resolution. At present everything was left to the vigilance and energy of the trade union officials. Complaints might be made to the Department concerned in some contract work; a long correspondence between the representatives of the trade and the officials of the Department ensued: and although a real grievance existed, the contract might expire before any remedy was attempted. There was a case which he had brought before the Financial Secretary to the War Office, who practically admitted the facts.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): No, I did

  75
  not admit the facts. I said I could not accept them, but would cause inquiries to be made.
  MR. FENWIOK, continuing, said that inquiries would substantiate the following facts. In a contract for painting at the Victoria Barrack, Belfast, the men were paid something like one penny per hour below the wages to which they were entitled. Complaint was made to the War Office on the 3rd September, 1895; and correspondence between the Department and the secretary of the trade union continued up to December 7th. Then a representative of the Department was sent down to personally superintend the payment of the workmen's wages, and while this gentleman was present the men were paid 7½d. per hour instead of 6½d. as previously. But when the representative of the War Office had gone, the men were requested, under threat of dismissal, to refund the additional money paid to them. One man refused, and wrote to the Inspector, who wrote to the War Office; and the contractor was requested to pay the money. But that was only done after repeated calls at the War Office had been made, and process for recovery had been threatened against the contractor. Such questions ought not to be left to the trade unions, and a speedier method of settling these complaints ought to be devised. In 1894, at Aldershot, the carpenters employed on a Government contract were paid less than they ought to have been paid. Complaint was made to the War Office, and the Secretary of State replied that after careful inquiry he was advised that the complaint could not be sustained. The secretary of the trade union paid a surprise visit to Aldershot, and obtained certain facts which he brought to the notice of the Department. A second inquiry was instituted; the workmen's case was proved; and the contractor was compelled to refund the whole of the money wrongfully deducted from the men's wages. They ought to have some more satisfactory and expeditious method of settling these questions than existed at present. There were various ways in which that might be done. His hon. Friend had suggested that the Labour Department of the Board of Trade might be entrusted with the duty of inquiring
  76
  into grievances arising under the fair wages Resolution; and there was an even more expeditious method. Sir R. Cross, now Lord Cross, when Home Secretary, instructed his inspectors to receive and inquire into notifications of grievances arising under the Factories and Mines Acts, and even to take cognisance of anonymous communications. That precedent, he submitted, might well be followed in the present case. And another experiment might be made, and that was to intrust contracts, not of an extensive nature, to associated bodies of workmen. That had already been done in Italy, as a gentleman connected with the Italian Treasury, and a Member of the Legislature, recently informed him, with marked success. He hoped it might be possible for the Government to give such an Instruction to the Committee as would enable them to allow associated bodies of working men to be entered upon the list of contractors, and particularly in cases where no large amount of capital was required in the way of plant and machinery, and if that were done he thought that, useful as the Resolution of the House had been in the last five years, it would be still more useful in the years to come.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): I am sure the Government cannot for a moment complain of the tone of the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution. They were marked by an entire absence of anything like Party animus, and at the same time by a fair disposition to recognise the difficulties of the question. I only hope the same attitude will be observed out of the House, because it has come to my knowledge that the change which as an administrator I made in regard to the Admiralty contracts has been very widely made use of in the country to stigmatise the Party to which I belong as being desirous to lower the wages of the working classes. With reference to the point made by the hon. Member who Seconded the Resolution, that the Instruction to the Committee, which the Government are quite prepared to grant, should be such as would allow an inquiry into whether Governments have power to intrust their, contracts to associated bodies of working

  77
  men, I may say that such an Instruction is not necessary. Not only have Government Departments power to do so now, but it is actually done. ["Hear, hear!"] In connection both with the War Office and the Admrialty, contracts are at present given exactly in the sense and in the spirit which is desired. On that point, therefore, we are entirely agreed. Before I enter on the general question, I may be permitted to explain both the motive and the possible effect of the change which on my responsibility I made with reference to the words "current in the district" in some Admiralty contracts. The change has been made with reference, to large contracts for shipbuilding and engineering; it has not been universally introduced into other contracts. I wish to point; out that these words were not in the original Resolution of the House of Commons. I have received circulars and letters of remonstrance from I do not know how many bodies charging me with having tampered with the Resolution of the House of Commons. The machinery for propagating error are singularly effective, and these remonstrance bear a strong family likeness. [Laughter.] Now, what happened? It was alleged and brought to my notice that as we insisted on the contractors paying the current wages of the district—namely, London, and as wages in London were 15 per cent, higher than elsewhere, the logical corollary of the insertion of the words was to assign to London contractors more favourable terms than were conceded to contractors in the country. The question was whether, in order to make certain that a London contractor should pay those wages, we were to increase the burden on the taxpayers by 15 per cent. upon the labour employed. To assent to such a proposition was an utter impossibility. [Cheers.] How could we say—We insist upon your paying those wages and at the same time by that very process prevent you from competing on equal terms with the rest of the country? It is said that whether the words are in or out does not make much difference, because the contractors would pay the same wages. London contractors, however, used the argument that they must have more favourable terms because those words were in. The late Govern-
  78
  ment resisted that view as strongly as we did, and I hope the House will take that into consideration if they reinsert the words "current in the district." If those words are introduced I trust that it will be made equally clear that no liability is imposed on the Administration to take such a feature into consideration in some of the contracts. I admit the desire that we should have as large an area for the production of our ironclads and other ships as we can secure. I hope the House will agree that it is my duty to look at this matter as a Minister, and to try and put aside the difficulties with which we may be confronted. But at the same time I say that the Committee must be extremely careful in any new definition and any additions that it does not practically limit the productive powers of the country by dividing them too much up into districts. One motive which induced me to omit those words was this. It is not only in the shipbuilding, but in the engineering and boiler trades that London is deeply interested. I think that the high wages which have prevailed in London have diminished work on the Thames to an extraordinary extent. It may be said that is not our affair, but, as a Metropolitan Member, I deeply regret it. I think all those in control of this matter must be aware that, while on the one hand they do their best to maintain the wage they think a right; wage for a particular trade, on the other hand they should not push their theory: to a point which may deprive London of some of its great industries. [Cheers.] In the shipbuilding trade there is only one great firm for ironclads, and there are famous firms for smaller vessels. In the engineering trade London still—I may say, to my own satisfaction has a very large share. ["Hear, hear!"] London is still represented by three great firms—Messrs. Penn, Messrs. Humphrey, and Messrs. Maudslay. [A VOICE: "Thornycroft."] Messrs. Thornycroft are constructors of boilers as well as of ships, but on a smaller scale. They do not compete with the large ironclads of the largest firms. Now, these three firms are bringing to London, or keeping in London, an immense amount of work. They are denounced, and have been denounced for two years past, for not complying

  79
  with the Resolution of the House of Commons, and powerful representations have been made that those firms should be struck off the list of Government contractors. This demand has been made in connection with the Resolution of 1891. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have had those representations made to them as far back as 1894; we have had them made to us; and the movement does not come from those who are employed by those firms, but from outside influences. [Cheers.] A resolution passed at the Trade Union Congress at Cardiff condemns the Government for persistently refusing to carry out the fair wages Resolution passed by the House of Commons in February 1891, and especially condemns their action in maintaining on their list of contractors and in extensively employing certain notorious "blackleg" firms in the London district whose trade characters are perfectly well known to the Government; and they ask to have those firms either struck off the list of Admiralty contractors or compelled to pay the wages of the London district. Those are some of the difficulties with which we are confronted, and I place those considerations before the House. What is the penalty by which we are to enforce compliance? There is one of the weaknesses which I hope the Committee will inquire into and one of the difficulties of the Resolution. It is said that we are to penalise the firms; but some of the firms are rendering the greatest public service we can demand, and if we struck them off the list our action would cause loss to the productive power of London; and if this Resolution was carried out the boiler and engineering trades would lose to as great an extent as the shipbuilding trade. [Cheers.] I submit that those are considerations which ought to be taken into account. When I deleted the words "current in the district" from our forms of contract I had in my mind not to be a party to the maintaining of words which might be quoted in this controversy which was going on from striking off those great firms from our Admiralty list. There was a deputation received by the Civil Lord of the Admiralty who again strongly urged that in consequence of failure to meet the Resolution of the House of Commons
  80
  those firms should be struck off. A resolution was passed at the Executive Federation of Engineering and Shipbuilding Trades to the effect that they should be instructed to take whatever steps might be deemed advisable to influence the Government to strike those firms off the list of the Admiralty, or compel them to conform to the Resolution of the House of Commons. Messrs. Penn, Messrs. Humphrey, and Messrs. Maudslay were mentioned as firms who paid below the standard rate. What is the district standard? Who sets it? [Cheers.] The Admiralty deny that those firms are below the district standard, because they establish a standard for themselves. When you have a great trade how many firms are there who are engaged in the same work who are paying different wages? If all the great firms employ labour on one particular form of battleship, or one particular kind of engines and boilers, and pay a fair wage which their own employés are satisfied with—who lays down the standard rate which is to be the rate? [Cheers.] I asked the deputation which I received, "Who lays down the rate?" A member of the deputation said that he represented the trade union and candidly said "The trade union." He was thus contradicting the hon. Gentleman who said that these wages were fixed between the employers and the employed, and it is the outside influences which are endeavouring to act in the way I have described. [Cheers.] I entirely acknowledge the extreme difficulty of working this Resolution, and the Government cordially accept the Committee to inquire into the matter. We should place all the difficulties of the case before them, and I hope that some means may be found to meet and to remedy some of the difficulties. We will approach the inquiry in a spirit which desires to carry out that which we believe to be the unanimous feeling of the House; but, at the same time, I wished to interpose in the Debate in order [that it should be realised that it is not a simple matter, and that it is not a question of easy definition. While the House should be favouraole to the spirit in which the original Resolution is conceived and to see it carried out, I trust it will not aggravate those difficulties and not attempt to remove them by any further

  81
  stringency of construction. I hold the opinion that the precise laying down of definitions will be absolutely impossible. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division of Northumberland quoted the words "What is a competent workman?" I believe the trade unions and other bodies differ very much in their definition of "competent workman." Then there is the great question of area, of district; and according as we draw the district there you will find whether wages are paid as current in the district or not. To reconstruct the areas for trade; union purposes would be as difficult as the redistribution of political power in the representation of this House. Every difference of area would certainly make a variation in the rate which, according to the views of some persons, ought to be paid. It was said that the Resolution was vague. It was vague because the subject matter with which it deals must leave it vague. There, is only one way in which this Resolution, in my judgment, can be made fairly to work—namely, the existence of a disposition on both sides to work it fairly according to its general spirit. [Cheers.] Many complaints do not come from the parties mainly interested—namely, the people enjoying the wages, but from other bodies who interpose; and I have had representations from pattern-makers in Scotland complaining of the wages given to pattern-makers in London. There are bodies all over the country who strive to establish themselves as arbiters in these matters. Four-fifths of the complaints that have reached the Admiralty have come from trade organisations. In only one case has the complaint come from workmen actually employed, and in one case it was made by a dismissed workman. Attention has been drawn to the fact that there has been delay in dealing with some of these complaints. At the Admiralty one cause of the delay has been the desire of some of us who are officially responsible to inquire into these cases ourselves. ["Hear, hear!"] When the head of a Department is to give close attention to an allegation that contractors pay insufficient wages to some of their workmen, perhaps only three or four of them, he must, of course, select some opportune moment in which to do
  82
  so. To insist that inquiries of this kind should be made at once might result in paralysing for a time the activity of a Department in connection with more serious matters. It is often difficult to find time to devote to the consideration of great questions. Many suggestions have been made with a view to expedite the settlement of these complaints. One suggestion is that the services of the Labour Department should be called in, and another that inspectors should be employed. On those proposals I will not venture to pronounce off-hand. The Government are prepared to accept this Resolution in the spirit in which it is moved, but I trust there will be no attempt in the Committee to construct a mass of definitions, no attempt to tie our hands and to restrict the contractual freedom which the Admiralty and other Departments must have, and that care will be taken not to imperil any industries from a desire to maintain what are called standard wages, which sometimes remain standard wages without benefit to the workmen themselves. By striving after an impossible ideal we might deprive thousands of working men of the employment which they would otherwise have. I will conclude by saying that I hope that the outcome of this Resolution will be satisfactory to its promoters, whilst leaving unimpaired the efficiency of our great Administrative Departments. ["Hear, hear!"]
  On the return of Mr. SPEAKER after the usual interval,
  *MR. H. BROADHURSTsaid, he regretted that the First Lord of the Admiralty did not conclude his speech after the first ten minutes, because in the latter part of his remarks he made a new departure and gave a new importance to the subject before the House. The right hon. Gentleman did not confine himself to the Motion, but went on to discuss the principle of the right of particular firms to establish a certain rate of wage. He stated that it was through insistence upon a certain rate of wages that the work of shipbuilding was driven from the Thames. He had heard similar statements for the last 25 years, and the reply to them was that if coal and iron in the raw condition were as accessible to the Thames as they

  83
  were to the Clyde and the Tyne the trade on the Thames would not have been diverted. The right hon. Gentleman then went on to point out that it was necessary for the Government to keep on their list, regardless of the question of the rate of wages, a reserve of firms so as to be able to meet any emergency in the pressure of work. That was a general proposition to which it was difficult to object, especially in the form in which the right hon. Gentleman put it, but when he went on to state that those firms were so eminent in the trade that they themselves had the right to fix a standard wage of their own he altogether differed from him. [Mr. MACARTNEY: "No, no."] That was what the right hon. Gentleman said, and it was that to which he objected—that any particular firm or firms in the country should be recognised as having the right to dictate a rate of wage independent of the standard wages paid by other firms in the same trade and in the same locality. It was precisely this contention against which the trade unions had fought, and would continue to fight as long as it was necessary.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. E. MACARTNEY,)said, he thought the hon. Member had unintentionally misrepresented the First Lord of the Admiralty. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the firms alluded to were the only firms carrying on business on the same standard and of the same quality in the particular district; that there were no competing firms of the same trade in the district. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *MR. BROADHURST (resuming): And he added the remark that those firms fixed a rate of wages of their own. It was that remark which had raised the whole controversy. The right hon. Gentleman then went on to say further that the complaints of the workpeople affected by the non-observance of the fair-trade Resolution reached the Department from others than the aggrieved persons themselves. That, no doubt, was true. For the last ten years or more, since he first initiated the movement in the Stationery Department he had been in almost constant communication with the official Departments on the matter, and therefore he presumed that he was one of the persons to
  84
  whom the right hon. Gentleman referred. The right hon. Gentleman referred to having received complaints from the trade union secretary in Scotland about wages and other conditions of labour in London. Of course, the general secretary, although he might happen to be in Scotland, was the proper person to make a complaint about anything from which a workman suffered. The complaint made by the first Lord raised the whole question of the right of trade union officials to act for their members. It had always been asserted by the antitrade-union section of the community that each person aggrieved should go direct to the employer; but if those who so argued were workmen themselves they would tell a very different tale. He had no doubt that the First Lord of the Admiralty himself had workmen upon his estate, and he had also no doubt that if the right hon. Gentleman wished to communicate his wishes or instructions to those people he would do so through his agent, and not personally. Whatever right an employer or a property-owner possessed in such a matter the workman claimed and would assert a similar right in respect of his labour. Passing from the question of ironclads, boilers, and the like, he came to a matter in which his own constituents were concerned. The men engaged in the soft goods trade complained that the Government Departments—chiefly, he feared, the War Office—accepted estimates for work which was not good work, not good in the interest of those who bought, of those who wore, and of those engaged in the trade; that they paid a price at which the fair house and the good employer, who paid the recognised wages to men, women, and children, could not supply goods for. [Mr. POWELL-WILLIAMS: "No, no."] That was the allegation, and he hoped in a very short time to be able to supply the hon. Gentleman with all the particulars. He believed the same statement applied to other industries.
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present.
  House adjourned at Five minutes before Nine o'clock.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACT, 1869 (BETTON'S CHARITY), (SCHOOLS ACCOUNT.)
Her Majesty's Answer to the Address of the 25th of February last delivered by the Lord Steward (Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery), and read as follows:—
"I have received your Address praying that I will withhold my consent from so much of the scheme for the management of the funds contributed for the purposes of the Central Welsh Board by the county governing bodies established by the schemes made under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889, for the administrative counties of Cardigan, Carnarvon, Merioneth and Montgomery, and for the county boroughs of Cardiff and Newport, and by the county governing bodies established or to be established by schemes under the said Act for the administrative counties of Anglesey, Brecknock, Carmarthen, Denbigh, Flint, Glamorgan, Monmouth, Pembroke and Radnor, and for the county borough of Swansea, as refers to Betton's Charity (Schools Account):
"I will comply with your advice."

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (WARRINGTON) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
INFANT LIFE PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
The evidence taken before the Select Committee from time to time to be printed for the use of the Members of this House; but no copies thereof to be delivered, except to Members of the Committee and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further order.—[No. 48].
SUMMARY JURISDICTION (WHIPPING) BILL [H.L.], NOW JUVENIFE OFFENDERS (WHIPPING) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Standing Committee without amendment; Bill to be printed as amended.—[No. 49.]
LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANIES (PAYMENT INTO COURT) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Standing Committee without amendment, and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
INCUMBENTS OF BENEFICES LOANS EXTENSION BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Standing Committee without amendment, and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. considered (according to Order), and suspended for this day's sitting.

MARINE INSURANCE BILL [H.L.]
LORD HERSCHELL, in rising to move the second reading of the Marine Insurance Bill, said it was a Bill codifying the law of marine insurance. It was founded upon a Bill which he introduced in 1894. That Bill was very carefully considered by a Committee whom he requested to go into its details and suggest any alterations which might be made in its provisions, and he wished to take that opportunity of thanking those Gentlemen representing the interests of the underwriters, average adjusters, and shipowners, who formed that Committee and devoted a great deal of valuable time to the consideration of the Bill. The Bill aimed at representing as nearly as might be the existing law relating to marine insurance, leaving to a subsequent time such alterations, if any, in the substance of the law, as might be thought expedient. It was a little more than a mere statement of the existing law in this respect, that some points which would have been regarded as doubtful had been solved by the provisions of the Bill, but they had only been so solved where those who represented all conflicting interests were agreed as to the method of solution. He could not, of course, give any guarantee that the Bill as it stood was an absolute reproduction of the existing law, subject to the modification to which he had alluded, but he believed it to be so. It was drawn by Mr. Chalmers, the distinguished draftsman, who was the
4
author of the code of bills of exchange and the code relating to the sale of goods. The success of those Measures afforded considerable warrant for their Lordships accepting this Bill, as also a satisfactory code on the subject with which it dealt. It would be proposed hereafter that this Bill should be referred to a sub-committee of the Standing Committee, who would carefully consider all its provisions and no doubt improve in some respects its form and substance, as was done in the case of the two previous Bills. He believed the Bill, if it became an Act, would be found to be of great utility. He had received from many members of the mercantile community expressions of the great use the previous codifications of the law had been, and an earnest hope that this code might also find its place on the Statute-book.
Read 2a (according to Order); and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.

ARMY ANNUAL BILL.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE), in rising to move the second reading of the Army Annual Bill, said this was the Annual Act for prolonging the operations of the Army Act. The only new matter in it was a trifling alteration of the law enabling the Commander-in-Chief in India to make the same delegation of power to general officers commanding the districts into which India was now divided as he made with regard to previously existing districts.
Read 2a (according to Order); Committee negatived; then (Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
Read 1a; and (Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. having been suspended) read 2a; Committee negatived; Bill read 3a, and passed.

MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (IRELAND).
LORD HERSCHELLasked whether Her Majesty's Government intended to introduce a Bill to assimilate the municipal franchise in Ireland to that which existed in England?
*The EARL of RANFURLY: In reply to the noble Lord's question, I have to say that the present Government is by no means unfriendly to the general principle of such a Bill, but the Government cannot undertake to deal with the question in the present Session.
House adjourned at a Quarter before Six o'clock, to Thursday next.