Sitting of 22 March 1897

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  THE CITY OF LONDON (INCLUSION OF SOUTHWARK) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  MR. R. K. CAUSTONrose to a. point of order. He wished to ask the ruling of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair whether it was in order
  1078
  for this Measure to be brought forward as a. private Bill? He submitted that, as presented to the House, it was distinctly a disfranchising Measure, and he wished to ask whether there was any precedent for similar action being allowed to be; taken by means of a private Bill, and whether the proposals which it contained ought not to, have been submitted to the House in the form of a, public Bill. His contention was that under the form of a Bill for certain purposes all lodgers, Women ratepayers, and service voters in those portions of the Borough of Southwark affected by Ibis Bill would be deprived of the franchise which they now enjoyed. The Measure proposed to abolish the St. Saviour's and St. Olave's District Boards of Works and to hand over the duties hitherto, discharged by those bodies to the Corporation of the City of London. At present the District Boards of Works were elected by St. Saviour's, Christchurch, and other vestries, and for those bodies lodgers, women ratepayers, and service voters had votes. If the Bill became law the Court of Common Council of the City of London would discharge the duties hitherto performed by the district boards. The members of the Court of Common Council for the City of London were elected by male occupiers only, which meant that a large proportion of the present voters in Southwark would be deprived of voice and vote in local matters in which they were deeply interested. The Bill also proposed to alter the powers of the Local Government Board by depriving it of its power to vary at discretion the arrangement of parishes, and to transfer the area of added parishes to a totally different kind of local government. In all these circumstances he asked the ruling of the right hon. Gentleman in the. Chair upon the question whether this should have been a public and not a private Bill?
  MR. SPEAKER: I have considered carefully this Bill, and I ant of opinion that there is no case calling for interference on my part at this stage. The questions raised by the hon. Member are no doubt very important and worthy of the consideration of the House, but they are not matters which would justify me in refusing to submit the Bill for the consideration of the House on Second

  1079
  Reading. The main object of this Bill is to extend the boundaries of a borough, and that is a proper subject for a private Bill. No doubt in all such cases there are changes in local government, and the changes proposed by this Bill are perhaps more complicated and more numerous than usual; yet that does not justify me in interposing to prevent the House from expressing its opinion on the Second Reading. I therefore leave the matter to the consideration of the House. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. CAUSTONasked whether, as the Committee to whom the Bill would be referred would have power to disfranchise, they would also have power, if they thought fit, to assimilate the franchise of the City of London to that now in operation in Southwark?
  SIR EDWARD CLARKE, on the point of order, said that the Committee would have no power to disfranchise.
  MR. SPEAKER: I think that the Question of the franchise in the City of London is outside this Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL, in rising to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months," said that he was much surprised that no hon. Member opposite had attempted to inform the House what the Measure really was, and what it proposed to do. Although the Bill might be technically in order, it involved, in his opinion, a serious abuse of the rules that governed private Bill legislation. The Bill proposed to extend the City boundaries by adding the parishes of St. Saviour, Christchurch, St. Olave, St. Thomas, and St. John. With all deference to the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, he submitted that the Measure was absolutely without precedent, and was framed upon lines which he hoped the House would not encourage. The Measure proposed to repeal portions of seven sets of public Acts, and, he submitted, to do so by means of a private Bill was a most inconvenient course of proceeding. There was scarcely a Government Department whose jurisdiction was not attacked by this Bill, which ran counter to the recommendations of all the Royal Commissions which had con-
  1080
  sidered the question of London government, while it was directly in conflict with the policy of recent legislation in reference to the question of the government of London. The right hon. Gentleman in the Chair had ruled that it was by no means unusual for corporations under the Municipal Corporations Act to come to Parliament and ask for powers to enable them to include within their boundaries urban districts which had grown up around them. But he must point out in the first place that the. Corporation of the City of London was not subject to the Municipal Corporations Act, and that it remained an unreformed corporation to this day. The Corporation sought to include within its jurisdiction an area half the size of the area which, it controlled at the present time, and a population of some 38,000. The, Bill sought to bring that large area and that large population under the operation of charters which the Royal Commission of 1854 had declared could only be interpreted by means of antiquarian research. That House was asked to take a leap in the dark by extending the areas over which the charters operated. The preamble of the Measure suggested that its provisions were founded upon an historical basis, but that was a mere fiction. The boundaries of the districts proposed to be dealt with by the Bill were not conterminous with those covered by the Charter, for it did not include the parish of St. George's, to which the charters applied, while it did include the parish of Christchurch, to which they did not apply. He desired to say a word or two about the proposals in the Bill with regard to the Poor Law Unions, which he submitted formed one of the most important parts of the Bill. The parishes which it was proposed to add to the City were at present parts of two Poor Law Unions, and the Bill proposed to take parts of those Unions and to add them to the City, and to leave certain other parts of them as they were at present. What he particularly objected to in the Bill was that it proposed to add the richer portions of those Unions to the City, and to leave the poorer portions as they were. The average rates of the portions of the Unions which the Bill proposed to deal with were 6s. 7d. in the pound, whereas the average rates of the portions that were left were 7s. 5d. in the pound.

  1081
  That was entirely contrary to the principles of legislation that had prevailed for many years past. During recent years that House had been doing their best to equalise the rates of the metropolis by bringing in the richer districts to the relief of the poorer, whereas this Bill proceeded in exactly the opposite direction. Indeed, as far as lie could make out from the documents relating to this Measure, the great inducement held out to the parishes that it proposed to add to the City, to assent to the proposed change, was that they would be joined to richer instead of to poorer parishes. He thought that the House ought to hesitate long before it sanctioned such a proposal as that. What view did the inhabitants of the richer parishes take of the matter? It was found that rich firms like Barclay, Perkins and Co. headed the list of those who guaranteed the expenses of bringing forward this Bill. In his opinion these rich firms by taking this course were grossly disregarding, the claims upon them of their poorer neighbours. The Bill, moreover, made a direct assault upon the jurisdiction of the Local Government Board. If there was any ground shown for rearranging the boundaries of the Poor Law Unions, there was no necessity for bringing forward a Bill for the purpose, because the Local Government Board already possessed ample powers to make such rearrangement. An hon. Member near hint, who, he believed, was interested in the City, said that the Bill left such rearrangements to the Local Government Board. He was afraid that the hon. Gentleman had never read the Bill, or that he had been led away by the misrepresentations of interested parties. The hon. Gentleman now said that the matter was left to the discretion of the Local Government Board, but that was also a misapprehension, because Clause 12 of the Bill provided that "the Local Government Board shall include" the parishes in question in the City of London Poor Law Union. Therefore, if the Bill passed the House, no discretion whatever in the matter would be left to the Local Government Board, who must act upon the orders which Parliament gave them. Moreover, as long as the Bill continued in force the Local Government Board would be precluded from making any alterations in
  1082
  the boundaries of the Poor Law Unions in question. Then, was the representation to be given to Southwark upon the London Common Council an adequate one? As he had already said, Southwark was half the area of the City of London, and it had a population of 38,000, and yet it was proposed to give it only 16 representatives, who were to be added to the crowd of 222 members of which the Common Council already consisted. The result would be that Southwark would be a nonentity on the Council, and would find itself the Cinderella of the household of the City Corporation. He invited the attention of the right hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney) to this point, because, as Chairman of the Royal Commission, he had already expressed a strong opinion as to the absurdly large numbers of the London Common Council as compared with the 70 members of provincial councils, and it was now proposed to add 16 additional representatives to the former, instead of reducing the number. Another effect of the Bill would be that certain of the London County Councillors would have a vote with regard to the expenditure of funds to which their constituents did not contribute. He further objected to the Bill because it proposed to deal with the great question of the government of London by piecemeal legislation. There appeared to have grown up in that House an idea that London was a corpus vile upon which all kinds of experiments might be tried wit It impunity. ["Hear, hear," and loud counter cheers and laughter.] He appealed to the Members for Birmingham, Manchester, and Liverpool, and other large cities to do for London as they would have their cities done by, and not let there be forced upon London what they would object to. The hon. Member concluded by moving the rejection of the Bill.
  MR. ALFRED LAFONEseconded the Amendment, and said he was not actuated by mere sentiment in opposing this Bill. The present Union of St. Olave's was formed in 1869 of the parishes of St. Thomas's, St. Olave's, and St. John's, Bermondsey and Rotherhithe. The parishes of St. Olave's, St. Thomas's, and St. Johns, from 1871 to 1896 lost 25 per cent. of their population, but the population of Rotherhithe

  1083
  and Bermondsey increased by 16,000 or 17,000, and the rateable value of the three parishes which sought to be separated from St. Olave's amounted to an increase of :30 per cent. from 1871, and Bermondsey and Rotherhithe increased in rateable value to the extent of 50 per cent. These were remarkable figures. At the same time there was an increase not only of indoor but outdoor poor. Indoor poor increased about 60 per cent., and outdoor poor about one-third. Indoor and outdoor poor relieved from 1886 to 1896 increased 70 per cent. This was what they had to look in the face. What would be their position in Bermondsey if such a Bill as this passed the House? The promoters of the Bill were owners and occupiers of wharves and warehouses from Horselydown to London Bridge on, the one side, and St. Saviour's Union on the other. They had managed between 1871 and 1896 to get rid of a population of 3,833, a decrease of 25 per cent. They had not done less work, but were doing infinitely more, and earning through the people they employed large sums of money. But they had not any convenience for housing the population. He was not speaking in exaggerated terms when he said that there were thousands of men employed on the wharves alone who could not find housing accommodation within the same area, and had to come to Bermondsey and Rotherhithe. The result was some of the workpeople would go through their daily work at the wharves, and when too ill or too old to continue their work, they would be thown on the Union, and one-fourth of the whole of the rateable value of the Union was to be taken away and hardly a fraction of the pauperism. Parish Street Workhouse, with 355 inmates, would be taken away. In the parishes of St. Thomas's, St. John's, and St. Olave's, the number of paupers were small in proportion to population. If the three parishes were separated and one-fourth of the rateable value of the Union taken away, the Local Government Board would say, "You shall not continue to use the old Tanner Street Workhouse. You must pull it down and go outside the area and build another." The lowest cost of replacing the present workhouse was £180,000. This outlay would have to be borne by the two-thirds rateable value still left. Over and above
  1084
  this there were £50,000 old debts, which would have to be liquidated out of the rates. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill put the rates of the different parishes far too low. The present rates in Bermondsey and Rotherhithe were 8s. 1d. in the pound. If the proposed severance took place it would add 5d. in the pound to the rates, quite irrespective of the enormous amount which would be absolutely necessary for the building and furnishing of the new workhouse. The promoters of the Bill proposed to go back 350 years and take advantage of a charter of that time which gave certain privileges. What had the House to do with 350 years ago? They had to look at the state of things to-day. The Bermondsey Vestry, St. Olave's Guardians, Rotherhithe Vestry, the Vestry of St. George the Martyr, the Guardians of St. Mary Newington, St. Saviour's Union, and the City of London Union, had petitioned against the Bill. But it was said that it was "only a matter of clauses." What clauses? Would Bermondsey and Rotherhithe get back the £15,000 a year they would lose? How were the clauses to be worked out? If he was satisfied that his division of Bermondsey was so safeguarded by these clauses that they would lose nothing from the rates, he would be perfectly satisfied to vote in favour of the Bill. But he knew it was utterly impossible to produce such a result. The Bill not only seriously injured the interests of the ratepayers of the two divisions, but affected the interests of the poor. They would be driven out of St. Thomas's, St. John's, and St. Olave's, and if sick and thrown on the rates, they would have to go miles over to the City for admission to the Union workhouse. When the matter was looked at from the point of view of £s. d. it could not be entertained for a moment. The Bill was simply a selfish attempt to throw responsibility upon others. He should vote for the rejection of the Bill, and he hoped when the House had heard the case for its opponents, they would say that no. Bill like that would ever be brought forward with any chance of success.
  SIR EDWARD CLARKEsupported the Bill. He said he believed he should be able to show that the constituents of the hon. Member for Southwark could be amply protected by the

  1085
  Committee to whom he hoped the House would send this Bill. Not only had he heard no objection to the principle of the Bill, but, in what had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Bethnal Green, he found a full justification and defence of the Bill. The hon. Member appealed to the Members for Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham not to force on London what they would not like done in the case of those places. But year after year large areas were added to those cities, and last year, to the borough he himself represented, it added, by a private Bill, a considerable area of population and rateable value. On what ground? Because there was an existing form of government extending over the municipal area into which the inhabitants of those districts outside wished to go to get the benefits of that government, and of association with a large municipal corporation. If Parliament had, against the will of outlying districts, insisted on extending the area of municipal corporations in order to get a larger strength and efficiency of municipal government, á fortiori it should do so when the outside district wanted to come within the area. It seemed to him that this was a very ungracious opposition. Knowing a good deal of the locality, he thought there was a very strong desire on the part of a large majority of people in the district to be associated with the great City to which in many respects they belonged, and with which they had an historic and most interesting connection. This Bill was the result of the spontaneous action of the people of the district, who asked to be admitted to the advantages of association with the Corporation, and the Corporation had unanimously approved the request. Moreover, this was not an ordinary ease of an area outside a corporation desiring to be added to it, and the corporation being willing to receive it. There was something more than that—namely, that, for nearly 330 veils there had been a considerable and Hose connection between Southwark and the City of London. His hon. Friend, to his horror, had scoffed at the idea of a charter of 350 years ago. [Opposition cheers.] He could quite understand it from the opposite side, lint there were many of them who believed in the value of charters, and who thought that many old charters had been quite as beneficial
  1086
  to the communities to which they had applied as had been many Acts of Parliament. ["Hear, hear!"] There was 350 years ago this charter, by which Southwark was intended to have been annexed to the City of London. Since that time the City of London, which had large estates in Southwark, had drawn revenues from those estates, which were used to the great advantage of Southwark as well as of the City. The City appointed a bailiff for Southwark, it appointed a coroner for Southwark, it held Court Leet by its Recorder within Southwark, and there had been some—he agreed very imperfect—approaches to corporate life between Southwark and the City of London. If this had been the case of one of our large towns he believed no one would have complained, but directly they touched on the City of London, and there was an opportunity of the London Comity Council circulating a statement against the Bill, then a great deal of strong feeling scented to be aroused. The Corporation of the City of London over and over again had been spoken of with disrespect and dislike, because it was said that the advantages of its great possessions and great administrative establishments were confined to so small an area; but now, when the Corporation was prepared to share these advantages with the people of Southwark who desired them, the cry was raised, "Ho not let these people ally themselves." Why was that? Was it because it was thought that it would make the City of London stronger, in view of future arrangements of the government of London? It might be that; but considering that the City of London had not confined the advantages of its great wealth to its own area, but hail expended that wealth in ways by which places lying outside its boundaries had greatly advantaged, it was an ungracious thing to attempt to refuse, to those who desired it, the opportunity of associating themselves with the City id London. It was said that the river was the natural division between Southwark and the City of London, and that if they carried the City across the river they would have boundaries which it would be difficult to define or observe. He did not understand that objection, because the boundaries between the City of London and the County Council's administration were of precisely the same

  1087
  character as would be found in Southwark. A part from the Tower Bridge, on which the Corporation had spent over a million of money, besides spending six thousand a year on its maintenance, there were three great bridges—the London, Southwark, and Blackfriars Bridges—which were policed, repaired, and maintained by the City of London. It seemed to him that it would be an advantage if the approaches to those bridges from the other side were under the same control. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green had said that by Clause 10 the charters of the City were to be enforced with respect to the added area, and asked who knew what these charters were. The answer was very simple. The charters of the City had existed for centuries; and it was because the people on the south side of London knew that its government was most effective and admirable that they wished to come within its area. Then it was said that there would be river police patrolling between the two sides of the Thames, and that that would interpose an obstacle between the administration of the police on one side or the other of the river. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green must have been in sore straits for an argument before he made such a suggestion as that. With regard to the complaint that the Local Government Board would be ousted by Section 12 of this Bill from its authority, he would refer the hon. Member to Section 45 of the Bill. Although the effect of the Bill would be to make a sort of immediate order for' carrying it into effect, the powers of the Local Government Board would remain absolutely unaffected by the terms of the Bill. The Bill was opposed by the three hon. Gentlemen who represented the three divisions into which, was now separated the borough of Southwark, which, some years ago, he had the honour of representing for a short time.["Hear, hear!"] A very small portion of each of those three constituencies would is' added to the City of London by the Bill, and while the inhabitants of those portions of the constituencies wished to join the City—[cries of "No, no!" and "Hear, hear!"]—the inhabitants of the larger portion of each constituency were naturally afraid that their burdens of local taxation would be increased by the Bill. Hence the opposition to the Bill of those
  1088
  three hon. Members. Apart from the question of rating, he believed that his action in supporting the Bill more completely and accurately represented the inclinations of the people of Southwark than the opposition of his hon. Friends; but, in regard to the question of rating he agreed that his hon. Friends had a sound case. ["Hear, hear!"] He was, however, sure that there would be no objection on the part of the promoters of the Bill to insert in Committee such clauses as might compensate the districts represented by his hon. Friends for any loss it might be proved they would sustain by being deprived of a valuable rateable area. But he thought the idea that Bermondsey and Rotherhithe would lose £15,000 a year could not be sustained by figures. He hoped, therefore, that the persons who, dealing with their own interests, asked to be allowed to carry out this union, would not be prevented by the House when they were willing to take such steps as would prevent any injury to others in the process.
  MR. CAUSTONsaid he would like to ask his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth where he got his information that the overwhelming majority of the people of the districts affected desired union with the City of London. In West Southwark, which he had the honour of representing, public opinion was entirely opposed to the Bill. Petitions in favour of the. Bill were got up and signed before the drafting of the Bill was completed, when those who signed were, of course, ignorant of its details. After the publication of the Bill a public meeting, called in its favour and organised by Mr. Kelly—a gentleman with whose name the House was familar—was held at the Bridge House Hotel, at which the Chairman of St. Saviour's District Board of Works presided. A resolution in favour of the Bill was proposed, but the meeting decided by 34 votes to 14 that the Bill should be opposed. On the other hand, after the Bill had been for some time before, the public and its proposals had been carefully studied, a very largely attended public and representative meeting was held at the Temperance Hall, Blackfriars, as the St. Saviour's Commissioners had refused to grant the use of the Baths for the purpose. He presided at that meeting, he should say there were about 700

  1089
  persons present, and a resolution in opposition to the Bill was unanimously passed. His hon. and learned Friend said that the desire for union was spontaneous on the part of the parishes of Southwark. A petition in favour of the Bill which had been circulated through Southwark stated that all the costs, charges and expenses incidental to the Bill would be paid by the Corporation of London, so that the Measure was really the outcome of a laudable desire on the part of the Corporation of London, and he could not say that the matter had been approached in a manner satisfactory to those who were in favour of good local self-government. As Member for West Southwark he was absolutely opposed to the Bill, on the ground that it was a tinkering piecemeal proposal of London local government reform.["Hear, hear!"] While it would be of no benefit to the parishes proposed to be included in the City, it would be grossly unfair to the parishes of Newington and St. George-the-Martyr. ["Hear, hear!"] His hon. and learned Friend had denied that it was a disfranchising Bill. At the present moment the District Board of St. Olave's and St. Saviour's were elected by the vestries, which were elected by the occupiers, and the lodger, women, and service franchise voters; but under the Bill only the occupiers would be entitled to vote for the Common Council. Therefore, under the Bill a large number of voters who elected the vestries would be deprived of this district control over local affairs. The Borough Market, which could not be better controlled than at present, would be handed over to the Corporation of London, when no doubt the expense of its management would be increased, and its benefits to St. Saviour's diminished. Another point which had been ignored by his hon. and learned Friend was that the additional charge on the parishes of St. George-the-Martyr and Newington, consequent on St. Saviour's union being deprived some of its richest parishes, would amount to a sum equal to a rate of 3d. in the pound. His hon. and learned Friend had also declared that the desire for the Bill was great; but even the Court of Alder men had presented a petition against the Bill, and asked the House of Commons to throw it out. The magistrates of the Newington district had also passed a resolution strongly in opposition to the Bill, and other petitioners against it were—
  1090
  the Governors and Guardians of the Poor of St. Mary, Newington; the Vestry of Bermondsey; the Guardians of the Poor of the St. Saviour's Union; St. Wave District Board of Works; Vestry of St. George-the-Martyr, Southwark; Vestry of Rotherhithe; City of London Union Guardians of the Poor; Guardians of the Poor of St. Olave's Union; and London County Council. Then there was the opposition of the London County Council. [Ironical cheer.] The County Council must occasionally be right, and there was very little difference within the Council to offering opposition to this Bill. He appealed to the right hon. Member for Croydon, who had been much associated with London reform, to oppose the Bill in the interests of pod local government and of common sense. The question should be considered apart front party politics. The two parishes included in the Bill apparently desired to join the City of London. But they only expressed that wish through the vestries, and without any appeal having been made to them on the Bill. He hoped the House would save the opponents of the Measure the trouble and expense of appearing in the Committee rooms.
  MR. LAFONErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. EDMUND BOULNOISsaid that his name appeared on the Bill, but he had no connection with the City or with Southwark. To say that the Court of Aldermen and the Guardians of the City of London Union were petitioning against the Bill was rather misleading. They were petitioning merely to obtain a locus before the Committee. Already, to some extent, Southwark was under the jurisdiction of the City; already they had an Alderman, thought not an elected Alderman; lad naturally the people of Southwark objected to dual control—to being under the City for some purposes and under the County Council for other purposes. He was not surprised that they sought to escape from the latter jurisdiction. There were many precedents for the proposed amalgamation. Farringdon, Cripplegate, Bishops-gate, Aldersgate, were all cases in point;

  1091
  and as late as 1885, in connection with the Tower Bridge Bill, the City took over a portion of the adjoining district. The opposition to this Bill on the part of the County Council was comprehensible, and consistent with all the aims and desires which had always been for the amalgamation of the City with the rest of London. This Bill had very likely put an end to anything in that direction. Southwark itself was not so large as to desire a charter of incorporation for itself, and, therefore, it naturally wished to come under the wing of the great Corporation of London. He believed that the solution of the great problem of London government was to be found in the creation of separate municipalities; and where the geographic and other conditions were suited, Parliament should encourage any movement in that direction. The whole question was clearly one of boundaries, and he hoped a Commission would soon be appointed to settle these important it boundary questions. Southwark had a moral right to join the City, and the House was not a proper place to discuss the details of the scheme. Of course, clauses could be inserted in Committee to prevent the excluded portions of Southwark being made poorer by the Bill.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid that he could claim to hold a mandate from almost every elector in his constituency to offer to this Bill a vigorous opposition. They thought that it had been conceived in fraud and born in secrecy. [Laughter.] Not one per cent. of those affected by the Bill had ever seen it or knew anything about it till it was in print. Not five per cent. of the inhabitants of the whole district knew anything about the Bill until two or three weeks ago, when public meetings were held to protest against it, and then ninny electors came forward to say that when they signed the petition for the Bill they were completely ignorant of what its results would be. He protested against the Measure as overriding the principle laid down in the Equalisation of Rates Act, that all in a great community should share alike in the support of the poor. Southwark had been at the gates of the City for centuries, but the Corporation had never come forward to take it under its œgis. It had, rather, used it as a human dustheap, for shooting the poor whom it had driven out of its own
  1092
  boundaries. A huge bribe had been offered to the people of Southwark by representing that certain services now performed by the County Council would be in future performed by the Corporation, and paid for out of the Corporation Estates. But those estates were not now so flourishing that Southwark could hope for much from them. The result of the Bill would be that the poor of Southwark would have to go two miles to get their wants relieved by the City poor authorities, and they would lose all control of their own Poor Rates. Then, as to the police, there was no natural boundary to divide the included parishes from the rest of Southwark; and, as one elector had said, it would take two constables to arrest a man. As the Justices of the Newington Division had said, not only a complete reorganisation of the police, but a new local police court would have to be established. Taking that point of view, there was a good deal to be said against the Bill. Lastly, there was a point which had not been touched upon at all, which must seriously affect those whom he represented—namely, the question of the tramways. When these tramways were handed over to the County Council the advantages of such transfer would be lost to the people of Southwark, and they would have one portion of the tramway under the jurisdiction of the City of London and the other under that of the County Council. He represented, perhaps, the greater proportion of the printers of London. There was a time when these men's forefathers lived wholly within the City. They were now driven without the City, and they were now to have an extra rate placed upon them through no fault of their own. If there was one thing he protested against more than another, it was making radical changes for no definite purpose, and making them in the interests of one small selfish portion of a great area. Of course, he did not deny that a small number of individuals, who owned warehouses lining the banks of the Thames, were most anxious to be included in the Bill; but the great bulk of the population, and especially those whom he represented, strongly objected to it.
  MR. J. CUMMING MACDONAsaid that as his constituency were very materially interested

  1093
  indeed, he was bound to say a few words about the Measure. The portion of the constituency close to London Bridge—the portion which was covered with large buildings and immense wharves—would, if the Bill passed into law, be relieved of a certain amount of rates; naturally that portion was in favour of the Bill. On the other hand, of the large population, the working men who went to work on those wharves and in those warehouses, the great majority lived in Rotherhithe, and, if the Bill passed, their rates would be increased, and they were a great deal too high already. He would oppose this Bill to the end; and if, by doing so, he jeopardised his future position as Member for Rotherhithe, he must accept the consequences.
  MR. R. B. HALDANEregarded this Bill as having far more than a local character, and expressed his surprise that the Government, and not one Department of it only, but two Departments, should give the House no guidance and advice while large powers were being taken out of their hands by a private Bill. If this Bill became law it would subtract from the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police a very large area of the metropolis, and hand it over to the City Police; that, was to say, it would take it from under the Home Office and place it under another authority altogether. The County Council for once was placed in a happy position. It got an Exchequer contribution to maintain the police in this region which was sought to be transferred. The Bill made no provision for taking away that contribution, and the result wits, as he calculated, that the County Council would get £7,000 a year for doing nothing. As regarded the Local Government Board, it wits one of the functions of that Department to look after the arrangement of parishes in the metropolis as all over England. The Board arranged them into unions. But Section 30 of the Bill took all the parishes of the area in question out of the hands of the Local Government Board, disjoined them from their existing arrangements, and transferred them to another union altogether. The effect was astounding. The unfortunate pauper at present in Southwark would, for the future, have to go from the south of London across the bridges all the way to Smithfield,
  1094
  there to get the relief he now obtained somewhere near his own door. Again, the Bill took the whole of this region out of the jurisdiction of the metropolitan magistrates and transferred it, for civil and criminal purposes, to the City aldermen. Not only that, but if the Bill became law it would leave the district in this situation—that, should a fire occur there would be Ho authority front the City or from the other parts of London which could enter and put it out. The same was true of technical education. There would be no technical education authority in this area if the Bill passed, because the County Council would be deprived of its powers, and the City would have no equivalent powers. So with regard to the law which regulates buildings in London. The truth was, this was a carelessly-drawl Bill. And it was. It interfered to a large extent with the existing powers of the Government, and it was matter of astonishment no Member of the Government should have risen and explained why it was they were prepared to allow powers of their own to be taken away which existed under the general system of law now on the Statute-book. Reference had been made to the alleged great advantage of this Bill, that it would be a precedent for the splitting-up of the metropolis into smaller municipalities. That was an interesting declaration, but the importance was, that it was made in the teeth of every Royal Commission that had sat on the subject, the recommendation being that this should be clone, if at all, as part of a general scheme, and not piecemeal. The hon. and learned Gentleman made a most extraordinary declaration. He said tint the City Ancient exercised jurisdiction over all this area. He wondered whether his hon. and learned Friend had been amt the pains, as he had been, to find out what the area, was which was to be transferred to the City? If his hon. Friend referred to the old records, and particularly to the second Report, made in 1836, by the Royal Commission on Municipal Boroughs in England, he would find this question of area dealt with, and he would find a map showing what was the old area belonging to the City. So far front this being the area dealt with in the Bill, it was a different area. He admitted that a part of it was included, but the Bill proposed, at the same time,

  1095
  to pick out of the centre of this area a part which it suited the City to take, to leave out a part, and then to include a part which was never in the jurisdiction of the City at any time—the Liberty of the Fleet and the parish of Christchurch. The Bill excluded the parish of St. George-the-Martyr, which was part of the City, and which this time the City did not take because it was a poor part. Indeed, the Bill altered the whole basis of Local Government in the district; it gave it a different franchise; it transferred it from a cheap and economical system of administration to a dearer system; it transferred tramways to the City, whereas at present it had not an inch of tramway in its jurisdiction; it transferred the Government of the district to the Commissioners of Sewers, a body which the City were seeking to abolish, and proposed to place it under the Court of Common Council, whose franchise was different from that of the vestries; and it cut about the local Government of the Metropolis, in respect of area, in a way which no other Measure presented to Parliament had attempted. What was proposed should be done as part of a general scheme, and as a public Measure.
  SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLEopposed the Bill. Generally speaking, he was opposed to the majority of the London County Council, but in the present case thought this was a Measure which the House ought, for the present, to refuse. It was absurd that the City of London should seek to come across the Thames, and to annex a portion of Southwark to the City. He should like to hear from the President of the Local Government Board what effect the Bill would have on other parts of London. It no settled all the Metropolitan areas, all their system of Local Government, Police, County Council Elections, the apportionment of rates, and School Board divisions. [Cries of "No!"] Those were important questions, and to include them in a private Bill was absurd. All these questions were of great importance, and should not be brought within the scope of a private Bill. The, Bill, no doubt, was brought forward to serve some interest. There were, in his opinion, two interests to be served. First of all, there were certain payers of rates in Southwark who would
  1096
  like to come under the Corporation of the City of London, and, secondly, the Corporation of the City would like to say they were willing to take their poorer brethren across the Thames under their charge. This was an entirely new feature. He hoped that the Bill would be viewed by the House from a wide standpoint; but he thought that it was not required in the interests of London itself. It was opposed by the London County Council, and lie believed that it would be a bad precedent to allow the City of London to pick out certain portions of the Metropolis and to leave other portions to look after themselves.
  THE SECEETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,)said a direct appeal had been made to the Local Government Board to state what their views were on this Bill. It had been pointed out that in one part of the Bill certain duties now devolving on the Local Government Board were taken away. But in another part of the Bill certain duties that did not now devolve on the Local Govern meat Board were placed upon it; and in matters of that kind the Local Government Board were in the hands of Parliament. There was, however, one portion of the Bill which peculiarly affected the Local Government Board. The Bill proposed to take two parishes out of two unions—St. Saviour's and St. Olave's—and to transfer them to the City of London. In the parishes of St. Saviour's and St. Olive's there were a great many poor; in the City of London there were very few. It was hardly correct to say that the ratepayers of these parishes desired to be transferred to the City of London, because that view would be open to the charge that their direct interest as ratepayers was involved in the change. The real question which the Local Government Board had to consider was this. These parishes which were proposed to be transferred were the richest parishes in tile two unions, and to take these parishes from them would be to leave the rest of the Union in a very critical state indeed. It was all the more serious because, as the hon. Member for Bermondsey said, the Local Government Board had been insisting within the last six months upon the erection of a new workhouse by this very Union of St. Olave's. He

  1097
  thought his hon. Friend had overestimated the cost, but still it would be a considerable sum, amounting to £80,000 or £100,000. The important matter in the Bill from the point of view of the Local Government Board was that there was no adjustment of liabilities clauses in it. That was a very serious drawback to the Bill, and it would be for the House to consider whether the offer made by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth to insert these adjustment clauses in Committee was a settlement of the point that could be accepted. So far as the Government was concerned, those were the views that were held oil those points that concerned the Local Government Board. It would be for the House to decide on its own responsibility whether the Bill should go to the Committee upstairs.
  MR. LEONARD COURTNEYsaid his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board had responded in some measure to the ' appeal made to him, but no more imperfect reply could well be conceived. [Opposition cheers.] His hon. Friend had treated the problem as if it were wholly wrapped up in the adjustment of liabilities between the unions, but the burden of the appeal which was made by the hon. Member fur Haddington was as to what view the Government took of this Bill as affecting the question of the government of London. The whole question of the government of London was wrapped up in this Bill, and what were the views of the Government on the question He ventured to say that, whatever their policy was in respect to the future government of London, they must have some view in regard to this Bill. If confined to what it proposed, the Bill was in itself a comparatively small one. It was an extension Bill, said his hon. and learned Friend, fortified by innumerable instances from other municipalities in the country. Other municipalities had brought in extension Bills, no doubt, to extend what was the nucleus of a town so as to correspond to what it hall increased to. This Bill was not brought in ' in that fashion. It was brought in by a small outlying portion desiring to be annexed to the City of London. If the City of London had met its obligations some years ago there might very possibly now be an extended City of London so as to cover the whole municipal area, and it
  1098
  might rise to that height even now. They might conceive the City of London extending over the whole area, or they might conceive the County Council coming in to cover the City. In either case this Bill was not put forward in relation to that great problem. It offered no suggestion to its solution; it was, instead, a bar to it. [Opposition cheers.] The suggestion was something of this kind—they had got a rich area, and outside it rich and poor areas, and the comfortable, rich area was to be included, leaving the poor parts attached to the same area to take care of themselves. [Opposition cheers.] Did any municipality ever bring in a Bill of that kind, and did Parliament ever consent to support a Bill of that kind? The Bill was not consistent even with the proposal to create independent municipalities. It was a minor extension proposed with the faint hope, really most innocently suggested by the Lon. Member for Marylebone, that thereby the City would become so strong that it might be able to with stand till attempts upon it for the future. Even if the strength of the City were increased to this extent, it would still be but feebleness if that was all it could rely upon. [Opposition cheers.] This was a question which concerned the future government of London. Had the Imperial Government any policy for that? If it had any policy, it must have a view with relation to this Bill, and he ventured to say that, whatever policy they had adopted—if they had adopted any, and he dared say they had—they must have some opinion in regard to this Bill in relation to that policy. This Bill touched a great question—not a question confined to the particular area now proposed to be dealt with, but the great question of the Government of all London, the question that Parliament had always reserved to itself and refused to allow to go to a Private Bill Committee.["Hear, hear!"] He confessed to a strong opinion that this Bill ought not to be supported as a private Bill, but that it was a great public question which should be dealt with, if at all, by a public Bill.
  MR. ALBAN GIBBSsaid this Bill was not promoted by the City of London. The City had adopted it for the simple reason that they were asked to do so by the particular body promoting it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin intimated that

  1099
  the City ought to have extended itself over the whole metropolis. He did not know whether the City wished to do that, but certainly he did not wish to see them do it. He wished to see moderate-sized municipalities which grew naturally, and when an outside body wished to come into such a municipality he thought it should be allowed to do so. It was for that reason he supported this Bill. The only other argument brought forward was with reference to the financial liabilities. The hon. Member for Plymouth had stated that the promoters were prepared to put in clauses to settle that question properly. He thought the House should accept that promise as far as the Second Reading was concerned, and then, when the Bill came back from the Committee, if the clauses were not satisfactory to the House, it was open to the House to reject the Bill on the Third Reading. He thought the House would do very wrong if they did not allow the Bill to go to a Committee.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that what they wanted to know was the view of the Government as to whether matters affecting the administration of the Local Government Board ought to be dealt with in a private Bill. The Secretary to the Local Government Board, in his statement, only touched on one point which, however important in itself, was only a matter of detail. He thought they were entitled to a reply to the question as to what the Government's view was with regard to the transference of a certain district from the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police under the Home Office to the jurisdiction of the police under the Corporation? He would like to ask the President of the Local Government Board—in the absence of the Home Secretary—whether he did not think this transference of power would lead to many matters of difficulty between the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police and the jurisdiction of the police under the Corporation? Further, they had a right to ask the Government whether they thought it right and expedient that a considerable number of the citizens of the metropolis should be transferred from the jurisdiction of stipendiary magistrates under the Home Office to the jurisdiction of the amateur magistrates of the Corporation of London. They were also entitled
  1100
  to know what the Government's opinion was with regard to the disfranchising clauses of the Bill, and the dealing with the government of the metropolis in this piecemeal fashion. Surely if it were desired to take in hand the splitting up of the metropolis into minor municipalities it ought to be done after due consideration and by means of a public Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. COHENrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put, but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. W. O. CLOUGHdenied that the City Corporation were advancing money for the promotion of the Bill. The promoters of the Measure had subscribed no less a sum than £3,000 towards the expenses of its promotion. Who were those promoters? They had heard from the hon. Member for Southwark that part of his constituency were in favour of the Bill. The Corporation did not approach Southwark or any of the parishes concerned. Those parishes approached the Corporation. An hon. Member below him had said the Court of Aldermen had petitioned against the Bill. There was a good answer to that statement, namely that they presented a petition in order to obtain a locus standi. So long ago as 1895 the Vestries of St. Saviour, St. Olave, St. Thomas, and St. John, Horselydown, presented a petition to the Court of Common Council, praying that they might be admitted to the Corporation. The petition was referred to the. Court of Aldermen, and they recommended that the prayer be granted, and the Lord Mayor referred the matter to the Court of Common Council. It was Southwark who approached the Corporation, and not the Corporation Southwark. The guardians were not unanimous by any means in their opposition to t he Bill, and it was abundantly proved that the ratepayers in what was described in the Bill as the added area, were in favour of the Measure. It was true the Bill might have the effect, as stated by the hon. Member for Bermondsey, of increasing the rates in one part of his division; but on the whole the City of London had nothing whatever to gain by the financial

  1101
  arrangement which it was proposed should be made. The rating in the future would practically be left what it was now, and the City would have to pay the same as now, In many parishes the rates would be substantially reduced, but as regarded the City of London it would not be a gainer, though he did not think it would be a loser, by the inclusion of the parishes.
  MR. J. LOWLESthought that one of the strongest arguments in favour of the Bill was that a long neglected duty which should have been fulfilled by the London County Council with regard to the southern approaches to the Tower Bridge would be fulfilled by the City of London. While a large sum of money was spent by the Corporation of the City upon the Tower Bridge, the southern approaches to that tine structure had been left in a disgraceful condition owing to the divided counsels of the County Council. As to population, it had been said the City was constantly pouring its poor outside. It was quite a mistake, as the City had within its area the best built and best managed artisans dwellings that could be seen in London. He did not anticipate any difficulty from the point of view of the tramways or the police, and as to wharfage frontage, he asserted that if there was one duty which the City had discharged to the satisfaction of everybody, it was that of sanitary authority. The Bill would put under the control of the Corporation a large amount of wharfage, but he was quite certain they would administer the affairs of the wharves on the southern side of the river in the same satisfactory way they administered the wharves on the northern side. It had also been urged against the Bill that the poor would have to walk to Smithfield to get relief. He had not the least doubt that the Guardians would make some provision so that they could administer relief on the spot. On the general question he admitted that he regarded the Measure as an instrument towards the establishment of separate municipalities in the metropolis, towards which end he was sure both sides of politics were tending.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEappealed to the Government to give them some direction as to the Bill, which dealt with the future gov-
  1102
  ernent of the metropolis. He did not go as far as some hon. Members with regard to the government of the metropolis, but unless Ministers were prepared to give the House sonic information the Debate ought to be adjourned. ["Hear, hear!"] The Chairman was absent from the House, which would have been natural if the Government had been going to give them some direction. But they had no inkling of what the Government view was, and when the hon. Member (Mr. Russell) sat down he left them in doubt as to the way in which he would vote. The hon. Member expressed the strongest disapproval of one portion of the Bill, but he did not express any approval of the other parts of the Bill.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he had no wish to travel outside Ids own department.
  SIR C. DILKEsaid that was his case. The hon. Member was the only Member of the Government who had spoken, and he confined himself to one particular point. He had given the House no opinion for or against the Bill. He did not take the technical objection that this ought to have been a public Bill, but there could be no doubt as to the importance of the Bill as to the future government of London. It was impossible to pass the Second Reading, however, without some guidance from the Government. ["Hear, hear"] Surely in a matter which involved the breaking up of the control of the police, as this Bill did, and the Home Secretary having left the House, they ought to have the opinion of the Government.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,)said, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to complain that the reply of his hon. Friend was inadequate and imperfect.
  SIR C. DILKE: I am not complaining of the reply, for it was no reply. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. CHAPLINsaid he had heard the remarks of his hon. Friend, and he thought them perfectly appropriate to the occasion. [A laugh.] It could not be expected that on a private Bill he should go into the question of a great policy. He thought that his hon. Friend exercised a wise discretion. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] As to what was to happen to the police, that was a matter more for the Home

  1103
  Office than for the Local Government Board. Hon. Members knew that the Home Office would have to make a Report on this Bill, precisely as the Local Government Board would have to report, and those matters would be dealt with on that occasion. This was a private Bill, discussed at great length by the House, and the House, having heard all the arguments that could be adduced, was perfectly in a position to come to a decision for itself. [Laughter.] He thought the House could arrive at that decision without any assistance so far as he was concerned.
  MR. JAMES STUART, who was met with cries of "Divide," said they were being called upon without any advice from the Government to vote for a Bill which, if it be passed, would materially affect time question of London government. The right hon. Gentleman said that was a private Bill, but surely that was no reason why he should back out of the responsibility which devolved upon hint. ["Hear, hear!"] Had the Government, or had it net, an attitude on this question of the future government of London? The last election was largely fought on that point, and if the Government were not prepared with a scheme it was their duty to stop the Bill, which must entangle any solution they might choose to offer.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYsaid he should certainly vote for the Bill, but he regretted that the Government had not thought it proper to give some distinct statement. London was very keen on this great subject, and it should be borne in mind that the London Members formed a large proportion of the majority which supported the Government. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought it was not too much to expect that the Government would give the House some idea of their views. He regretted extremely that they were left in the dark.
  Question put:—The House divided:—Ayes, 169; Noes, 187.—(Division List, No. 138.)
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Second Reading put off for six months.

QUESTIONS.

  PARIS INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state the amount of money proposed to be granted by the German Government towards the cost of German exhibits at the Paris Exhibition in 1900?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): The German Government has included a preliminary grant of 50,000 marks (£2,500) in the Budget for 1897–8; the total expenditure is at present calculated at 5,000,000 marks (£250,000) to be distributed over the Budgets of the three succeeding years.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I beg to ask the, Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of the grant proposed by Her Majesty's Government towards the expenses of the British Exhibitors' Section in the Paris International Exhibition of 1900?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): Having considered the expenditure on the British exhibitors' section at other important international exhibitions, we think that £75,000 should amply suffice for the expenses of the British exhibitors' section in the Paris International Exhibition of 1900.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether instructions are given to the Metropolitan Police that, when a constable has a warrant to arrest, or is about to arrest, a person on his own authority, or has a person in custody for a crime, it is wrong to question such person touching the crime of which, he is accused?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): Yes, Sir; such are the general instructions given to the police, but it is obviously impossible to prohibit all questioning, before arrest. Any questions,

  1105
  however, which would approach to the holding out an inducement to the person to make a confession are prohibited altogether.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the advisability of paying the boot money to the members of the Metropolitan Police Force in two payments of 13s. yearly, instead of by weekly 6d. payments, since the proposed method of payment, coupled with the date upon which it is to commence, and the date upon which the last issue of boots is to take place, will cause each constable to lose 13s. during his term of service?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: No, Sir; I am not prepared to reconsider this arrangement. There will be no such less as the hon. Member supposes. The boots which each constable will have in his possession on the 1st October will be good for several months to come, but even if he has to buy himself a pair before his weekly allowances have reached the sum of 13s., his loss, if it can be called one, will be more than counterbalanced by his gain under another provision of the new arrangement, of which the hon. Member appears to be unaware. It is this. Under the existing, order of things, the boots of a constable, are not his property but the Receiver's, and on promotion or retirement he has to restore two serviceable pairs to the Receiver, or pay a sum of money which is never less than 10s. and may be a good deal more. By the new arrangement, the men will be given absolutely the boots in their possession on the 1st October, and will be relieved of the liability, which as I have explained, attaches to them on promotion or retirement. I may add that all other allowances in the Force for articles of clothing are made by weekly payments, and never by money in advance, and no hardship has ever been felt, and that the exact terms of the new arrangement were put before the anon last year, who decided for it by a large majority. I am fully satisfied, as is the Commissioner, that the new arrangement is beneficial to the men, as it was intended to be.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to take the opinion of the constables upon the point?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: That is what I have done.

  SCOTCH MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. D. NICOL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether a travelling post office is to be run throughout the year between Stirling and Oban in connection with the down night mail train and the up local 4.30 p.m. from Oban; and, if so, when this arrangement is likely to conic into force; and what acceleration of postal communication ill the districts affected will result?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The Postmaster General has frequently bean urged to continue throughout the year the early morning mail trains from Stirling to Oban which runs during the three months of July, August, and September. A travelling post office is not a necessary part of the scheme, and would add to the expenditure. But if it were run in the morning train, the up local train at 4.30 would no doubt be a convenient train by which it should return to Stirling. Whether travelling post office is included in the arrangement or not, the postal advantages as a whole are not, in the Postmaster General's judgment, sufficient to warrant the expenditure involved, and no steps have been taken towards establishing the service. If the train were established, an early delivery of the letters by two and a-half to four hours would be afforded at Oban, and at places on the line, but whether the letters for places served by the steamers from Oban would gain any advantage would depend upon re-arrangements of the steamer services, which may not be found acceptable or even practicable.
  SIR LEONARD LYELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the mail steamer from Aberdeen to Shetland was delayed 15 hours beyond its time at Kirkwall on Sunday 14th inst., although the weather was fine, and that in consequence great inconvenience was occasioned to the inhabitants of Shetland, owing to the delay in delivering the mails and to the consequent dislocation of the inland mail service, the people of Lerwick especially being deprived of any opportunity of communicating by post with their correspondents in the South until the following Wednesday; and

  1107
  whether he will institute an inquiry into the circumstances of this detention?
  MR. HANBURY: The mail steamer in question should have left Aberdeen on Friday, the 12th inst., at 7 p.m., but owing to stress of weather it could not leave till 9 p.m. on Saturday, the 13th. It arrived at Kirkwall shortly after 8 a.m. on Sunday, the 14th, but Sunday labour being prohibited at Kirkwall between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., the cargo could not be discharged till the evening. The arrival at Lerwick was consequently delayed until 11 a.m. on Monday, but the vessel remained there until 1 a.m. on Tuesday, and the people of Lerwick had thus the opportunity of sending replies southwards by the same steamer. Many places in the country districts were also able to reply by the return steamer, as the Postmaster made special efforts to bring back the country postmen to Lerwick on Monday night.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (MEMBERS' SMOKING ACCOMMODATION).
  MR. JOHN AIRD: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if, while arrangements are being made for an additional smoking room, Members may be allowed, after Nine o'clock, to smoke in the South Dining Room, this being immediately adjacent?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): I am informed that the Kitchen Committee have decided to adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend, so far as to permit smoking in the South Dining Room after 9.15 p.m.; but they hope that, at periods of abnormal pressure, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will not make use of the privilege to the obvious discomfort of non-smokers compelled to dine late.
  MR. AIRD: I beg to thank the right hon. Gentleman.

  VALUATION AND BOUNDARY SURVEY (IRELAND).
  MR. JAMES DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that the Carrickmacross Board of Guardians on 5th January this year wrote to the officer of the Valuation and Boundary Survey of Ireland protest-
  1108
  ing against a valuation made by their revising officer, reducing the valuation of premises from £39 10s. to £26, grabbed by a man named Kenny in the town of Carrickmacross; (2) whether he is aware that the previous tenant, Mr. Phelan, who was evicted, improved these premises so much that the valuation during his time was increased from £35 to £39 10s.; also that the present tenant swore at Castleblaney Quarter Sessions in October last that he was paying £35 per annum, same rent as the evicted tenant; and, if so, why a reduction in the valuation; (3) whether he can give the name Of the officer who made this valuation, and if he is the same person who increased the valuation on the previous tenant; and (4) if the Valuation and Boundary Survey Department gave any instructions in this case; and, if so, what were they?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The revision of the valuation of the premises referred to was made in 1893, when the valuation was reduced to £26, following deterioration of the buildings, which are very old. No objection was made at the time by the Board of Guardians, but early this year they requested that the valuation should be restored to its original amount. An investigation by a second Valuer, and subsequently by the Chief Valuer of the Department, confirmed the result arrived at by the First. Valuer, who reduced the valuation. It is the fact, I understand, that in 1880, when Mr. Phelan, the former tenant, and who is now, I believe, the Chairman of the Board of Guardians, was in occupation of the premises, the valuation was increased from £36 10s. to £39 10s. The present occupier is liable for a rent of. £35, the landlord maintaining the premises and paying the taxes. None of the three Valuers who reported in favour of the reduced valuation is the officer who increased the valuation in 1880. I see no reason for stating the name of any of these officers. The reply to the last paragraph is in the negative. It was open to the Guardians to appeal against the decision of the Commissioner of Valuation in this case, and they were so informed on the 21st January last, but no steps were taken by them in this direction, and the statutory time for appealing has now lapsed.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a large amount of correspondence has passed between the Valuation and Boundary Survey of Ireland and the Carrickmacross Board of Guardians regarding reductions recently made by the revising valuer on the town property of Mr. Shirley, Carrickmacross; whether he is aware that the Carrickmacross Board of Guardians have protested against the reduction made on the property mentioned; also that other landlords in this town have had to object to increases put upon their buildings by same valuer; and whether he can say it the Valuation and Boundary Survey of Ireland gave their revising valuer any special instructions regarding the Shirley property in arriving at his decision; if so, can he state what they were?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A large amount of correspondence has passed between the Carrickmacross Board of Guardians and the Valuation Office regarding a valuation reduced in 1893, and the Guardians have protested against the same, thought they have not appealed to the Courts as they might have done if dissatisfied. I am not aware of any general protest against the valuations made in this Union, but the fact that there has not been a single appeal against any of these during the past three years would seem to show that they have been equitable. No special instructions were given to any of the valuers who were revising in this Union.

  POOR LAW OFFICERS (PENSIONS).
  MR. T. G. ASHTON (Beds,): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the information in the possession of the Local Government Board shows that the contributions from salaries of Poor Law Officers under the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act, 1896, will suffice, or almost suffice, to pay the pensions under the Act; whether his attention has been called to the calculations made by Mr. Thomas Fatkin, an expert, at the request of the Leeds Board of Guardians, and adopted by them on 13th January last, which calculations show that the contributions of the officers will barely
  1110
  suffice to pay one-third of the cost of the pensions under the Act; and whether, having regard to the fact that a Bill is before the House to extend the provisions of the Act to the officers and servants of other local authorities, he will consider the advisability of having actuarial calculations made out to determine what proportion of the cost of the pensions is likely to fall oil the ratepayers in the event of the Bill becoming law?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): The Local Government Board have no definite information as to how far the contributions from salaries of Poor Law officers under the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act, will suffice to pay the allowances under that Act. But it is to be borne in mind that in the great majority of cases of officers to which the Act refers, the Guardians, prior to the passing of the Act, were empowered to award superannuation without any contributions from the officers. The Act has conferred upon the officers the right to a superannuation, instead of its being optional with the Guardians to grant superannuation as was previously the case as regards all officers who devoted their whole time to their duties, it being at the same time made obligatory on the officers to whom the Act applies to contribute a percentage of their salaries towards the cost of superannuation. The Board have seen the communication which Mr. Fatkin has addressed to the Leeds Board of Guardians, but cannot undertake to have made the actuarial calculations suggested in the last question, and, looking to the thousands of authorities to which the Bill refers, the Local Government Board do not think there are any data on which any actuarial calculations which could be relied upon could be made.

  BOARD SCHOOL PLAYGROUNDS.
  COLONEL DALBIAC: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether it is obligatory upon School Boards in crowded urban districts to build around each school playground a wall of sufficient height to prevent the habitual personal annoyance of residents near the school, and the constant danger to passers-by from missiles?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): No, Sir; there is no such obligation, and I fear that a wall of sufficient height to prevent boys throwing stones over it would be in itself a nuisance.

  CONTRABAND TOBACCO (CHELSEA HOSPITAL).
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that of the 581 pensioners in Chelsea Hospital only eight do not use tobacco, he will consider the advisability of allotting from the contraband tobacco in the Queen's Warehouse sufficient to give to each pensioner a pipe a day, since the only objection raised, namely, the possibility of sale, may be safely disregarded owing to the extremely limited extent to which it could take place?
  MR. HANBURY: The grant of seized tobacco is confined in the first instance to cases where the tobacco would otherwise be charged upon the Votes. This covers not only the Kew and Edinburgh Botanic Gardens, but also the Criminal Lunatics at Broadmoor and Dundrum, tobacco allowance for whom used to be borne on the Votes. If a surplus of tobacco still remains over, it is given under an arrangement made in 1893 to troops going on foreign service. Such troops had always been entitled to get their tobacco duty free, and the grant therefore does not displace any duty-paid tobacco. At present, however, the issue to the troops has had to be suspended, as the supply has run short. The case of the Chelsea pensioners is, therefore, not analogous. There is no tobacco allowance for them charged on the Votes, and they are not entitled to get their tobacco duty-free. Apart from the possibility of their selling the tobacco, the hon. and gallant Member will see from what I have said that any grant made to them would be taken from troops going on foreign service.

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS (RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION).
  SIR FRANCIS POWELL: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, seeing that the present forms of
  1112
  agreement used in the case of Church of England schools contain clauses whereby the teachers undertake to give religious as well as secular instruction to the scholars under their charge, and that the form of agreement contained in Schedule VI of the Code now before Parliament might well be construed to apply to secular instruction only, it is the intention of the Education Department to require the exclusion of :111 reference to religious instruction in the agreements between managers and teachers of Voluntary Schools?
  SIR J. GORST: The Committee of Council do not consider the form of agreement given in the Code capable of the construction suggested in the Question. But it is only a model, and can be altered if managers think fit.

  NORFOLK ISLAND.
  MR. J. F. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in reference to the recently published Blue-book on the change of government in,Norfolk Island, whether any steps have been taken, or instructions issued, to prevent the unalienated lands being snapped up by strangers at insignificant prices, having regard to the value these lands will acquire in the early future, when Norfolk Island is one of the principal stations of the Pacific Cable; whether the desire of the Norfolk Island community, as expressed at page 25, that the importation of spirituous liquors should be prohibited in the future, as it has been during the past 40 years, will be respected under the new regime; and whether, as it is expressly stated at page 33, on his authority, that the appointment of the Government Resident is a temporary measure limited to the short period of 10 months, another and a permanent scheme for the future government of Norfolk Island is now in contemplation?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): It will be seen from Sections 1 and 3 of the Order in Council of January 15, published at page 50 of the Blue-book, that the Governor of New South Wales for the time being is empowered to administer the affairs of Norfolk Island, and to constitute and appoint all necessary judges, justices of the

  1113
  peace, and other public officers. Any future administrative arrangements will therefore be in the hands of the Governor; and with reference to the first part of the Question, I have no doubt that under Section 5 of the Order in Council due attention will be given to all questions connected with the alienation and transfer of lands. The new regulations as to the importation of hoer and spirituous liquors, which Were passed by the Governor in virtue of the powers already vested in him by the Order in Council of 1856, will be found at pages 40 and 41 of the Blue book.

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  MR. F. A. CHINNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any representative of the Board of Trade was present at the inquest held on. Frank Niblett, a carriage washer, who was killed at the Joint Bristol Station, on Saturday, 6th March; and whether any inquiry has been directed to be mole by an inspector or sub-inspector into the circumstances, and especially into the allegation that, while shunting and carriage washing go on most of the night, there is no adequate lighting of this portion of the lines?
  The HON. MEMBER also asked the President of the Board of Trade whether Ins attention had been called to the circumstances under which engine driver Little, of the Great Western Railway Company, met his death recently, and to the admission of the locomotive superintendent that the space between the corner of the archway where the fatality occurred and a passing engine was only about 12 to 14 inches; whether any representative of the Board of Trade was present at the inquest, or whether any local inspection or inquiry had been made or would be made by an inspector or sub-inspector of the Board; and what representations had been or would be made to the Company on the subject?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): I will answer both the hon. Member's Questions at the same time. The Board of Trade have ordered inquiries by a sub-inspector in each case. No application was made in either case by the Coroner for the attendance of an assessor at the inquest.
  MR. CHANNING: Will the inquiry take place shortly?
  MR. RITCHIE: Yes.

  BRITISH NEW GUINEA.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Sir William McGregor, Administrator of British New Guinea, has issued a proclamation forbidding Chinese to enter on any of the goldfields of that dependency until a period of three years from the first discovery of such goldfields shall have elapsed; is such a proclamation legal; and, if so, what are the reasons by which it is sought to be justified in this instance; and whether there is any precedent for such restrictive action on the part of an Administrator of an auriferous dependency?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not received any official information on the subject referred to in the Question.

  POST OFFICE (THURLES CO TIPPERARY).
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any progress has been made in the matter of providing the town of Thurles, County Tipperary, with suitable premises for the transaction of postal and telegraphic business?
  MR. HANBUIRY: An offer of premises for a new post office at Thurles is under consideration, but it has been necessary to ask for plans to assist in arriving at a decision.

  QUEEN'S DIAMOND JUBILEE (IMPERIAL STAMPS).
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is the intention of the Government to issue a special Imperial stamp or postage stamps to commemorate the Diamond Jubilee of the Queen?
  MR. HANBURY: It is not the intention of the Government to issue a special Imperial stamp or postage stamps to commemorate the Diamond Jubilee of the Queen.

  IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. PATRICK JOSEPH O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in view of the proposed acceleration of the mail service to and from the districts in the South of Ireland, any arrangement has been come to with the Great Southern and Western Railway Company to meet the requirements of the inhabitants of Roscrea, Nenagh, and Birr, as set forth in the recent petitions forwarded from these towns to the. Postmaster General on the subject; and, if not, whether steps will be taken before the new regulations come into force to make the necessary provision?
  MR. HANBURY: No arrangement has yet been come to with the Great Southern and Western Railway Company for giving effect to the wishes of the inhabitants of Roscrea, Nenagh, and Birr, as set forth in their recent petitions ; and the Postmaster General cannot undertake that an improvement of the day mail service shall be provided for. All the circumstances shall, however, be very fully examined with a view to any improvement which may be practicable hereafter.

  CHRISTIAN CHURCHES IN INDIA.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state the amount drawn annually from the taxation of India for the maintenance of Christian ecclesiastical establishments in that country; whether he can give any reasons why the charges of these churches, which exist for the benefit of the English community, should be borne by the taxpayers of India and whether, in view of the strain now put upon Indian finances by the famine, he will consider the advisability of devoting the money referred to to purposes of general service of the country?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The total charge upon Indian revenues for ecclesiastical purposes was Rx. 220,000 in 1895–96, of which sum by far the greater part was spent in pay and establishments for chaplains of various denominations serving with the Army. It has for 200 years been held, and is still hell by the Government of India,
  1116
  to be a part of their duty to provide religious ministrations, within reasonable limits, for the European Army in India, and for European civilians serving in that country. Both these classes have accepted employment in the expectation and belief that such provision would be made; and there is no intention of making any change in the present arrangements.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: Will a Return be granted of the details of this expenditure if asked for?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Yes, Sir.

  FITZGERALD ESTATE (COUNTY KERRY).
  MR. M. J. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) if he is aware that the tenants on the Fitzgerald Estate, situate at Ballydonoghue, Tarbert, County Kerry, petitioned the Court for their usual reduction of rent, and that a communication was sent by the receiver, in reply to the petition, refusing to grant the reduction of rent asked for, on the ground that the tenants have their lands in grass; (2) whether he is aware that a great portion of their holdings is under meadowing and tillage, and that reductions were granted prior to 1896; and (3) whether, owing to the year 1896 being most disastrous to tenant farmers in produce and price, steps will be taken to make inquiries into the condition of these tenants with a view to give them a reduction in their rent as heretofore?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed that the statements in the first paragraph are substantially correct. I have no information regarding the second paragraph; and as to the third paragraph; my communication in the matter should be addressed to the Department of the Land Judge.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (WATER SUPPLY).
  SIR FREDERICK DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has seen that, since the decision of the. House was given against the London County Council acquiring the control of the water supply

  1117
  of London, that Council has instructed its engineer to proceed with the plans and sections of the Wye portion of the Welsh scheme, at a cost of £1,500; and whether any and what steps can be taken to prevent tins expenditure of the ratepayers' money, and if the parties promoting the scheme can be surcharged by the Government or other auditor?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): I have ascertained that the London County Council have, subject to the passing of the Annual Maintenance Vote, assented to the expenditure referred to in the Question, and that the expenditure is considered to be authorised by Section 3 of the London Water Act, 1892. The Local Government Board have no authority to intervene to prevent the expenditure; it will, of course, devolve on the district auditor in the case of the payments referred to, as in the case of any other payments by the County Council, to consider whether the expenditure has been legally incurred.

  MADAGASCAR (BRITISH GOODS).
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the French Government are placing; import duties on certain British goods entering Madagascar, whilst French goods of a similar character are imported free; if so, whether the practice is a violation of an arrangement made with the French Government in 1890; and for how long such a violation of the French obligations has been allowed to continue; and what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to enable, British trade commodities to be imported into Madagascar on terms which would be in accordance with the signed declaration of the French Government in 1890?
  MR. CURZON: Under a Decree published in the Journal Officiel of August 8th last, French imports are admitted into Madagascar free of duty, while foreign imports continue to be subject to the ad valorem duty of 10 per cent. sanctioned by previously existing Treaties. Her Majesty's Government have addressed representations to the French Government on the subject.

  HAULBOWLINE DOCKYARD.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the labourers employed in the. Ordnance Department at Haulbowline are only in receipt of 16s. per week; and whether the Admiralty will consider the desirability of paying these men upon the Same scale as labourers employed upon similar work in other Dockyards?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. J. AUSTEN CHAMBEIILAIN,): The hon. and gallant Member is apparently under a misapprehension. There are no labourers employed under the Admiralty in the Ordnance Department at Haulbowline. The Question should apparently be addressed to the War Office.

  CRETE.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the proposed autonomy of Crete is to be effective in the sense that it will enable the Cretans to choose their own ruler and their own form of rule; and whether the proclamation stated to have been issued by the Admirals to the Cretans contains, or is accompanied by, a definition or explanation of the suggested autonomy?
  MR. CURZON: The choice of a ruler and the precise form of constitution are matters for which the Great Powers have assumed the responsibility. The proclamation issued by the Admirals on the 19th inst. defines the proffered autonomy as complete autonomy subject to the suzerainty of the Sultan, and explains that Cretans will be free from all control of the Porte as regards their internal affairs. The Proclamation further states that the Powers in concert are framing regulations for the functions of the autonomous regime which will restore order, and will guarantee, without distinction of race or religion, liberty and security of property, and the development of the resources of the island.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I gather from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that the clause, which I understand was suggested by our Consul, Sir A. Biliotti, excluding the power of the Sultan, has appeared in the Proclamation. The statement has been made that the Admirals insisted upon the excision of that clause.
  MR. CURZON: I do not think that there can be any truth in the latter report. Whether the clause was suggested by Sir A. Biliotti or not we have no official information, but inasmuch as it appears in the Proclamation in the form in which it was issued, I think we may assume that the reply must be in the affirmative.
  MR. T. C. H. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Government have applied for and obtained the permission of the Sovereign of Crete to land armed forces on that island?
  MR. CURZON: On February 15th, the date on which the Naval detachments were landed in Crete, the Turkish Foreign Minister informed Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople that the Sultan agreed to the temporary occupation by the Powers of such places in the island as the Admirals thought desirable.
  MR. J. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have given him private, but at the same time adequate, notice—[laughter]—namely, whether it is the fact that the insurgents chiefs at Akrotiri assert that the passage in the Report of their interview with the Admirals in which it is stated that they declared themselves satisfied with autonomy is an erroneous interpretation of their words; and that in the journal in which the details of the interview are recorded it is stated that they declared unanimously in favour of union with Greece; whether the chiefs have formally notified to the Admirals that any further communication to them must be in writing ; and whether Lord Salisbury will be prepared to take any, and, if so, what, measures to guard in the future against similar misconstructions and misunderstandings?
  MR. CURZON: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy, which he has explained to the House.
  1120
  [Laughter.] In reply to the Question, I have to say that we have never heard that the insurgent chiefs at Akrotiri in their interview with the Admirals declared themselves satisfied with autonomy. In the Admirals' Report of the interview on March 10, the substance of which I have previously communicated to the House, there was no mention of any expression of opinion from the insurgents on this point. In reporting a later interview on March 19, Her Majesty's Consul mentions that the insurgents declared that nothing but annexation to Greece would satisfy them. No information has reached us as to communications by writing, nor does it appear that importance is attached thereto by the insurgents, seeing that their last interview with the Admirals on March 19 was on board one of the ships of war.
  MR. JOHN DILLONwished to ask whether a Greek vessel had been sunk by an Austrian cruiser off the coast of Crete; and, if so, why it was sunk, in view of the fact that the blockade did not begin, until yesterday?
  MR. CURZON: It appears that on March 17 the Austrian vessel Sebenico, in pursuance of the notifications of the Admirals of February 15 and 27 that the landing of munitions of war would not be permitted in Crete, went to examine a schooner flying the Greek flag, which was engaged in landing supplies of ammunition on the coast near Cape Dhia. The insurgents opened heavy fire upon the Sebenieo with rifles and cannon. The captain returned the fire, sinking the schooner and dislodging the insurgents. The crew swam ashore.
  MR. J. MCLEOD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the 600 Seaforth Highlanders who have been ordered to Crete are provided with a Presbyterian chaplain; and, if not, whether he will see that such provision is made?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): Arrangements have been made for a Presbyterian chaplain to accompany the Seaforth Highlanders, if the officer commanding should think it desirable.
  MR. MCLEOD: Do I understand that it is to be left to the officer in command to decide?
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes; the officer in command has been instructed to take a

  1121
  Presbyterian chaplain if he thinks it desirable.
  MR. MCLEOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Highlanders are practically all Presbyterians. [Laughter]
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is replying to an answer to a Question.

  HAMPTON COURT PARK.
  MR. T. SKEWES-COX: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, having regard to the letter of the 4th December last from his office to Mr. Aston, the path will now be continued across Hampton Court Park, if the funds necessary for the purpose are contributed by residents at Surbiton?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I have no reason to suppose that there is any public demand for the path in question, and I am of opinion that paths across the Park disfigure it, and should not be made except it can be shown that they are absolutely required.

  IRISH PUBLIC WORKS (SUPPLY OF FURNITURE).
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland have entered into a contract with a firm of furniture manufacturers at Redlands, Bristol, for a supply of office and other furniture; and (2) if so, whether he will lay upon the Table the tender of the firm, the contract, and the correspondence relating thereto?
  MR. HANBURY: The answer to the first paragraph is, Yes. I shall be glad to show the hon. Member both the tender and the contract. The correspondence I have not yet received, and I cannot, therefore, make any promise with regard to it.

  LAND COMMISSION (SALE OF TENANCIES).
  MR. VESEY KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will call the attention of the Land Commission to the, fact that in dealing with the sale of tenancies in their new rules they have dealt with all tenancies, including Ulster Custom tenancies, and have thereby exceeded their jurisdiction?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATRINSON,): With the permission of my right hon. Friend, I will reply to this Question. The Rules issued by the Land Commission, dated the 2nd January 1897, are merely a recast of the Rules made under the Land Act of 1881, issued in December 1883. Both the latter and the former referred, as provided by the Statutes, to sales made under the Act of 1881. Sales under the Ulster Custom are, by the express provisions of Section 1, Subsection (12) of the Act of 1881, not made under the Act at all, nor have the Rules any reference to such sales, and Section 49 of the Act of last Session preserves all the rights of the tenant under the Ulster Custom. The Land Commission have not, therefore, in any way exceeded their powers.

  CLANRICARDE ESTATE (CO. GALWAY).
  MR. JOHN ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to- the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that a tenant on the Clanricarde Estate, named John Hanly, of Clonmoylan, Woodford, who was evicted in 1888 for two years' rent, was reinstated in April 1895 on payment of two years' rent and costs; that within twelve months after reinstatement Hardy was processed to sessions held at Gort last April for nine years' rent; that the nine years' rent were made out in the following manner, viz., three years that elapsed between date of decree and eviction, during which time Hanly was caretaker (and not liable for rent), together with the six years he was out of his farm; and (2) whether, in view of the landlord's refusal to recognise Part V of the Land Law (Ireland) Act of 1896, will he introduce or support a Bill making Part V compulsory on the Clanricarde Estate?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In 1888 Hanly was served with a notice constituting him a caretaker under the, 7th Section of the Land Act of 1887, but he I was not evicted until May 1890, and in the interval he was in occupation and had the use of the farm. He was out of the farm for four years and ten months, and was reinstated in March 1895, upon payment of two years' rent and costs, and upon his agreeing to pay arrears, of which £10 was to be paid within six months. Failing to fulfil his agreement he was

  1123
  processed to Gort Quarter Sessions for nine years' rent, when the case, in consequence of the solicitor not having the agreement in Court, was dismissed. An appeal was lodged to the following summer assizes, but meanwhile Haply had effected a settlement with the landlord by agreeing to pay a year's rent forthwith and a further sum of £15 by instalments. The decision at Quarter Sessions was reversed at Assizes; Haply was released from any further obligation, and both he and his counsel acknowledged he had obtained liberal terms. Hanly now states that he is perfectly satisfied with the settlement made with him by the agent. The last paragraph of the Question has no relevancy to the case of Haply, who is now a tenant in full possession. The answer would, in any case, be in the negative.

  QUEEN'S JUBILEE (YEOMANRY CAVALRY).
  MAJOR WYNDHAM-QUIN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will make such arrangements as will enable detachments of Yeomanry Cavalry to be present at the forthcoming celebration of the 60th anniversary of Her Majesty's reign?
  MR. BRODRICK: The details for the celebration are still under consideration; but the presence of some Yeomanry is contemplated.

  INDIAN FAMINE.
  MR. T. R. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the statement made by Sir James Westland as to the cost of the famine and its effects on the finances of India, he can state in what way the Government are prepared to aid in defraying from Imperial funds part of the expenditure on famine relief?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The state of things in India is at present as follows. In the face of a famine of almost unexampled extent and severity, the Government of India have spared no expense in their efforts to prevent or mitigate its effects, and, thanks to the means which the foresight of previous Governments has provided, and to the zeal and vigour with which they have been used, those efforts have been on the
  1124
  whole very successful. In spite of the very heavy charge and loss of revenue, estimated at Rx.11,000,000 net, which this condition of affairs has entailed, the Government of India estimate the deficit for the closing financial year at not more than Rx.1,987,000, and that for the coming year at Rx.2,464,000. They propose to carry on without interruption or postponement all the great public works winch they have begun or have undertaken to begin, and, mainly for this purpose of productive expenditure, which is virtually a further insurance against future famines, they propose to borrow Rx.4,000,000 in India and £3,500,000 sterling in England, besides £1,000,000 temporary debt. With the view of insuring against the financial loss involved by possible famines, a surplus revenue has for many years been raised and devoted to the avoidance or reduction of debt, and the loans which it is now intended to incur form part of the general policy of borrowing for remunerative railway construction, and must not be attributed merely, or even mainly, to the results of the famine. The credit of the Government of India has, I believe, never been appreciably higher than at the present moment. In these circumstances no application for assistance has been made by the Government of India, nor do Her Majesty's Government as at present advised see any reason to anticipate such application by an offer of financial aid.

  SALE OF ESTATE (CO. CORK).
  MR. JAMES GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether an absolute order has been made for the sale of the estate of Robert Hedges Eyre White, situated near Bantry, county Cork; and (2) if so, whether he can state approximately when the sale will take place?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The reply to the first inquiry is in the affirmative. The rental is in progress of settlement, but it would not be possible, at present, to state even approximately the date at which the sale will take place.

  VOLUNTEER ARTILLERY.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether any

  1125
  of that portion of the Artillery attached to the Volunteers which is described as Field Artillery consists of batteries having trained horses of their own; and, if so, how many such horses the Volunteer Artillery possesses in all?
  MR. BRODRICK: Artillery Volunteer corps haring field batteries or batteries of position are not required to possess horses for battery work; but they are granted a money allowance with which to hire them, and a condition of the grant is that the full complement of horses shall be producible, whenever required. The arrangement has been found satisfactory.

  ALDERSHOT (CANTEENS AND MESSES).
  MR. MCLEOD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War Whether he is aware that an officer commanding a regiment at Aldershot lately came into possession of a document showing that commissions had been paid by a firm of brewers to various persons at the Camp in connection with the sale of beer to canteens and messes; and whether an inquiry into this matter was held; and, if so, with what result?
  BRODRICK: The facts are as stated in the Question. A searching, inquiry has been held, and the Report is, at present, under consideration.

  ESTATE RECEIVERS (CO. KERRY).
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg, to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will grant a Return showing the estates in the county of Kerry over which receivers have been appointed since 1879, giving respectively the owner of the estate, name, and residence of the receiver appointed?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Return in question would be very troublesome to prepare, and I am not aware that it would serve any useful purpose. If, however, the hon. Member desires to have this special information regarding a particular property in the county, and will communicate with me on the subject, I will endeavour to procure the information for him.

  TUNNEL (IRELAND AND SCOTLAND).
  MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the
  1126
  recent improvements in engineering methods, and especially in the art of tunnel boring, he will appoint a Royal Commission or some properly qualified technical Committee to inquire, into the feasibility of constructing a tunnel between Ireland and Scotland; and whether, in the event of such body reporting favourably upon the project both from the engineering and from the financial point of view, he will recommend that the cost of making this important addition to the internal communications of the United Kingdom be defrayed wholly or in part front national resources?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In answer to my hon. Friend, I have to say that I am quite, prepared to consult with the President of the Board of Trade on the subject of the question, but I fear the financial aspects of any such engineering undertakings as my hon. Friend suggests are not of a very promising character.

  BRITISH TROOPS IN INDIA (HEALTH).
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what steps the, Government propose to take with reference to the Memorandum and Report of the Departmental Committee on the health of the Army in India?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have, with much regret, asked my hon. and gallant, Friend more than once to put off this Question, and I am afraid I must ask hint again to postpone it until Thursday, when I hope the Government will be able to make a statement on the subject. [Cheers.]

  SUPPLY (SCOTTISH ESTIMATES).
  MR. MCLEOD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, for the convenience of Scottish Members, he will state when it is proposed to take the Scottish Estimates?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I will endeavour to give due notice of the time when the Scotch Estimates will come on. But I am afraid I cannot at the present moment forecast precisely when that day will be.
  MR. MCLEOD: May we assume that they will not be taken before Easter?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes; I think you may.

  PUBLIC WORKS (WEST COAST OF SCOTLAND).
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the public works established on the West Coast of Scotland in 1891 were the public works to which he referred in his programme, published in East Manchester in 1895; and, if not, whether he can state the nature of the works to which he then made a promissory reference?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Whenever I have referred to public works in the Highlands, those works have been intended to facilitate and improve communication between the Western Highlands and other parts of the country.

MARKET GARDENERS' COMPENSATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred from Tomorrow till Tuesday, 30th March.
MOTIONS
  DANGEROUS PERFORMANCES.
  Bill to extend the age under which the employment of young persons in dangerous per-promances is prohibited, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jesse Collings and Secretary Sir Matthew White 'Ridley ; presented and Bead the First Time ; to be read a Second lime upon Monday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 164.]
  PUBLIC OFFICES (WHITEHALL) SITE.
  Bill for the acquisition of a Site for Public Offices in or near Whitehall; and for other purposes connected therewith, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Akers-Douglas, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, end Mr. Hanbury; presented, and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed.—[Bill 165.]
VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS BILL.
Third Reading deferred till Thursday.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  MILITARY WORKS (MONEY) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, in the Chair.]
  [PROGRESS, 22ND MARCH.]
  Clause 2,—

  BORROWING FOR PURPOSES OF ACT, AND ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT.
  (1.) The Treasury may, if they think fit, at any time for the purpose of providing money for the issue of sums out of the Consolidated Fund under this Act, or the repayment to that fund of all or any part of the sums so issued, borrow money by means of terminable annuities for such period not exceeding thirty years from the passing of this Act as the Treasury may fix, and all sums so borrowed shall be paid into the Exchequer.
  (2.) The said annuities shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament for army services; and if those moneys are insufficient, shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof, but shall not be payable as part of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt.
  (3.) The Secretary of State shall in every financial year cause to be made out and laid before the House of Commons an account, in the form required by the Treasury, of the money expended and borrowed and the securities created under this Act, and the accounts of expenditure under this Act shall be audited and reported upon by the Comptroller and Auditor General as appropriation accounts sin manner directed by the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER)ruled that the Amendment standing in the name of Mr. VESEY KNOX (Londonderry)—[in Sub-section (1), after the word "fix" to insert the words "having regard as to buildings rand furniture, to the periods allowed for the repayment of loans raised by local authorities for expenditure of a like character"]—was out of order, as the Committee had already decided that the period of the loan was to be in the discretion of the Treasury.
  MR. T. LOUGHmoved, after Sub-section (1) to insert.
  "Every loan raised in pursuance of this section shall be discharged before such date as may be fixed by the Treasury."

  1129
  He thought the right hon. Gentleman would have no objection to these words. The great fault he found with this part of the Bill, which governed the granting of the loan, was, that it was much more carelessly drawn than was the Bill of 1890. The words he proposed were adopted front the Bill of 1890.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,)said the Amendment was really quite unnecessary. He pointed out that the House had already agreed to a provision as to the period of terminable annuities.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. KNOXmoved, in Sub-section (2), to leave out from the word "services" to the end of the Sub-section. He contended that these words were unnecessary and misleading. It was absurd to say that this money was not to be part of the permanent annual charge on the National Debt. It would come out of the Consolidated Fund, and to all intents and purposes it would be the same as any of her part of the National Debt.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid the object of these words was, that if there was any deficiency of the money voted for Army services in a, particular year, the sum should be charged on, and be paid out of the Consolidated Fund.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that if the words were omitted the War Office would have no option but to come to Parliament for the money; whereas, if the words were retained they would have an option in the matter. They found when the Estimates were before them, that, owing to the influence which these loan Bills exerted, it was impossible to tell how much was spent in any year on the Army or Navy, end this Bill tended to widen that influence.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid it might hap-pen, owing to expeditions or otherwise, that the sum voted for the Army in a particular year was exceeded. In that case the matter would conic before the Public Accounts Committee, and, therefore, in such a case the matter would have to be sanctioned by the House. This provision was a safeguard to prevent the sum being charged on the National Debt.
  MR. KNOXsaid the Public Accounts Committee, although ranking very high among the Committees of that House, was not equivalent to the House itself. The position was really this, if this provision was retained the War Office would be able each year to exceed their expenditure on the ordinary Military Estimates without being compelled to present to the House a supplementary Estimate. He thought that was a most objectionable provision.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,)said that if the Amendment were adopted the result would be that the Treasury would be unable to borrow the money at all, because it was necessary that the charge should be imposed on the Consolidated Fund in order that proper security might be given to the persons who would lend. The object of the words the end of the section, providing that the monies should not be payable as part of the permanent charge for the National Debt, was to secure that the charge might not escape the notice of Parliament, but should be brought under the cognisance of Parliament every year.
  MR. KNOXsaid that as lie understood the effect of the provision, it would be possible for the War Office to apply the amount voted for annuities to meet an excess of expenditure under some other head of the Army Estimates, and to leave the annuities to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that the Treasury will take care that nothing of the kind is done. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. J. A. PEASE: Would it be possible for the War Office, under this Bill, to avoid coming to the House for a Supplementary Estimate they exceed the monies provided by the House?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It would be impossible. ["Hear, hear!"]
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. LOUGHmoved, in Sub-section (3), to omit the words "of the money expended and borrowed, and the securities

  1131
  created under this Act," in order to insert the words, "showing as follows:—

  "(a) The money expended during that year in pursuance of this Act, and the purposes on which that money was expended, distinguishing the expenditure under each of the heads in the schedule to this Act; and

  "(b) The mode in which that money was provided, and the securities (if any) created for providing the same; and

  "(c) The aggregate of money expended since the passing of this Act on the purposes thereof, and the aggregate amount of money borrowed, and of securities (if any) created for providing for the same; and

  "(d) The balance (if any) of the sums authorised by this Act to be issued."

  The object of the Amendment, which consisted mainly of the provisions embodied in the Barracks Act of 1890, where they had worked well, was to secure that the fullest and completest information of the expenditure miller the Bill was laid yearly before the House.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERassured the hon. Member that there was really nothing in the Amendment that was not covered by the words of the Bill. So far from there being any deep design on the part of the War Office to deprive Parliament of information in the matter, the words of the Barracks Act of 1890 were not inserted in the clause simply because it was found by the Treasury on investigation that the clause as it stood was just as effective for the purpose aimed at.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that the right hon. Gentleman's defence of the words of the Bill, so far as borrowing was concerned, was complete. The same security was given in the Bill in the matter of borrowing as was given in the Barracks Act of 1890. But the most important provision in his Amendment was that which related to the expenditure being set on that under set and distinct heads. He contended that under Clause 1, the War Office, if they effected a saving under one, head, could apply that saving to cover an over expenditure under another head, without coining to the House for a Supplementary Estimate, or the House knowing anything about it. They could not stop the work, but they could at least secure that the House of Commons should know how the expenditure had been incurred.
  MR. D. F. GODDARDremarked that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not said that the words of
  1132
  the Amendment were wrong, but that the words in the Bill really amounted to the same thing. He would suggest that, as the words of the Amendment would not do any harm to the Bill, or detract one iota from its force, but would simply render it compulsory, that there should be a full and complete statement made to the House as to the way the money had been expended, the Amendment should be accepted by the Government.
  SIR C. DILKEremarked that, as there were five different Loan Acts running at the same time, it was difficult, under the present form of account, to ascertain under which of them the money might be spent in a particular year. He had himself experienced this difficulty. The amount of money which had been repaid, for instance, in connection with the Army or Navy, was not shown, and they had to turn to the Estimates to see whether there was any item to be deducted from the total amount of loan. There was thus a great risk of confusion arising when they wished to ascertain the total amount of the expenditure. For his part, he should be satisfied if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would undertake either to make himself each year a very full statement to the House, or see that one was made at least once a year, showing the expenditure under each of the different heads in a particular year for both services. All he desired was, that the House should have an opportunity of knowing, year by year, the exact amount that had been spent in this way, and what was to be added to the amount voted in the Estimates for these services.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERpointed out that the Amendment did not in effect differ from the words in the Bill, but it laid down most minutely the exact form of procedure. The right hon. Baronet was not satisfied with the form of accounts which had appeared in the past, as it did not convey a sufficiently full statement of what had been done. He was very much inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He thought it important, especially from the point of view of the. Chancellor of the Exchequer, that Parliament and the country should know thoroughly the sum of money that was being spent every year on the Army and the Navy, whether it were by annual estimate or by way of works, under Bills

  1133
  of this kind. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman if he would favour him with any suggestion as to the adoption of a clearer form in the future he should be very glad to receive it. He hope I, for the reasons he had given, the hon. Member for Islington would not press his Amendment. He could assure the hon. Gentleman he was quite as anxious as he that this information should be given, so that it might be known what had been done, because he thought it might be sonic check on the applications which were made for expenditure.
  MR. J. A. PEASEasked if the words as they; it present stood in the Bill would provide that the money expended should be shown under the various heads, so that Members could distinguish how much had been spent on each?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied in the affirmative.
  MR. LOUGHdid not think the right hon. Gentleman had made out any case for rejecting the Amendment, which he should accordingly press to a division.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 193; Noes, 73.—(Division List, No. 139.)
  On the question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill,"
  MR. J. CALDWELLurged that the money to pay for the works under the Bill ought to have been provided out of the ordinary Estimates, and not by borrowing. To defend the borrowing on the, ground that these works were permanent was the most extraordinary step. He should have called attention to this before, though he voted for the Second Reading of the Bill, had not discussion been closed after ten minutes' debate. It was no part of State policy to spread the payment of works over a period of years because the works were called permanent. That was a procedure strictly confined to local government, where resources were limited. A post office was a permanent work, but the whole expenditure on it was provided for in one year's Estimates. Pictures purchased for the nation were paid for at once. Ships for the Navy were
  1134
  paid for within the time occupied by their construction. These proposals of the Government were a new method of creating a national debt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had plenty of money to pay for works as they were completed; but he even refused to reduce the period of repayment from 30 years to 15 years. As a protest against such an enormous amount of money being provided for by loan he should vote against the clause.
  MR. T. LOUGHsaid that there was nothing left but to vote against the Clause, which was thoroughly had. The main provision was thrust upon the House suddenly. It was not embodied in the Barrack Act of 1890, though the House had been assured that it was; and if the House had realised that fact, the provision would not have been passed on Thursday. If a shorter period were adopted the difference in amount would not be so much as might be supposed, and sound finance required that the expenditure of the year should be met by the Estimates for the year. His right hon. Friend came into the House in an amiable mood, and said if something was promised he would support the Government; but why should not the promises find expression in the Bill itself? The clause was a bad clause, and should be modified in the direction of the Act of 1890. If the objection were carried to division he should vote against the Clause.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISargued that it was not right to lay an undue burden on posterity in matters of this kind, and the Bill should follow the precedent of the Imperial Defence Act of 1888. The objects of that Act were practically the same as those of the present Bill, the construction of certain works of defence involving an expenditure of £2,600,000, and the term of repayment provided was 12 years. Why had the Government now extended the period to 30 years? As a matter of general policy it was wrong to have such a long period as 30 years. In local loans a shorter period was insisted upon, and there was no reason for departing from the salutary principle in Imperial matters. Some explanation should be forthcoming.
  MR. CALDWELLhoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not allow the Clause to be taken without an explanation.
  THE CHANCELLOR or THE EXCHEQUERsaid it had already been stated by the Under Secretary for War that the term fixed was the maximum term, and not necessarily the term for which all the money would be borrowed, and this maximum term was adopted from the precedent of the Naval Works Act, 1895, passed by the late Government. So much of the work included in the present Bill was of a permanent character that the term of 30 years was fully justified. There was land taken for manœuvres, ranges, and earth works, and expenditure on permanent barracks, replacing temporary huts, which would last for far longer than 30 years, and probably for 100 years, as the hon. Member opposite had suggested. Throughout the entire Bill the expenditure was of a nature that should not be thrown upon the taxpayers of a few years to come; it should be fairly spread over a reasonable number of years for the alleviation of the burden.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the question as to State policy. He went back to the only precedent he could find, that of 1895—
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid it was not the only precedent.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid a better precedent was the Naval Defence Act, where the period was 12 years, and the works took several years to complete.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid surely the hon. Member would not compare the life of a ship to the duration of these permanent works?
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he would not, but there was a fair comparison in the buildings that had been constructed, and for Civil Service and Post Office purposes a period of 15 years had been considered a sufficient period to cover the cost of constructing permanent buildings.
  Question put, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 150; Noes, 60.—(Division List, No. 140.)
  Clause 3,—

  APPLICATION OF SURPLUS INCOME OF YEAR 1896–7 FOR EXPENSES OF SCHEDULED WORK.
  (1.) Such sum as is shown by the account certified by the Comptroller and Auditor-General under section four of the Sinking Fund Act, 1875, to be the surplus of income above expenditure for the financial year ending the thirty-first day of March one thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven shall, instead of being applied as provided by the above-mentioned. Act, be set apart in the Exchequer account and applied by the Treasury at such times as they direct in paying any sums authorised by this Act to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund.
  (2.) The amount which the Treasury may borrow under this Act shall be reduced by the amount set apart in the Exchequer account in pursuance of this section.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that he desired to ask the meaning of this clause. Why was the Sinking Fund Act of 1875 dragged in? He was constantly suspicious that works would be carried out without the sanction of Parliament being previously obtained; and, at least, he claimed that when the works were done there should be an account of them within the year, so that they might know how the money had been expended.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid the clause was a copy of a similar clause in the Naval Works Act of last year, under which the amount to be raised by loans would be reduced, and the surplus of the year would be available in relief of loans for the future under this Bill. That was the object of the clause, and it was one which should commend itself to hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  MR. CALDWELLsaw the point precisely. If this clause were not accepted, then any surplus would go to the reduction of the National Debt, and the effect of the clause was to intercept the money. But what the Government were proposing to do here was that out of the

  1137
  balance of the different accounts, instead of applying the money to the reduction of past debt, they were going to appropriate it to the purposes of future expenditure.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No. The object of the clause is really to avoid paying off debt with one hand and borrowing with the other.
  MR. LOUGHthought the assurance that this was exactly the same clause as was in the Act of 1895 went a long way to meet his objection.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 4,—

  SHORT TITLE.
  This Act may be cited as the Military Works Act 1897.

  REPORTS TO PARLIAMENT.
  MR. LOUGHmoved the following new clause:—
  The Treasury shall report to Parliament whenever any excess is allowed to be so applied, and shall in such report specify how and out of what items the savings are expected to be made, and what is the amount of the estimated excess on each item.
  He thought the right hon. Gentleman had promised that this point would be dealt with, but it ought to be in the Bill. The clause seemed a reasonable one, because it was evident, from the large round sums which were taken, that there would be large savings out of them. As the Bill now stood, any amount saved upon any particular item might be applied by the Secretary of State for War to any new works, even to works not specified in the Bill at all. The Committee should have some details of what could be done in this way. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would yield something on this point. The clause was only carrying out the promise which had already been given.
  Clause read the First time.
  On the Motion "That the Clause be read a Second time,"
  MR. BRODRICKsaid the hon. Member wished to secure that all possible information should be given, as well as control by Parliament. The Government had no desire to exclude Parliament from any information or control. The hon. Member seemed to think that the Treasury and the War Office would be able to exchange gigantic sums from one head to another; but he seemed to forget that the Treasury existed in order to check the extravagant use of powers by any Department. If the Government did not give the whole of the items in all the heads of the schedule it was not because there was any desire to conceal from Parliament what they were doing; but on defence works especially it was not desirable that we should tell the whole world what we were spending at each place. Parliament had never asked hit her to that this should be done, but if the clause were inserted this would be the effect of it, and any check obtained would be gained at the expense of publicity, which it was the desire of Parliament to avoid. The War Office had undertaken to lay before the House every year, not merely the statements of the expenditure in the past year, but also an estimate of the probable expenditure for the following year.
  MR. LOUGHasked why that promise should not be incorporated in the Bill It should be borne in mind that the right hon. Gentleman might not always be in his present position, and how in these circumstances could the right hon. Gentleman pledge his successors?
  MR. BRODRICKsaid that they were following the previous practice. The War Office had always shown this expenditure, and it was not necessary to put the provision in the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the clause be read a Second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 48; Noes, 137.—(Division List, No. 141.)

  SCHEDULE.

  MILITARY WORKS.

  Heads. (1)

  Estimated Cost. (2)

  £

  1. Defence works

  1,120,000

  2. Barracks, including completion of large camps

  2,989,000

  3. Ranges, including accommodation for manœuvring and mobilization

  1,149,000

  4. Staff and contingencies

  200,000

  TOTAL

  £5,458,000

  Note.—The above works are partly new works and partly works which have been commenced and not completed under the Imperial Defence Act, 1888(51 & 52 Vict. C. 32), and the Barracks Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. C. 25).

  Question proposed, "That this be the Schedule of the Bill."
  On the return of the CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, after the usual interval,
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, in reply to Mr. Lough, on a point of order, said the hon. Member was right in assuming that the Amendments on the Paper to the schedule were not in order. He did not say that Amendments could not be put down that would be in order.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he should be glad to know whether he could put down an Amendment on which he could discuss the question of the fortifications of London.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid it was not his business to tell the hon. Member how to frame his Amendment.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Is the Amendment of the hon. Member for Derry out of order?
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Certainly.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Then I cannot ask as to the amount spent in Ireland?
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I do not think that Debate could arise upon that matter.
  MR. CALDWELLsupposed they were entitled to ask for an explanation where these defensive works were to be.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid lie had already dealt with the point.
  MR. J. H. DALZIELasked what was the expenditure in Scotland?
  MR. BRODRICKsaid if they began to give the expenditure in different places they would be giving that information to foreign countries which they had already declined to give.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid that there was one point to which he wished to invite attention. A portion of this money was to go to providing a camp of exercise, but that camp was situated at a great distance from a large number of corps in Scotland. The policy of the War Office had been to consolidate the armed forces in one centre, but this left the Militia and Volunteers in Scotland without fair facilities for exercise. He was not asking for any addition to the Vote any more than lie was suggesting any reduction of the Vote, but he hoped that the policy indicated by the Bill did not mean that the question of a camp in Scotland was to be debarred from the consideration of the War Office. There should be a northern as well as a southern camp, and without that he believed it would be difficult to secure recruits for the Regulars and efficiency in the Scottish regiments. There ought to be, for the proper exercising of the troops, a camp in the North of England or in. Scotland.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid he fully realised the importance of the point raised by the hon. Member. In Scotland they raised some of the finest regiments in the service. His hon. Friend had not developed any policy to-night. One of the difficulties they had to meet in Scotland was, that the country was so prosperous, that it was not easy to find an extent of land suitable for the purpose at a moderate figure. At the same time they wished to make military instruction as accessible

  1141
  as possible to the regiments north of the Tweed.
  MR. J. P. FARREILcomplained of the massing of troops in huge barracks, thus taking them away from the small towns. He asked whether any portion of this large sum of money would be spent in making the Longford barracks sufficient for the purposes of a headquarters barracks. He did not think it was quite fair to the people of the locality to deprive them of the presence of the troops, who were a source of revenue to the town. He thought the question deserved some attention, and if the right hon. Gentleman did not see his way to give some satisfactory reply, he would have to ask his Friends to go to a division.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBunderstood that part of this money was to be spent on barracks in Wynberg, and be would like to ask what was the nature of the tenure of the land on which the barracks were to be constructed. So far as he could ascertain, land for Imperial purposes could only be obtained and held subject to the goodwill of a self-governing colony. He would also like to know whether it was contemplated that the troops to be accommodated in these barracks were to be used for the general purposes of a self-governing colony which did not contribute to their support, or for the Imperial purpose of garrisoning the sea works and maintaining the Imperial base.
  MR. J. COLVILLEsaid it was desirable that the Committee should know what proportion of these large stuns of money was to be expended in Scotland. Seeing that Scotland paid more than her fair share to the Imperial Exchequer, she ought to benefit by the expenditure.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL WILLIAMS,), in reply to his hon. and gallant Friend, said that, in the opinion of the Military authorities, the proposals brought forward by the War Office with respect to the Cape of Good Hope were the best that could be made in the national interest. He was not able to say exactly the terms on which the land at Wynberg would be acquired and held, but his hon. and gallant Friend might be perfectly satisfied that no building would take place there unless the War Office authorities were
  1142
  sure that the tenure was secure. With regard to the Longford barracks, he could not tell the hon. Gentleman who raised the question, for reasons which had been accepted by the Committee, any details with regard to the expenditure. It was not in the public interest that such details should be given. Of course, he could quite understand the interest taken by the hon. Gentleman in the matter; but unfortunately these things had to be determined, not on considerations such as the wishes of the inhabitants of a locality, but according to the views of the Military authorities, and they came to the conclusion that the headquarters ought, for military reasons, to be removed front Longford.
  SIR J. COLOMBasked whether he was to understand that money was to be spent, on a site the tenure of which had not been settled?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: No.
  SIR J. COLOMBthought it was most desirable that the Committee should be perfectly clear as to what they were doing in this matter. [" Hear, hear !"]
  MR. BRODRICKsaid there was no difficulty about the, site. They did not, propose to build on land the title to which was not secure.
  SIR J. COLOMB: But can my right hon. Friend say what the title is?
  MR. BRODRICKsaid that that was a solicitor's question. He was not in possession of the titles under which barracks were held by Great Britain till over the world. All he could say was that the Department would take good care that the title was secure before they built on a single inch of the ground. There was no case that he could remember within the last ten years in which the title of land acquired by the War Office had proved defective.
  SIR J. COLOMBsaid that when he was told that the military authorities considered this the best site, he wanted to know whether they considered it so front the point of view of the troops accommodated there being used for Imperial purposes, or for the general purposes of the Cape Colony.["Hear, hear !"]
  MR. BRODRICKsaid that the General Officer Commanding in a Colony had first to see to the defence of the Imperial Coaling Station; and, secondly, to make use the troops for such general purposes

  1143
  as might be found necessary in the particular colony.
  SIR J. COLOMBsaid he would ask the right hon. Gentleman how far Wynberg was from the Cape, position at Table Bay? ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. BRODIRICKsaid it was at a distance of about eight miles. Surely it was not supposed that our relations with foreign Powers were such that we dare not keep any of the troops more than 100 yards from the guns. Every man could be on the spot in a couple of hours.
  MR. DALZIELthought that I he question asked as to the tenure of the land was a very reasonable one. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would agree that, in view of the number of imperial troops stationed in South Africa during recent years, this expenditure was a very large one indeed. Here they bad a proposed expenditure for hospital and barrack accommodation of £160,000 in one particular place. He wanted to know the facts upon which it was determined to incur this expenditure; what recommendations were made, and who was responsible for them? He also wished to know whether there had been any communication with Cape Colony to ascertain whether or not the Government of that Colony would bear any portion of this expenditure? Was the British taxpayer to have to pay unaided for the defence of the Cape? Had the Cape Government been asked whether they could bear any portion of this expenditure, and was there anything to show that they had been consuited and approved of this expenditure?
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid that he had been to Wynberg, and that the situation was a very fine one. It was one of the most beautiful suburbs of Cape Town, and certainly the officers and men quartered there would have no cause to complain from a social point of view. The question of tenure was important because the colony, it must be remembered, was not, exclusively a British colony. There were certain circumstances that made it very important that the question of tenure should be gone into very carefully indeed. With, reference to the defence works, on which, a sum of £1,120,000 was to be spent, he wished to know where the money was to go. In connection with the Naval Works Bill they had had a full statement as to the places where the money was to be spent, and as to the,
  1144
  particular objects in view. Why was not similar information given on this occasion? At all events more general information ought to be supplied.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that the proposed distribution of the money was very bad indeed. For example, a sum of £600,000 was set aside for expenditure in Ireland on a class of work which many people disapproved of entirely. What the Irish people wanted was a reduction of taxation, and the attempt to compensate them for their over-taxation by extravagant naval or military expenditure in Ireland would not answer. It would have been far better to use the money in making some sort of provision for our troops on Salisbury Plain. The Bill provided for nothing except the purchase of the land. There was no provision for the erection of any buildings on this waste place near Stonehenge. The first item in the class of defence works was £97,000 for the fortification of London. On this subject a great deal of discussion had taken place in the public Press, but in that House it had been treated as a great mystery. He believed that, as a matter of fact, anyone was at liberty to walk round the existing defences, which were in most absurd places on the hills round London.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: This question was raised and thoroughly discussed on the first clause, and the hon. Member is not entitled to repeat the whole of his arguments, or to raise the question again.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that there was an item of £260,000 proposed to be expended in St. Lucia. With regard to this they had not heard a word from the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Some justification ought to be given for this extraordinary item. It was for defraying the cost of transferring, the military headquarters from Barbadoes to St. Lucia. That, as far as they knew, Barbadoes was the best place for the headquarters. There were 200,000 people in the island, while in St. Lucia there were only 45,000. With Barbadoes there was considerable trade, but there was hardly any with St. Lucia, which, he understood, was a most unhealthy place. There were only about 700 or 800 soldiers in Barbadoes, and he did not understand why it should be necessary to spend £260,000 in housing that handful of men in St. Lucia. In

  1145
  Mauritius it was proposed to spend £169,000 on barracks and other works, and here again no justification had been given for the expenditure. Why were these large sums of money to be spent in remote parts? He did not believe in the plan of scattering the Army all over the world. It would be much more satisfactory to provide good military accommodation in the capital of the Empire.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: That is quite irrelevant to the quest ion before the Committee.
  SIR J. COLOMBsaid that the justification for the steps which the Government proposed to take with regard to St. Lucia was supplied by the Report of Lord Carnarvon's Commission on Imperial Defence, a Commission that sat for three years and took evidence as to the most economical arrangements for the defence of the Empire as a whole. The Commission found that it was absolutely necessary to secure Jamaica and St. Lucia as strategic points in the West Indies. At present we had a military force divided between Barbadoes and St. Lucia, which was an inconvenient and expensive arrangement. The Government were quite right in what they intended doing. He thought that they were also right in not erecting barracks or other buildings on Salisbury Plain. For the training of troops, what was wanted was ample space and perfect liberty of movement.
  GENERAL LAURIEwould have liked to have placed himself on record as opposed to any expenditure on permanent works for the defence of London, but as this had been ruled out of order, he wished to indorse what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member with reference to the undesirability of erecting permanent buildings on Salisbury Plain.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: There is no proposal in the Bill for erecting permanent buildings on Salisbury Plain, and therefore no discussion can he raised upon the subject.
  MR. W. ALLANentirely agreed with some of the proposals of the Government. He approved, for example, of the proposal to spend £;67,000 in providing better accommodation for the garrison at Bermuda. He knew that not long ago the accommodation for the troops there was of the vilest possible description. He highly approved of the expenditure in making coaling stations
  1146
  more healthy. The radius of the action of our fleet would be determined entirely by the convenience with which ships could be coaled. Bermuda was most inadequately fortified. St. Lucia also needed proper fortification. The Mauritius ought to be the centre of our West Indian coaling stations. He was glad that money was to be spent there, because the Mauritius had been too long neglected by the military authorities. At a short distance from the Mauritius was Madagascar. At any time the Suez Canal might be closed, and we should have to find our way to India by the Cape. Besides properly fortifying the Mauritius, there ought to be ample dockage for ships. But we had no docks there. Sierra Leone and St. Helena also required coaling stations and fortifications. He believed the money proposed to be spent in fortifying coaling stations would be well spent and contribute to the safety of the Empire.
  MR. T. C. HEDDERWICKwished to press upon the War Office the desirability of erecting barracks at Dingwall.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid that would arise on War Office administration, and nut under this Bill.
  MR. CALDWELLalluded to the fortifications to be erected at Cape Town at a cost of £160,000, and said that, considering they would provide local as well as Imperial defence, we ought to stipulate fur an indefeasible title to the land on Which they would stand. The land should also not be exempted from local taxation.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSruled that this might properly be discussed on one of the War Office Votes, but it could not be discussed now.
  MR. CALDWELLthen asked what defence works were to be undertaken in Scotland. The War Office said the matter must be kept secret lest foreign Governments might know what our intentions were. But foreigners found out as soon as the works were commenced. The money would come out of the imperial purse, and Scotland, as part of the United Kingdom, should know what portion of the money would be spent there. He also wished to know how much of the money was to be devoted to the defence of the Clyde.
  MR. BRODRICK: It is intended to spend money on the defences both of the Forth and the Clyde.
  MR. LEWISasked whether anything was to be done for the fortification of Holyhead Harbour? He thought they ought also to have some adumbration of what was to be done in regard to the defence of London.
  SIR J. FERGUSSONrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Debate resumed.
  COLONEL WELBYasked the right hon. Gentleman what accommodation was going to be provided for the troops who were going through their musketry course On Salisbury Plain? There were men who were attached permanently to a range who would suffer during inclement weather if accommodation were not provided. He would ask whether it was to be simply a musketry camp, or whether it was going to be a large base like Aldershot? Was there going to be sufficient accommodation to turn it into a large permanent camp? He asked these questions as a practical soldier, and had no desire to waste the time of the Committee. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. BRODIRICKsaid there was not the least intention of creating a second Aldershot on Salisbury Plain. The object was, in the first instance, to afford a manœuvring ground for the troops, some of whom would probably belong to the Militia or the Volunteers. They should provide a range with the object of carrying out that portion of the training. There was no intention of erecting a great number of permanent barracks on Salisbury Plain, as had been done at Aldershot.
  MR. JOHN DILLONsaid he objected to the way in which the money had been spent in regard to Dublin Barracks. Unfortunately he was not able to enter into the matter in detail, as he had left the materials he had prepared at home, but the waste of money had been a scandal and disgrace to the War Office. He objected also to the expenditure on the military accommodations of St. Lucia, as being inconsistent with the policy of this country towards the United
  1148
  States of America. If the Government really desired to have peace with the United States, he argued, they would not select this moment to set up a great arsenal at the door of the United States. He assumed that this step was decided on last year at the time of the Venezuelan difficulty. This expenditure was in a different category to that proposed at the Cape, because they were all looking out now for war at the Cape.
  SIR C. DILKEsaid that a Commission had reported ten years ago in favour of the proposed works at St. Lucia as a naval basis in the West. Indies, and they had no conceivable connection with what had happened last year between this country mid America. [Ministerial cheers.] There was every reason to hope that if we were engaged in a great war the United States would be neutral and would feed us; and, therefore, this expenditure was in no way directed against that country. ["Hear, hear!"] In fact, if the United States did not exist, the expenditure at St. Lucia would still be necessary. ["Hear, hear!"] As regarded London, he thought the use of the word "fortifications" in connection with a scheme that involved an expenditure of only £120,000 was ridiculous; but if any large expenditure were contemplated in that direction it would be better to spend it on the Fleet, which must be the real defence of the country, and on field artillery.
  MR. DALZIELsaid there were two points in regard to which he thought the Committee had a right to expect some information from the Under Secretary for War. In the first place, a representative Member of the House had declared they all knew there was going to be war in South Africa, and hence this proposed expenditure at Wynberg. That was a statement that should not be allowed to pass without notice from the Under Secretary for War. [Ministerial cries of ["Divide!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Order, order! Any such discussion would be quite out of order. [Ministerial cheers.]
  MR. DALZIELsaid he did not propose to discuss anything that did not properly arise from the schedule. He would ask the Under Secretary in the first place whether any communication had passed between the War Office or any other De-

  1149
  partment, and the Government of the Cape in regard to this expenditure; and secondly, upon what evidence had Wynberg been selected fur the expenditure, as there was a difference of opinion as to the wisdom of erecting the barracks at that place. He thought the Committee was entitled to information on those two points before they assented to the Bill.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid there was not the slightest objection to giving the information the hon. Gentleman asked for. The expenditure at Wynberg was due to the fact that for more than a year some troops had been under canvas at the Cape. It was extremely bad for the men to be so quartered, if they could be housed in barracks; and the canvas system was also expensive, for the, arms and accoutrements suffered. The Secretary for the Colonies announced some months ago that it was considered desirable by the Colonial Defence Committee that in connection with the additional coaling stations, the garrison should lie increased. That was a recommendation made quite apart from the state of affairs in South Africa, and was acceded to by the Government. Wynberg was selected because it was a healthy place for the troops.
  MR. CHARLES BILL, referring to the items for hospital and barracks accommodation at Sierra. Leone, desired to know whether a new hospital was to be built or the present one wits to be enlarged, and whether a new barracks was to be erected on another site, or there was to be an extension of the existing, barracks?
  MR. BRODRICKreplied that the object of taking money for better hospital accommodation was because the present accommodation at Sierra, Leone wits not sufficient. As regarded the barracks, a final Report as to the site was being awaited before a decision was arrived at.
  Question put.—The Committee divided:—Ayes, 179; Noes, 59.—(Division List, No. 142.)
  Preamble agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be Read the Third time upon Thursday.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [5th February], "That the Bill be now Read a, Second time."
  Question again proposed:—Debate resumed.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURNsaid that this Bill, which purported to consolidate and amend the Public Health Law in Scotland, was remarkable not so much for what it contained as for what it did not contain. A number of difficulties which had been felt had not been met at all. He referred especially to the sanitation of the dwellings of farm labourers, farm servants, crofters, and small holders. These four large classes of the population were now suffering very much from the insanitary condition of their homes, which was not only dangerous but disgraceful to the country. He should like to know whether the Government were prepared to deal with this question. He had put down an Amendment declaring that the House declined to read any Public Health (Scotland) Bill a Second time unless this questions were adequately dealt with; but that Amendment he should not move at the moment. Why should not the Bill of 1895 for improving the condition of farm servants—a Measure introduced by Mr. Seymour Keay, and accorded the assent of the House—be incorporated in the present Bill? A Bill was brought forward in February 1895, by Mr. Seymour Keay, for the improvement of the accommodation for farm servants in farmhouses. He seconded the Motion for Second Reading on March 28th, and the Second Reading was carried without a division. It might, therefore, be regarded as a non-contentious Measure, and he saw no reason why its very useful provisions should not be included in the present Bill. Clause 3 of that Bill provided that the local authorities might make bye-laws to secure proper accommodation, and the proper amount of cubic space for farm servants, power being given to the medical officer to examine any buildings used for the lodging of farm servants, and to report upon their condition to the local

  1151
  authority. If the lodging was reported insanitary it became the duty of the landlord to make such alterations as would bring the place within the requirements of the bye-laws under a penalty of £5, and 20s. a day until the required alterations or repairs were completed. These proposals met with the approval of the House, and lie would ask why they were not included in this Bill, which professed to consolidate and amend the public health law of Scotland, and to be a sort of code of health for that country? This, however, it would scarcely be if it omitted to deal with some of the classes of the population now specially suffering from want of accommodation. Besides the accommodation for labourers in farm houses, there was great want of cottages in some of the agricultural districts of Scotland for labourers, crofters, and small holders. The rural population was in consequence declining, and farmers complained bitterly that they had to get their labour from the towns, and to accept the services of unskilled men in lieu of the relatives of small holders in the glens. Cottages were unhealthy and insufficient, and the present state of the law could not improve matters, but rather aggravated the evil. This was especially the complaint in the north-east of Scotland. His hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen and himself had drawn the attention of the House to this matter. What happened was this. The Medical Officer of Health was called in, and if he found a house or cottage unfit for habitation he reported it. But he hesitated to condemn it, for the result of his doing so would be the house would be pulled down, and the last state of the poor tenants would be worse than the first, for it was better to have a bad house to live in than no house at all. The medical officer was in a difficult position; he was afraid to condemn the house, for there was no power to compel a landlord to repair or rebuild. Condemnation of a house implied its demolition, and against this there was an outcry from the whole countryside. The law operated fairly well in crowded towns because ground was valuable, and it was to a landlord's advantage to rebuild the house. Not so, however, in the glens, and in agricultural parts of the country; it was there rather to the profit
  1152
  of the landlord to get rid of the house. He was willing enough to pull it down, but very unwilling to build another in its place. He preferred to include the site of it in the neighbouring farm. This was not invariably the case, and some landlords were careful to do their duty in this matter, but very often a landlord was anxious to clear off the cottages, especially when there was valuable shooting, lest the house should harbour poachers, or the poor cottagers become paupers and chargeable to the rates. This was a matter which had excited a good deal of feeling, and it was brought to the attention of the late Secretary for Scotland, who instituted an inquiry. Perhaps the Lord Advocate could say what was the result of that inquiry, and whether any proposals were made which might properly be embodied in this Bill? There was a difficulty in inducing landlords to grant sites for cottages, but if the Parish Councils were empowered to buy land for the purpose there would be little difficulty in getting houses built. At present agriculture was very much handicapped from these causes.
  MR. SPEAKERreminded the hon. Member that he was somewhat outside the objects of the Bill, which was a Public Health Bill.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURNsaid he only asked that the three points he had indicated would be favourably considered: (1) that the provisions of Mr. Seymour Keay's Bill, as it received the assent of the House, should be incorporated in the Measure; (2) that power should be taken to compel cottages to be repaired and put in a sanitary condition, and he would suggest, in order that that might not be a hardship on proprietors, that provision should be made by which public money should be advanced to them on favourable terms if they were not otherwise prepared to undertake the responsibility; and (3) that reasonable facilities should be provided, in order that sites should be obtained for suitable and sanitary houses being built either by the people themselves or by professional builders. Thus the evil of the slums in the large towns would be much reduced, and the farmers would have at hand men properly trained from their boyhood to agricultural work.
  SIR JOHN LENGsaid he did not rise to oppose the Bill now before the House. As a consolidating Measure it contained many useful clauses, but he submitted that a Public Health Bill which was likely to remain on the Statute-book for a number of years should represent the high-water mark of sanitary science and administration. There was one respect in which it appeared to him that this Measure did not reach, but fell far short of, that high-water mark It had been demonstrated, and was now generally recognised, that in our large cities and towns epidemic diseases more especially typhoid and scarlet fever, were largely due to the importation of milk from infected farm-houses, dairies and cow-sheds. Two of our largest cities in Scotland—Edinburgh and Glasgow—and also one of our towns—Greenock—had for a number of years been in the enjoyment of powers enabling their sanitary inspectors to proceed to infected farm-houses, dairies and cow-sheds. Under clauses in their local Acts those powers had been most beneficially exercised. He was interested in this question, because in the constituency he represented they had had numerous instances of very serious epidemics directly traced to the introduction of milk from farm-houses, and dairies, and cow-she s within a few miles of the town, lint beyond the municipal boundary. For a number of years the sanitary inspector in several of the adjacent parishes. Various instances arose in those parishes in which he was able to go into the counties and visit the farmhouses, and, without exercising any compulsory power, he was able to induce the farmers to submit their places to isolation, take charge of the patients who were suffering from disease, and in that way very speedily to prevent the extension of cases. In one of the cases there were 118 persons suffering from disease, and several valuable lives were lost. One might have supposed, from the experience of Edinburgh and Glasgow, and from the information as to how this worked in Dundee, that equally efficient clauses would have been introduced into this general Bill to those that existed in the Edinburgh and Glasgow Acts. Instead of that, the particular clause in the Bill was, in comparison with the powers they possessed, very roundabout,
  1154
  dilatory, and inefficient. He hoped that when this Bill reached the Committee it was to go before, the Lord Advocate would agree very much to improve the clause that was in the Bill. In answer to a question the other day, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to speak as though he were in some sense specially the representative of the counties in this matter. But he submitted to the right hon. Gentleman that he was also the Minister for the burghs as well as the counties, and that he had to look to the general health of the population. ["Hear, hear!"] There was some feeling of the counties standing on their dignity—that they were not willing to consent to the incursion of the burgh inspectors into the counties. He thought there should be no such feeling, but that every facility should be given, especially within a certain radius of our large towns, for the sanitary inspector to proceed to examine on the spot, and at once to induce the parties interested to agree to prompt measures being taken. Under the clause as it stood, there were six or seven different stages to be taken. Application had to be made to the sheriff or magistrate, and evidence must be submitted to justify the action of these officials. In this way it would almost be necessary to allow the spread of disease and the accumulation of cases in order in present evidence to the sheriff upon which it would be necessary for him to act. Prevention was the object at which they ought to aim; and promptly, and without unnecessary delay, action should be taken. It was understood that in future the clause was to be considered a standard clause, and that nothing going beyond that clause in local Acts was to be permitted. He hoped that the Lord Advocate would be prepared to give that clause very careful consideration, so as to bring it more into line with the clauses of the Edinburgh and Glasgow Acts than was now the case. In this matter it was well to remember the old adage, Salus populi suprema lex. The health of the people should be the first consideration in all sanitary legislation.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that the question involved in this Bill was of very considerable importance to the people of Scotland. It was not necessarily in any sense a Party question; but it had occupied the attention of local authorities in

  1155
  burghs and counties so much that deputations on the subject had been sent to the Government when the former Bill was before the House of Lords. He regretted that the Lord Advocate had not seen his way to explain the Bill on the Second Reading, and to show the local authorities, in so far as the Bill was a consolidating and amending Measure, the reasons which prompted the Government to introduce the Amendment in the Bill. He thought that the local authorities, who had taken great interest in the subject, were entitled to expect this from the Government. But unfortunately the Bill had been launched without any explanation from the Lord Advocate, who was otherwise engaged on official duties; and the result was, that the House was discussing the Second Reading without these matters having first been expiable I by the Government. The Bill contained 176 clauses, and it depended on a general view of the Bill, so far as consolidating and amending were concerned, whether it ought to go further. There were special reasons, moreover, why the House should discuss this matter on the Second Reading stage. This stage afforded hon. Members an opportunity of taking a general survey of the Bill, whereas in Committee they were limited to the special Amendment under discussion. It also gave an opportunity to the Government to ascertain the views of those on the opposite side, and to allow the Government to indicate their willingness to accept certain Amendments which would be very useful in promoting the progress of the Bill. Besides, the Secretary for Scotland, who was responsible for the Bill, was not a Member of the House; so that when the Bill went to a Committee the noble Lord was not there to hear the arguments, to be consulted by the Lord Advocate. On the other hand, when hon. Members brought forward certain points opportunity was afforded to the noble Lord to consider them before the Committee stage was reached. Again, this was a Measure which dealt with an important question of rating for public health, both in burghs and counties; and there was no subject of more importance to the taxpayer. If this Measure, however, were to be sent, say, to the Standing Committee on Law, what would be the effect, so far as the
  1156
  Scottish Members were concerned? Questions of rating might be discussed in that Committee, but when the Bill came back to the House hon. Gentlemen would not be able, on the Report stage, to discuss that question. If, therefore, they were to discuss the rating question involved in the Bill, and if discussions were to be taken to show Scottish opinions in the House, their only alternative was to bring the subject forward on an Amendment on the Second Reading. Looking to the possibility that this Bill might go to the standing, Committee on Law, they had to provide for a contingency of that kind. Then, as a consolidating Measure, this Bill dealt with the Public Health of Scotland Act, 1867, which contained about 120 clauses; 100 of those clauses were adopted practically without alteration, or alterations of a very minor kind. He thought that was a great compliment to the Lord Advocate, who drew the Bill, which had stood the test of 30 years. He hoped that when they were dealing with the question of consolidation and Amendment of the Law, it would be done with equally good care, and that they would prepare a Measure satisfactory to the people of Scotland, which would last for at least 30 years, and which might redound to the credit of even the Lord Advocate opposite. [Laugher.] By the 1875 Act—and practically it was the only point of change of consequence in these repealed Acts—the borrowing power was 50 years. Under the Bill it was made 30 years. He thoroughly approved of that change, and he hoped the Government would abide by it. He would venture to point out that there was a little conflict in the Act of 1891 and the present Bill. In the event of a burgh being formed the incidence of taxation should be the same as it was in the county from which it had been taken. They had this very peculiar state of matters. Under the Bill the burgh rating was to be upon an incidence of taxation which was practically wholly occupier, and the county rating was to be half owner and half occupier. The result would be that in burghs to be constituted they would have an incidence of rating different under the Act of 1891 than under the present Bill. By Section 125 of the Bill, it was provided that in cases of burghs where a special drainage district was formed, and was satisfactorily doing its

  1157
  drainage work, such special district was not to be called upon to be assessed for other districts. But while that proviso applied to special drainage districts of burghs, there was no corresponding proviso in the Bill as regarded the special drainage districts in the counties. He did not know why that omission took dace, because, in the Act of 1867, there was such a provision. They had a similar proviso as regarded the water supply in special drainage districts in the Act of 1867, and they had it also in the Act of 1891. It was of a permissive character, and they were going to retain it in the statute. That was a proviso which would have to be, very carefully considered. There was another point. The, Parish Council had the power intervene in cases of public health, in places where so many of the inhabitants of the parish might intervene in calling attention to sanitary matters. The Bill repeated the Act of 1867, whilst it did not re-enact the power of Parish Councils to exercise the power which the repealed Act gave. Again, Section 45 of the Act of 1894 provided that the assessor in framing his valuation roll should show the special districts, so that the rating of the special districts might appear on the roll. That was essential, but, strangely enough, it was omitted from the Bill. So far as the Bill was an amending, Measure, it introduced 33 clauses of the Public Health (London) Act, and 18 clauses of the English Public Health Act 1875. It did not follow that provisions applicable, to London were at all applicable to Scotland. Take the case of offensive trades. In London and the urban sanitary districts of England no one could establish any of the offensive trades which were specified without the consent of the local authority in writing. By this Bill such a provision was applied to Scotland, but it was not limited to urban district—it was extended to the whole of the country. The Scotch Act of 1867 was much more reasonable, for it simply provided that a person was not to establish an offensive trade within 500 yards of a town or village without the consent of the local authority. Of course a man was amenable to other provisions against the setting up of a business which was an offence to the Then clause 37 enabled local authorities to take certain steps in
  1158
  respect to filthy houses. In England a, house could only be entered upon the certificate of a medical man, to the effect that it was in such a state that it might be injurious to health. It would be novel to put such power of entry into the hands of an ordinary sanitary inspector. In England, any person who knowingly cast any matter infected by infectious disease into an ash pit was liable to a certain penalty; but then the Act very properly provided that the local authority must provide a proper place into which the infected matter must be placed. In this Bill there was no such necessity cast upon the local authority. Under the Act of 1867 a local sanitary authority might provide recreation grounds at the expense of the district rate. Why was there no such provision in this Measure? The matters dealt with by the Bill were very important in the case of Scotland, where they had counties on the one hand and burghs on the other, and between them there was springing up in the counties large communities which were in an intermediate stage. They wanted to give them a Measure of local government, which would make life comfortable until they were made into burghs. It was because they had not got provision for dealing with these districts in an intermediate stage that lie thought these powers ought to be extended largely in this Bill. Another point was that the Standing Joint Committee was to be repealed. He thought the time had come when in the matter of public health they should not have the interposition of a body which had no practical concern with it. Another matter was the acquisition of land for public health purposes. That was a very important point. They would not give to the local authorities power to acquire land for public health purposes, and thus they would be compelled to go to Parliament. Let them see what changes that Bill proposed in the procedure in Parliament. It was that, in the case of a Bill brought into the House, it was to be referred, not in the way in which Provisional Orders were referred, to a Select Committee after the Second Reading. It might be referred to a Joint Committee. This would be denying the remedies of that House to a man who had not got the money. Under the Parish Councils Act of 1894,

  1159
  if land was required for Parish Council purposes, it could be acquired simply by an order of the Local Government Board, and under the Light Railways Act of last Session authority for the compulsory acquisition of land could be obtained from the Board of Trade, in both cases without any application to Parliament. Surely, therefore, the same powers ought to be given in such an important matter as the public health. He objected to any Public Health Bill which did not give the local authority power to acquire land with the consent of the Local Government Board without going to Parliament. As to the question of arbitration, there was to be a single arbiter, but who was to appoint the arbiter? Under the Parish Councils Act the arbiter was appointed by the Local Government Board, and under the Light Railways Act by the Board of Trade. In this Bill a Local Ordinary of the Court of Session was introduced. Why should not the Secretary for Scotland be trusted in the matter? Then there was the question of assessment. In the counties the assessment was made one-half on the owner and one-half on the occupier. Under the Bill there was to be a rate levied on the gross rental. When dealing with matters of public health, which were practically of the same character in boroughs and counties, why should the rates be levied differently in the burghs to what they were in the counties? The effect of the Bill was, in the case of burghs, to make the rates practically leviable wholly on the occupier. He was quite aware that the Lord Advocate had introduced the matter of the 1867 Act, which gave a certain amount of choice to the local authority ; but why should the local authority have the choice of levying the rate in some places wholly on the occupier and in some places half on the owner and half on the occupier? Why should it not be made clear that the rate should be levied on the same principle in burghs and counties? All modern legislation had been in favour of the principle of the division of rates. Take the Roads and Bridges Act introduced by the Government opposite in 1887. There they had the rate levied half on the owner and half on the occupier. The same principle obtained in the case of the school rate, and again in regard to the general improvement rate in burghs. Surely public
  1160
  health involved the general improvement of the burgh. The Bill dealt with sewerage and drainage. Were not these an appendix of property, and why should property not bear its equal share of sewerage and drainage, which were necessary to make the house habitable and an appendix to rent? There was no possible reason why the rate should not be divided equally between owner and occupier in this case. In the discussions on the Agricultural Rating Bill the First Lord of the Treasury accepted the principle. The reasonableness of having the rate divided was admitted on all hands, and he begged to move to leave out from the word "that," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words—
  "This House declines to read a second time a Bill to consolidate and amend the Laws relating to Public Health in Scotland which does not provide for the rates under the same being levied one-half upon the owners and the other half upon the occupiers of land in burghs as in counties; and which does not permit of the acquisition of land compulsorily for Public Health purposes by an Order of the Local Government Board of Scotland without resort to Parliament."
  MR. A. D. PROVANDin seconding the Amendment, complained that an elaborate, complicated Measure like this, repealing in whole or in part no less than 11 Acts, should have been introduced without any Ministerial explanation by the Lord Advocate. The Local Government Act of 1894 and the Light Railways Act passed last year furnished precedents of a more simple and effective way of obtaining land for the purpose of the Bill. The arrangements introduced into this Bill would lead to an extraordinary expenditure of time and money. It would cause dilatory objections to be made. It would confer enormous advantages on the rich, and impose serious drawbacks on the poor. To many local authorities the delays, expense, and trouble would be a serious matter. The Bill would apply, not to rich places only, but to scores of poor districts in Scotland which could ill afford the money to devote to removing the opposition winch under the Bill might be made by a single memorialist. Under Clause 25 of the Bill, it was optional how local communities should be assessed to meet the expenses under the Bill. This would permit them to have different

  1161
  methods and rates of assessment to meet the necessary charges for carrying out the Act. In the first place, the local authority might levy assessments under what would be similar to a General Purposes Rate. In Glasgow these were levied half on the occupier and half on the landlord. Or the local authority might assess at the same rate as the police assessment in Glasgow. For some purposes this was assessed so that the occupier paid on rents of II and upwards, and the owner on rents under £4. But in assessing for cleansing the streets, the owner paid all the assessment and the occupier none. In the assessments under the Bill there should be an absolute rule laid down and no option given, and, having regard to the way assessments were made already, they should be one-half on the occupier and one-half on the owner. Another assessment in Glasgow represented a charge which would be similar in its nature to the charges incurred under this Public Health Act—the sewage assessment, which in Glasgow was paid entirely by the owner and no part by the occupier. Therefore, according to the way assessments were made in Glasgow at the present time, the Bill should provide that at least one-half of the whole assessment should fall on the owner, and there should be no option given in the Bill to assess localities in different ways.
  SIR T. GIBSON-CARMICHAELthought his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lanark had a right to appeal to the Lord Advocate for an explanation. He supposed this was the only Scotch Bill that the Government would see fit to bring forward. He did not think there was a single Scotch Liberal Member who had not claimed that a Bill of this nature on it to be passed. There were other. Scotch Members behind hint who were interested in the matter, and he himself claimed a right to say something in regard tit this matter. He was only a new Member of that House, but he had been a chairman of two District Councils for many years; old took an interest in it. He appealed to the Lord Advocate to allow Scotch Members oil that side to have a say in this matter. Ire did not think this should be treated as a Party matter. He thought it would have been much better if the Government had divided the Bill into two parts, and brought in first a County Bill, and then,
  1162
  if time permitted, have brought in a Borough Bill afterwards. As to judging in regard to unsound food, and the carcases of animals, he did not think justices of the peace were the proper people to deal with the matter. He said that although he was himself a justice of the peace.
  The hon. Member was speaking at Midnight, when the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to lie resumed upon Thursday.

MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. STUART-WORTLEY in the Chair.]
[PROGRESS, 15TH FEBRUARY.]
Clause 1,—

POWER FOIL COUNTY OR BOROUGH COUNCIL TO CONSTRUCT BUILDINGS AND WORKS.
The council of a county or borough may, at the request and for the purposes of one or more Volunteer corps, purchase, erect, alter, or enlarge any building, or construct, alter, or enlarge any permanent work, or aid in the purchase, erection, construction, alteration, or enlargement of any such building or work.
MR. BRODRICKsaid the Bill was extremely urgent, and, as there was no difference of opinion as to its merits, he trusted, in the interest of Volunteering, the Committee would allow it to go, through.
MR. PATRICK M'HUGHmoved, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
MR. BRODRICKappealed to the hon. Member not to persist in his Motion, as the whole House was agreed as to the necessity and urgency of the Bill.
MR. PATRICK M'HUGH: I mean to persist with my Motion. [Ministerial cries of "Oh!"]
Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

SUPPLY [19TH MARCH].
Resolutions reported.
NAVY ESTIMATES, 1897–8.
1. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,696,000, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the expenses of wages, &c., to officers, seamen and boys, coastguard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898."
ARMY (ORDNANCE FACTORIES), 1896–7.
2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the charge for the Ordnance Factories (the cost of the productions of which will be charged to the Army, Navy, and Indian and Colonial Governments), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897."
Civil SERVICES (EXCESS), 1895–6.
3. "That a sum, not exceeding £263 4s. 1d., be granted to Her Majesty, to make good an Excess on the Grant for the Mint, including Coinage, for the year ended on the 31st day of March 1896."

NAVY ESTIMATES 1897–8.
4. "That a sum, not exceeding £648,800, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the expense of works, buildings, and repairs, at home and abroad, including the cost of superintendence, purchase of sites, grants in aid, and other charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898."
5. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,384,600, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of victualling and clothing for the Navy, including the cost of victualling establishments at home and abroad, which will conic in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898."
6. "That a sum, not exceeding £161,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of medical services, including the cost of medical establishments at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898."
7. "That a sum, not exceeding £10,600, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of Martial Law, including the cost of naval prisons at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898."
8. "That a sum, not exceeding £249,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expenses of the Royal Naval Reserve, and the reserve of retired officers and seamen pensioners, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898."
9. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,675,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of naval armaments, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898."
10. "That a sum, not exceeding £195,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of various miscellaneous effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898."
Resolutions agreed to.
11. "That a sum, not exceeding £243,600, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expenses of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898."
MR. J. H. DALZIELcalled attention to the question of the linoleum contract in connection with the Navy. The First Lord of the Admiralty would remember that last year he brought this matter forward, and he had given private notice to the Secretary to the Admiralty that he intended to again raise the question that night on the Report of Supply. It was not necessary to go into details further than to bring under the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the main points of tire grievance of which complaint was made. The point was this—every year contracts were asked for from, all the principal linoleum manufacturers of the country, and such conditions were inserted in the contracts as to make, it practically impossible for any other than one particular firm to secure them. The grievance was not imaginary one. He had had representations from, linoleum manufacturers all over the kingdom, with the single exception of the one particular firm to which he had referred. He raised this matter three years ago, during the administration of the late Liberal Government, and so convinced them of the utter unfairness that was shown to all the linoleum manufacturers of the country by the terms of the contract, that they practically threw the matter open, with the result that the particular firm lost the contract for year. There appeared to be in reference to the matter sonic extraordinary influence which he had not been able to understand. Although the contract was taken away from this particular firm, and, notwithstanding that ft firm of which he knew something, paid £2,000 in order to put down a special plant to manufacture the antiquated pattern of linoleum required by the Navy, the contract was taken once more and again given to the one firm which had previously been favoured. What he asked was that no preference should be shown to any particular firm. There ought to be a fair and open market, and the cheapest and best. Estimate should win. That was not so in this ease. He did not know what reply would be given that night, but if the right hon. Gentleman would look into the records with regard to linoleum he would see that

1165
if the contract was taken away from the firm in question, it would result in a saving of between £2,000 and £5,000 a, year. The terms inserted in the contracts by the Admiralty were not warranted by the circumstances, and insisted upon certain conditions being observed which in every other private firm throughout the country had been abolished for something like 50 or 60 years. What he asked the right hon. Gentleman to do was to promise that he would personally, with the assistance of colleagues, look into this matter and convince himself whether or not there was any justice in the complaint that was made on behalf of the linoleum manufacturers of the country generally. To put himself in order, lie should move the reduction of the Vote by £600.
MR. SPEAKER: I have already proposed the Question that the House agree with the Committee. The hon. Member cannot move a reduction. He can vote against the Resolution.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,)said that he had no hesitation in giving the hon. Member the assurance which he desired. He would personally, with the assistance of his colleagues, go into the matter. He had had no notice, or he should have been prepared with an answer to the hon. Member. He had no doubt that there was a satisfactory explanation, and he could not accept the facts as stated by the hon. Member.
Resolution agreed to.
12. "That a sum, not exceeding £749,500 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of half-pay, reserved, and retired pay, to officers of the Navy and Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898."
13. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,053,200, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of Naval and Marine pensions, gratuities, and compassionate allowances, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898."
14. "That a sum, not exceeding £327,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of civil pensions and gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898."
15. "That a sum, not exceeding £60,300, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense necessary to be provided for under the arrangement made between the Imperial and Australasian Governments, for the protection of floating trade in Australasian waters, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898."
Resolutions agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS [19TH MARCH].
Resolutions reported.
1. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the years ending on the 31st day of March 1896 and 1897, the sum of £2,230,835 17s. 1d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
2. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898, the sum of £24,327,700 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
Resolutions agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James William Lowther, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Hanbury, "to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on the 31st day of March 1896, 1897, and 1898," presented accordingly, and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time To-morrow, at half-past Three of the clock.
MERCHANT SHIPPING (UNDERMANNING) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
FOREIGN PRISON MADE GOODS BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
BERRIEW SCHOOL BILL
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
KINGSTOWN HARBOUR ROADS TRANSFER BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
LAW OF EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL CASES) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ALDERSHOT AND FARNBOROUGH) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
ARCHDEACONRY OF CORNWALL BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Third Reading deferred till Thursday.
SUPPLY.
Committee deferred till Wednesday.
WAYS AND MEANS.
Committee deferred till Wednesday.
COUNTY COURTS BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 13th April.
POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION ACT (1896) AMENDMENT BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL.
Adjourned Debate on Motion for Committal to Standing Committee on Trade, &c. [17th February] further adjourned till Thursday.
PLUMBERS' REGISTRATION BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
COUNTY COUNCILLORS (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 6th April.
SCHOOL BOARD ELECTORATE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 7th April.
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Friday, 9th April.
TROUT FISHING CLOSE TIME (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1886) AMENDMENT BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 31st. March.
CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ESTATES TAIL BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday.
ESTATES TAIL BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday.
HIGHWAYS BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday.
MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (IRELAND) (WOMEN) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday.

MERSEY CHANNELS BILL.
Considered in Committee.
Clause 1:—
Committee report progress; to sit again to-morrow.

LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
MOTIONS.
  EDINBURGH UNIVERSITY (TRANSFER OF PATRONAGE).
  Bill for transferring the right of Presentation to the Professorships of Botany and Natural History in the University of Edinburgh, ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Anstruther; presented, and Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed.—[Bill 166.]
  SUPERANNUATION ALLOWANCES (SCOTLAND).
  Bill to provide Superannuation Allowances for the Assessor of Railways and Canals in Scotland and the clerks and other officers permanently employed by him, ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Anstruther; presented, and Read the First time ; to be Read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed.—[Bill 167.]

  SALE OF DISTRESS AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Sale of Distress Act 1690, ordered to be brought in by Mr. H. D. Greene, Mr. Cozens-Hardy, Mr. Hopkinson, and Mr. Lloyd Morgan; presented, and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Friday, 2nd April, and to be printed.—[Bill 168.]
  House Adjourned at Twenty Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.

EARL OF NORMANTON.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor, that the right of Sidney James Ellis Agar, Earl of Normanton, to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
ISLE OF MAN (CHURCH BUILDING ACTS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), passed, and sent to the Commons.
SURVEYORS (COUNTY DUBLIN) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
Read 1a; and to be printed.—[No. 34.]
House Adjourned at Half-past Four o'Clock, till To-morrow, a Quarter past Ten o'Clock.