Sitting of 26 April 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  WEY VALLEY WATER BILL.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  BAKEWELL GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  HOLMES'S PATENT BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  LIVERPOOL AND LONDON AND GLOBE INSURANCE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  STIRLING GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  GLASGOW CORPORATION (SEWAGE, ETC.) BILL.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  LISKEARD CORPORATION (WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
  Read a second time, and committed.
  UPPER ASSAM TEA COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read a second time, and committed.
NEW WRIT.
For the County of Norfolk (Southern Division), in the room of Francis Taylor, Esquire, Chiltern Hundreds.—(Sir William Walrond.)
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  VICTORIA EMBANKMENT EXTENSION AND ST. JOHN'S IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Order for second reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed—
  "That the Bill be now read a second time.'
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words, 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Burdett-Coutts.)
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: Mr. Speaker, in rising to oppose this Measure, I feel I must ask for the indulgence and patience of the House, which I think will be readily granted to one representing the constituency affected. But I do not look on this as a local matter; this Bill involves interests and considerations very close to this House itself, and which might easily claim a more able and experienced defender. And, Sir, I am conscious that we who are opposed to this Bill are under a special disadvantage. This Bill has gained some, perhaps many, friends in the House by means of a system of private and personal advancement and exhortation, which we have not had at our hand to anything like the same extent, partly because we did not see fit to employ it, and partly because we have not the motive power possessed by the promoters of the Bill. We are not financially

  1095
  interested in its defeat as they are financially interested in its success. And I would ask the House to bear in mind, from first to last, that whatever its aspects of "public improvement," as it is called, whatever facilities it may appear to afford for carrying out a long-delayed and much-wanted public improvement, whatever names have been attracted to its support by those considerations, the genesis and ultimate object of this Bill is a financial speculation, and that once we pass the Bill, the authority to which the promoters of the scheme will be responsible for the conduct of the enterprise is not the public, whose interests they assume to serve; not the local governing authorities, whose functions they are usurping; not this House, whose compulsory powers they will have obtained, but a body of shareholders, who, like all people in that capacity, will be clamouring for dividends by whatever means they can be obtained. I beg the House to bear this cardinal fact in mind, and to weigh all the arguments adduced in favour of the Bill by the light of it. Sir, the Bill proposes to deal with a site which, from an architectural and historic point of view, is the most valuable and interesting that remains to be dealt with in London; a site which affords the only opportunity to meet the future national requirements for public offices; a site peculiarly precious to this House, because it abuts on and partly surrounds it, and because it stands in the same relation to the most venerable monument in England—the great Abbey over the way. I will endeavour to show how a Bill conceived in a commercial spirit and having a commercial purpose in view, promoted in this House by gentlemen who have financial reasons for its passing, does not come to us on a basis calculated to preserve, and cannot be trusted to preserve, those great public and national interests which are involved in the site, and which this House is bound to safeguard. Sir, I do not want to push this argument one inch further than is justified by the facts of the present case. I wish to illustrate it by those facts. I am far from wishing to impede private enterprise in improving and beautifying London, or in any other branch of commercial activity. It will, perhaps, be said in the course of the Debate that the
  1096
  Cadogan estate owes its improvement to a syndicate or company such as this. I shall have two other instances to give, which have happened here in Westminster, of exactly similar private enterprises endowed with compulsory powers by this House, which ended, the one in a hopeless failure and the other in a historic disaster. They are far closer to the present case than the example of the Cadogan estate. For, Sir, in that case a large portion of the estate was unoccupied ground—Prince's cricket ground; and comparatively few people had to be turned out. Moreover—and I quote the Cadogan case for the purpose of making this point—the public improvements necessary in that case were exactly the improvements which suited the views and interests of the promoters—namely, fairly wide and well-arranged streets to add to the value of their houses. There was no great public improvement required, apart from the private interest of the syndicate, as is the case when we come and look at this great river site, adjacent to the House of Commons, needing an Embankment, and needing one wide and convenient thoroughfare, all constructed on a plan having the public interest and solely the public interest in view. Now, my point is: that in this case, where the public interest comes into conflict with the private interest of the syndicate, the public interest goes to the wall, and that, therefore, it is wrong for this House to commit a site involving great public and national interests to a private or financial syndicate. That is a question of principle which I think this House ought to decide, and not leave to a Committee. I do not think the House has hitherto looked on such propositions with favour. It was a curious coincidence that on the day on which this Bill was first set down, and immediately after its postponement, another private Bill came up for Second Reading, which involved exactly the same principles as those in this Bill. It was called the Wymondham Waterworks Bill. A private syndicate asked the House for compulsory powers to enable them to supply the population of a small town in Norfolk with pure water; a laudable enterprise one would, at first sight, have thought. But this was a function appertaining to the local authority—one which, apparently, they had not yet performed. It was shown in the

  1097
  Debate, which I listened to with great interest, that the local authorities were against the Bill, and the inhabitants were against it. Speaker after speaker got up and objected to the Bill on this account. It was characterised as—
  "An attempt by a body of outside speculators to capture an area against the wishes and remonstrances of all the local authorities of the district."
  It was said that—
  "For four gentlemen to come and ask for power over the heads of the local authority and of the population was a proposition to be scouted by this House."
  In fact, on questions of principle, the Debate might have stood for a Debate on this Bill; the principles were identical. And, Sir, when once they were made clear the House did not hesitate as to what line it ought to take. The Bill, in spite of the strong support of a high authority, was actually rejected without a Division. Now, Sir, what are the so-called public benefits which this scheme proposes to confer, and how does it propose to carry them out? Sir, the public benefits possible to the scheme practically consist of two things only, and these are inseparable the one from the other—the making of the Embankment and the making of a main thoroughfare, i.e., the continuation of the noble river-road which now stretches from Blackfriars Bridge to one end of this House, and which begins at a point beyond Lambeth Bridge, and is continued in a somewhat less spacious form, but still as a fairly adequate river-road for that part of the town, the whole way along the river to Battersea Bridge. This leaves a section still uncompleted which extends from the Victoria Tower Gardens past Lambeth Bridge down to the point I have just mentioned. The completion of that section of the Embankment in a manner worthy of the site has long been the ambition and hope of all London. But the promoters say: "This is what we are going to do." Are they? Why, Sir, this scheme sacrifices such a hope for ever. It does not even need a plan to explain this, but a suggested plan is in the hands of honourable Members. The great road which faces the House of Commons and the House of Lords and which itself, when Parliament Street is widened, will be a continuation of Whitehall, ought, of course, to be carried straight to
  1098
  Lambeth Bridge to form a junction with the rest of the Embankment beyond Lambeth Bridge. Such a road, between this House and Lambeth Bridge, ought to be left open on its river side, and the space between it and the river left as an open space for the continuation of the Victoria Tower Garden gradually narrowing down to the Bridge. Then that great avenue and the masses of people who will use it as a thoroughfare, and the public and the poor to whom those gardens will be an unending source of delight and fresh air, will have a clear view of the river and the picturesque Lambeth side; then, too, the multitudinous passenger traffic that comes down the river and by the Embankment from the south will have a clear and uninterrupted view of the Victoria Tower, and of this fine Palace of Westminster, not crowded up on one side by a block of houses of a paying height, and dominated and shut in by a new Chicago, but standing out alone on the river in its singular architectural beauty and its majestic popular significance. Well, Sir, I don't want to use big words, but I ask for what purpose were millions spent on this structure when we are going to throw away the only chance of rendering that expenditure effective as to its surroundings? I do claim that a dignified and beautiful treatment of those surroundings will find a responsive echo in the minds of all Englishmen who look on it, and who are conscious of a common pride and sense of property in the palace and home of that form of government in which the humblest of them has some share and authority. Sir, this is the only plan worthy of the dignity and beauty of the site; and it is the plan for which the site affords the most obvious and natural facilities so long as it is treated in a public and not a money-making spirit. What does the scheme offer us in place of this? They are going to put a great block of buildings right up against the Victoria Gardens between their main road and the river. They say they are going to do the Embankment. Of course they must embank the river to build their houses; but what they call an Embankment is or was a little narrow road, which they now say they are going to make a little wider, approached by a still narrower street at right angles to their main avenue and leading out of it down

  1099
  to the river. As is shown on their plan the use of this Embankment road of theirs as a thoroughfare by the general traffic that now uses the Embankment necessitates, in passing from the south side of Lambeth Bridge to the front of this House, the turning of four right angles. What becomes of their main road it is almost ludicrous to consider. In order to make this great river block of buildings as deep and valuable as possible the Avenue is pushed back from the river and made to debouch into the narrow Horseferry Road, which runs at right angles to it at a point 70 yards distant from Lambeth Bridge, where Horseferry Road is mot 40 feet wide, and where it will form a dead end to this precious avenue. The traffic using that line as a thoroughfare will have to turn two right angles in a short length, and for 70 yards will be hopelessly congested in a narrow street only 40 feet wide. There are a hundred other faults in the scheme; but I want to fix the attention of the House on this great one—this great block of buildings which will dominate and shut in the small Victoria Tower Garden, which will impose itself for a great length over the river, and which will smile with lofty condescension upon the Palace of Westminster itself. The promoters have propounded a modified plan. To conciliate one set of objections they say they are not going to touch the little 18th century quarter that lies up against the Abbey; to conciliate another, they say they are going to leave the side of Abingdon Street which faces the House of Lords alone; and to conciliate, I had almost said to hoodwink, a third, they have set their river block a few feet further back, to add to the width of their Embankment road. But this great river block of buildings remains. In a recent paper of a somewhat extraordinary kind the promoters say that "nothing has been decided with regard to this river block." Do they mean us to infer that they are willing to give it up? No, Sir, from the first it has been a glaring objection to the scheme. They have modified their plans in this direction, and that; but this still remains. Why? Because, no matter how incompatible with the public interest, it is necessary to the commercial character of the scheme. I claim, Sir,
  1100
  that I have made good my first principle, that it is not right for this House to set up this conflict between the interest of the public and the private interest of the shareholders, or to grant to a private syndicate compulsory powers which are bound to be exercised to the prejudice of the public good. Sir, out of this there arises a second principle, which, so far as it applies in this case to the London County Council, will no doubt be more zealously guarded by some other Members of the House than by me. I may not be over fond of the London County Council, but I do recognise that by Act of Parliament the House of Commons has expressly committed to the hands of a public authority the functions of executing public works, which the promoters of this Bill ask the House to place in their hands. It is no valid answer to say that in a particular case those functions have been postponed or delayed, and therefore they should be committed to other hands. The principle of who is to do these things has been settled, and it was so settled because those public functions could only be safe in the hands of a representative body, directly responsible to the electors, and would not be safe in the hands of private promoters who, once they have obtained their powers, are responsible only to their shareholders. Sir, in my opinion, the treatment of this great national site, so far as the immediate vicinity of this House is concerned, ought to be a national affair. But, if a narrower view be held, it is worth while to remind the House that the next authority, the London County Council, is strongly opposed to this scheme, and that the next below that, the only local representative authority of the district affected, the Westminster Vestry, is strongly opposed to it. And, Sir, the Westminster Vestry are the most enlightened body of men to be found anywhere. Sir, my third point involves a principle on which I think this House is never appealed to in vain. I protest, Sir, against the great act of injustice which this House is asked to commit against a population numbering 6,000 souls, by turning them out of their homes, and sending them to live somewhere, anywhere but where they have always lived; by destroying the only means of livelihood possessed by a great

  1101
  number of them; by casting them out on the world, not only to find new homes, but to start new industries, amongst new people, and to begin anew life's work under disadvantages which they have done nothing to merit at the hands of this House. This hinterland—where all these people dwell—has nothing whatever to do with the public benefits involved in the scheme, the Embankment and the main thoroughfare. For what purpose is this House asked to inflict this great wrong on a populous community? In order to transform a poor district into a rich one—for the sake of putting money into the pockets of a number of shareholders, not one of whom should be of any more importance in the eye of the House than the humblest of these 6,000 people you are going to drive out. Why should this House charge itself with such a duty? Since when was it considered a public benefit to change the character of a district from a poor quarter into a rich one? Which party in this House is it that desires to employ the compulsory powers of this House for such a purpose? I would ask the House not to be deluded by what are called "protective clauses for the re-housing of the working classes." We have seen those clauses over and over again, and we know how they work, and we know the facility with which they can be evaded. At best they can only supply accommodation for a particular section of the poor, generally at high rentals in great caravanserais called "model lodging-houses"; and when you have stowed these people away in a big barrack you think you have done everything. Do you deny the place of sentiment amongst those classes? Are there not many amongst them who hate that sort of housing just as much as people in other classes hate living in a great building of flats, many who feel that it destroys that sense of the integrity of home life which, however poor and humble the house may be, is a peculiar instinct of many of the English working classes? And what of all the little trades and industries which cannot be carried on in a model lodging-house, and which will be destroyed and cannot be started again? What of all the people who do not come within the narrow and rigid definition of "working classes" contained in the re-housing clauses of this Bill? I
  1102
  trust that some other speaker will deal at length with this subject. I would only submit that it is an act of wanton injustice to turn all these people out of their homes for the sake of making a rich quarter. Let me show this House by a small but significant instance how this intention is kept in view by the plans. There is a street running through a poor part of Westminster called Great Peter Street, which it is proposed to continue through this site in a broader form. On the deposited plan, at the point of junction between the old and new portions of this street, there is a bend made which throws the continuation out of the true line. For what purpose? Why, simply in order to shut out from the view of the wealthy inhabitants of the new street the poor, perhaps the squalid, characteristics of the old one. I do not see this bend on the small reproductions of the plan that have been circulated by the promoters; but it is there all the same, and it is significant of the spirit in which the scheme has been conceived and the future policy that will be adopted by its directors. I do not blame them. They have got to make dividends. But I do ask this House whether this is a spirit and a policy for which the compulsory powers of this House should be granted, and whether those powers ought to be given to commit a great act of expropriation and injustice for the benefit of a private syndicate? Now, Sir, as to the financial question. It is proposed that the capital of the company should be £1,000,000, with borrowing powers up to another £500,000. Sir, it does not need an expert opinion to tell us that such a sum is altogether inadequate for the purpose, and that it would require at least three times that sum to place the scheme on a sound financial footing, if, as no doubt the House assumes, the promoters intend to carry out this scheme themselves. I would remark that the Vestry of Westminster alone, in their capacity as guardians of the public interests of the district, will require a sum of from £50,000 to £70,000 as security for the disturbance of rates during construction, and a further sum of £110,000 as security for roads, sewers, and footways. But are we to see a million and a half, are we to see even a million, before we give over the powers? No, Sir. By Clause 19 of

  1103
  the Bill the syndicate are empowered to put their compulsory powers in force when they have got £250,000 of capital, and that £250,000 not paid up but only subscribed. So, without any paid-up capital at all, they can gain their compulsory powers over the whole of this site, and they will be in a position to go full swing ahead with the system of land-jobbing and site-jobbing by which alone this promotion can thrive. Sir, if this is not sufficient warning, Westminster itself supplies another, peculiarly significant and appropriate to these proposals. Does the House know anything about the history of the building of Victoria Street? At least it will be within the recollection of many of those whom I am addressing that for a very great number of years that thoroughfare with its valuable property on either side remained in a hopeless state of incompletion. For the most part it was a thoroughfare of vacant sites and hideous stretches of hoarding. Year after year these remained to the amazement of the public, to the disgrace of the district, and to the despair of the local authorities. And how did that come about? By placing that site in exactly the same position and under the same conditions as we are now asked to assign to this more important property. As far back as the year 1845 a private syndicate, composed, I venture to say, of men quite as responsible, to all appearances, as the promoters of this Bill, and calling themselves by the not altogether dissimilar title of the Westminster Improvement Commissioners, obtained from this House an Act of Parliament to construct that street, which gave them compulsory powers over the property. Sir, I can't think of wearying the House with the tortuous history of that miserable undertaking—how again and again they came to this House for new powers and successive extensions of time; how they got hold of what they called "improved rates," which did not exist, and borrowed a great sum of money on the prospects and saddled the Vestry with a heavy debt; how, when they had got a million, the capital of this company, they had to go back to their shareholders and bondholders over and over again for more capital, without getting it; how they sold and leased and mortgaged their property in big bits and little bits to hundreds
  1104
  of different speculators; and how, discredited and incompetent, with their £500 bonds going a-begging in the market at £5, they fell into bankruptcy and so disappeared. But they left a bitter legacy behind them for Westminster, in this alienation of the property which was left untenanted and un-built on, and could not be recovered; so that for 50 years Victoria Street remained an eyesore and a disgrace to London. And this was a direct consequence of committing this site into the hands of a private syndicate. Could the imagination conceive a more apt and ominous precedent for what we are asked to do to-day? The obstruction and disfigurement of this part of London for over 50 years was not the only result of putting that property into the hands of a syndicate. Look at Victoria Street now. It ought to be one of the finest streets in London. But because the site was given over to just such a syndicate as this Victoria Street is now, in spite of its width, a gloomy and apparently narrow lane enclosed within two sides of vast residential flats which I daresay, are profitable to the owners, but which are prison walls to the thoroughfare. And this is exactly what will be repeated on this far more important site we are asked to hand over now. Then the second case is that of the Parliament Street Improvement Scheme. In 1887 that property was placed in the hands of a private syndicate similar to this. They came to Parliament four times for successive extensions of time. They could do nothing with it. The whole scheme was an abject failure, and at last, in 1895, the Government wisely took the property into their own hands. I should like to ask the promoters of this Bill whether there is any connection between the personnel of this scheme and the personnel of that failure. Sir, it may be urged that both the plans and the financial provisions are matters for a Committee upstairs; but I submit that there are principles and matters in this Bill which this House ought to decide, and not leave to a Committee; there are principles at stake which this House ought not to shirk; and there are results which are inevitable and which no Committee can permanently avoid. There is the principle of the fundamental and inevitable conflict between the interest of the public and

  1105
  the interest of the shareholders; the principle of depriving public representative bodies of the functions this House has conferred on them; the principle involved in the great act of injustice to the poor population. There is the spirit and policy of the undertaking made clear in the financial provisions, and the absence of all security for the undertaking being carried out, and of all safeguards against the property being alienated to persons who cannot be reached or controlled. And, lastly, there is the impolicy of handing over to a private and self-interested syndicate a property of public and national importance, and a site which forms the very threshold to this home of the Imperial Government. All these points this House, I submit, and not a Committee, ought to decide, and upon them I ask the House to reject the Bill.
  MR. T. H. ROBERTSON: I beg to second the rejection of this Bill, and I need not occupy the House very long, inasmuch as my real objection is that principle which has been stated by the hon. Member for Westminster, namely, that powers such as these should not be committed to any private Company whatsoever. It appears to me that there are permanently constituted public bodies which have already shown their desire to carry out such improvements as these, and I venture to say there is not a single instance of similar powers having been granted to any private body before by this House. The hon. Member for Westminster has mentioned the Cadogan and Hans Pavement Improvement, but he has shown that that was a different scheme to this. There was a very remarkable difference. The person who was the promoter was the owner of the whole estate, and it was a blot upon London that roads could not be carried through that estate, and therefore he came to this House to ask that he might be empowered to make these roads, and there were clauses in that Bill dealing with other property which was necessary to be dealt with for the purpose of making these roads. There were also clauses in that Bill protecting almost everybody who objected to the scheme, and there were clauses giving protection, not to the freeholders only, but to the
  1106
  ordinary occupiers. The hon. Member has mentioned the Parliament Street scheme, which failed. He also mentioned the Victoria Street scheme, which has certainly not carried out the views of Parliament. Further, there is the Searle Street Improvement scheme, and there is another scheme which will probably be mentioned. That was the case of a company which had previously acquired three-fourths of the land which was proposed to be dealt with, and it was hold desirable to come to the House in order that they might obtain the remaining quarter. That, the House will see, has no kind of connection with the present scheme. Then I am told, but I shall not be able to verify it, that there was one other scheme sanctioned by this House, namely, the Whitehall scheme, of which Whitehall Mansions are completed. I do not know very much about that, but it is, I believe, very closely associated with a gentleman, a former Member of this House, who was known hero as Mr. Spencer Balfour, but was known later on as Mr. Jabez Balfour; but I do not know that that particular scheme will afford an instance which will be very much of an inducement to this House to adopt the one we are now discussing. Personally, I am very much in favour of private enterprise, but I understand private enterprise to be doing a thing yourself, and that is being done at the present moment in many parts of the Kingdom. In London itself there is at the present moment a company which is effecting a very large improvement in the neighbourhood of Victoria Street. But how are they doing it? They have not come to Parliament to ask for power to pay out people. They are paying them out themselves, and then, having paid them out, they will execute their improvement. Then, again, there is the Arcade which is being built in Birmingham. In that case they have made arrangements with all the owners of the various lands which they wish to take over, and the scheme is going forward, and the Chairman tells me it will be a very profitable investment. If this syndicate think they can make a profit by buying this land, let them buy it by all means; but they have no right to come to this House and ask it to give them compulsory powers to buy these

  1107
  lands, when, as the honourable Member for Westminster has shown, at least on three-quarters of the land which they seek compulsory powers to purchase they do not even pretend to make any improvement whatsoever. On the frontage they pretend to make an improvement, but I think the honourable Member has shown that no improvement will be made there; but, so far as the back land is concerned, there is not the slightest pretence of doing anything which will be of the least use to the general public. Now, Sir, the promoters of this Bill held an interview some time ago with the Chairman of Ways and Means; and to that interview the secretary to the Chairman of Ways and Means invited me as a known opponent of this scheme, so that everything which passed at that interview is perfectly public. During that interview the promoters admitted frankly that this great block of buildings between the main road—the road which they call The Avenue—and the river, was an absolutely essential part of their scheme; and, therefore, I say that these criticisms of the honourable Member for Westminster are not criticisms as to detail, but they are criticisms which go to the merits of the Bill. The promoters of the Bill at that interview went on to say that, as regards the back land behind this avenue, they had no particular views at all. They were willing to do almost anything that the Committee might think fit; but I venture to say that that is not the spirit in which to come to this House for a Bill. People who come to this House for compulsory powers ought to show that they have some means of improving the public thoroughfares or other public conveniences of the district, and they ought not to come and ask this House to supply a scheme for them. The real gist of the scheme is to acquire that great block of buildings between a main inland thoroughfare and the small Embankment road. That is really the essence of the Bill, and at the Same time the promoters propose to acquire what we call the "Hinterland"—that is, the back land. It has been said that a large part of the land which they propose to take consists of slums. Now, I venture to say that anyone who calls this back land "slums," has a very slight knowledge of what are
  1108
  really slums, because they would be confusing the idea of slums with the idea of small tenements or small houses. I have some knowledge of what slums really are, and I can assure the House that slums, in almost every case, exist in large dwellings. It is the large dwellings, more or less out of repair, which turn gradually into slums, and usually a slum is a cul de sac—a place of no thoroughfare. In the whole of this district—and I think I know every passage in it—there is no such thing as a place where there is no thoroughfare. The whole district is open to the public traffic. The part that has been abandoned by the promoters is inhabited to a large extent by persons of the working class or small shopkeepers. This part does not consist of slums. If you want slums you have to go a little further off. This Bill seems purposely to avoid the very worst part of that district. There are parts of the district, and I admit it frankly, which might be called slums, but they are not within the scope of this Bill. The honourable Member for Westminster has mentioned that the working classes dislike these very large buildings. Now, I live in the midst of a working-class district, and I am quite prepared to support that view. I know perfectly well that the working classes do very much dislike these large buildings, and I say that it is not the duty of this House to hasten the time when the working classes are driven from their small houses into this larger class of house which they dislike. It may be, of course, an absolute necessity that in process of time they will be driven from the small houses into the large ones. I know a great deal of this district. I have no species of pecuniary interest of any sort, kind, or description in the passing or non-passing of this Bill, but I have been approached by a vast number of small shopkeepers in this district. It must be remembered that, in addition to the working classes, there are shopkeepers who have built up a business in the neighbourhood, and no compensation that could be given to them under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act will compensate them for being turned out of this district, where it is not proposed to make any alteration whatsoever for the convenience of the public. There is one

  1109
  matter connected with this Bill which I should not have referred to but for the fact of the Whip which has been send out. As the House knows, there are four gentlemen, Members of this House, who are named as members of the Company. They are the very gentlemen who are asking to be incorporated as persons entitled to buy up this property, and two of these gentlemen will, if the Bill passes, be entitled to be directors of the Company when it is formed. Therefore it is clear that those four gentlemen have a direct interest in the passing of this Bill. One of the gentlemen, who has already indicated his intention of not voting upon the Bill, has not signed it, but inasmuch as the Whip has been signed by three of them. I think it only right to say that I hope they will not vote when the Division is taken on this Bill; and, of course, they would not think of acting as Tellers. There is also one other gentleman, a Member of this House, who is a member of this syndicate, and I have no doubt that he will not think of voting in favour of this Bill. I urge that such powers as those ought not to be granted to any private company, but ought to be left to some public body, and I therefore call upon the House to reject this Bill.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: The honourable Member for Westminster, who moved the rejection of this Bill, commenced his speech by characterising the improvement which this Bill seeks to make as much-needed. I think that no one acquainted with the district can doubt that that is the fact. He spoke in very eloquent terms of the neighbourhood, and then he proceeded for a considerable time to pour great scorn upon those who are supporting this Bill, without giving the slightest reason for so doing. He has specified them as speculators—as land-jobbers—
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: I did not use the word "speculator" with regard to the promoters of this Bill or anybody connected with it. I carefully avoided doing so. I quoted a speech made in this House with regard to another Bill—that is all—and I did not use the word "land-jobbers." What I said was "land-jobbing."
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: That seems rather a fine distinction. The honourable Member who has just sat down was good enough to compare the promoters of this Bill to Jabez Balfour.
  MR. T. H. ROBERTSON: I must protest against that. I said I knew nothing about the Whitehall Bill. As a master of fact, that was the work of Jabez Balfour, as everybody knows, but I never made the slightest comparison.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I am very glad to hear these admissions, but I must confess I am at a loss to understand what relevancy the observation of the honourable Member had. The honourable Member for Westminster dwelt for some time upon the case of a water company in Norfolk. What that has got to do with this particular Bill I fail to see. He spoke in very eloquent terms, with which I most cordially agree, as to the importance of the site, close as it is to this House and to that great Abbey to which we all look with so much veneration. I do not yield either to him or to the honourable Member who seconded him in that respect, but it was on that very account that I supported this Measure, because I believed that it would promote the improvement of London. These buildings, which are so near the House and the Abbey, are absolutely unworthy of the grand situation they occupy. The honourable Member who has moved the rejection of this Bill and the honourable Member who has seconded it have said very little indeed with reference to the improvement itself. They have admitted that the improvement is necessary—they have made some few trifling and minor criticisms, such as that one street is to take a turn, and the honourable Member for Westminster seemed to know why the promoters proposed that that turn should be taken. But the fundamental ground of their objections to this Bill is clearly stated—that in their opinion no improvement of this kind should be undertaken by private enterprise; surely, however, it is most desirable that, under whatever auspices a Bill of this kind may be proposed, a Committee upstairs should carefully investigate all the circumstances and the facts. The First Commissioner of Works when he comes to speak will confirm me in saying

  1111
  that the promoters of this Bill have been most anxious to adopt all the suggestions which have been made on behalf of the Government, and will, if the House pleases to send the Bill upstairs, carefully adopt anything in reason which is suggested by the Committee, and which will be of an improving character. Their desire is to make the buildings in this district worthy of their surroundings, and they will accept any suggestions which have that object in view. Her Majesty's Government have made suggestions, all of which have been adopted by the promoters of this Bill, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have also made certain suggestions which have been willingly accepted by the promoters. We have heard a good deal of talk about the Jewel Tower. There never was any intention of interfering with the Jewel Tower, and if this Bill is passed it will become more visible than it is at the present moment. Then, Sir, we are told that this Bill will dispossess a certain number of the working classes. A great part of the district itself was built long ago, when the conditions and requirements as to light and air were very different to what they are at the present time. Putting aside the question of the architectural condition of the neighbourhood, the condition of the houses of the working classes is in a most unsatisfactory state. The honourable Member who has just sat down has given a somewhat peculiar description of the word "slum." If honourable Members would pay a visit to these close alleys and see the actual condition in which they are, they would be more in favour of this Bill—more influenced on its behalf than by any speeches made by those who are asking for it. The conditions as to light and air are most unsatisfactory. There are a great many houses which have no open space at the back, and there are cases in which the conveniences are common to several houses and sometimes to a whole court, and if we should unfortunately have an outbreak of infectious disease, I tremble to think of what would happen in that part of the district. Fully one-half of the houses in this district which are occupied by the working classes are of a character which the law would not now allow to be put up. Surely that is a very serious state of things, and
  1112
  one which this House will, if it rejects the Second Reading, indefinitely prolong. Then we are told that the matter ought to be left to the local authorities. We have had the views of the Westminster Vestry. I will not question the very laudatory account given of them by the honourable Member who moved the rejection of this Bill. They have drawn up a long document which they have sent to Members of Parliament, and I think those who have read it will agree that they have not succeeded in stating their views so clearly as they might have done.
  "The Vestry strongly opposes the Bill as an act of injustice to six thousand inhabitants of Westminster, whom it is proposed to turn out of their homes."
  That would be an objection to any scheme of this kind. Then they go and say—
  "The Vestry are by no means averse to the carrying out of improvements in the public interest, as is recently endorsed by the fact that they have expended £23,000 upon such works, and are committed to an outlay of £33,000 on similar operations during the current financial year. Moreover, they have on numerous occasions urged the County Council to carry out such improvements, both in connection with the opening up of the Millbank Prison site, and elsewhere, and the Vestry have welcomed the recent resolution of the Council, which contemplates the embanking of the river at Millbank, by that body."
  Therefore they admit that this matter must be dealt with very shortly, and I need hardly point out that the longer this improvement is put off the more expensive it will necessarily be. Having admitted that some improvement of this kind is really necessary, the Vestry of Westminster goes on to say that the working classes are going to be dispossessed, and that sufficient provision is not being made for their accommodation. As I understand, five acres of land in the same parish have been secured for the purpose of re-housing the working classes, but in any case I submit that that is a question which might fairly be left to the Committee upstairs, and if that is done I have no doubt that that Committee will say that proper provision has been made in this respect. It is said by the opponents of this scheme that it is too large a measure to be dealt with

  1113
  by private enterprise. Well, really, when we have before us what has been done by Peabody, Guinness, Waterlow, and Lord Rowton, it does seem to me to be somewhat absurd to say that this matter is too large to be carried out by private enterprise. I do not think I should be acting in accordance with the wishes of the House if I were to follow the honourable Member for Westminster into the details which he has given to the financial side of the question. I believe it can be shown that ample provision will be made. When I put my name on the back of this Bill I made no inquiries about the financial conditions, because I supported it on the grounds that it was a great public improvement. As the financial question, however, has been raised, I have made inquiries, and am satisfied myself that, there are no sufficient grounds for that, allegation. Coming to the question of the London County Council, we have been told that the past and the present County Council are unanimously opposed to these buildings. That is not an accurate description of what actually took place. There was no division upon the Bill, and it is impossible to say whether the London County Council are prepared to carry out the improvement themselves. As far as the late County Council is concerned, the Improvement Committee proposed no plan. The Parliamentary Committee, however, issued a Report, a copy of which I hold in my hand. The Committee did not condemn the scheme on its merits at all. They did not say that it would not be an improvement. What they did say was—
  "The essentially important question for the consideration of the Council is whether or not it is desirable that the large powers which are sought and the execution of such considerable works should be entrusted to a private Company. This Bill would, of course, only be promoted in the expectation of its proving remunerative to the promoters. We do not think that a scheme of this kind, involving large works of a public character, and large compulsory purchase of property, should be promoted as a private undertaking, and we are of opinion that steps should be taken to obtain the rejection of the Bill on Second Reading."
  That, Sir, was the ground upon which they thought the Bill should be passed, and it was most important that the London County Council should be heard before a Committee upstairs, and unless the Council petitioned against the Bill
  1114
  they would have no opportunity of doing so. What has happened in the present County Council? The Improvement Committee brought up a recommendation which said—
  "That it is desirable that the Embankment, from the Victoria Tower Gardens to Lambeth Bridge, should be undertaken by the Council."
  That is the first expression of their opinion upon the subject, and I do not think that there can be any question about it; but that part of the recommendation was not adopted, and what the Council did adopt was simply a recommendation that the Improvement Committee should draw up a plan. The Council is in no way committed. I am correct in saying that although this improvement is admitted to be necessary, it is only now that either the Council or the Westminster Vestry have taken any steps in this direction. Private persons have come forward; they propose, at their own risk, to make this improvement, and then the Westminster Vestry and the London County Council, who have never done anything with regard to the matter before, intervene. Even, now the London County Council is not committed to take the matter up, and unless the House allows this Bill to go upstairs, as far as I can see, we may wait for years before anything is done, and when, it is done it will be done at a far larger expense than it will be now. I hope the House will not be induced to throw out this Bill on a mere ex parte statement. The House is justly proud of its Committees, which examine all questions submitted to them with the greatest possible care and judgment. The promoters are ready and willing, nay, they are anxious to meet with any suggestions which would make these suggested improvements worthy of the site with which it is proposed to deal. If the House accepts the Amendment of the honourable Member for Westminster, then nothing will be done for some time. For the present, at any rate, this district will be left in its miserable, wretched, and unhealthy condition. On the other hand, if the House sends the Bill before a Committee, that Committee will, doubtless, inquire into the whole of the circumstances, with every desire to make the improvement one which is really

  1115
  worthy of London; and if that course is adopted the House will have done something to improve this district and to render it more worthy of the magnificent site which it occupies. I began my speech by saying that I yield neither to the honourable Member for Westminster, nor to the honourable Member who seconded him, in my admiration of these Houses of Parliament and of the grand old Abbey opposite, and it is on that very account that I support this Bill, which I believe would tend in the direction of bringing the neighbourhood into greater harmony with the magnificent buildings of which at present it is so unworthy.
  MR. JAMES STUART: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London has not said very much in favour of the Bill which is brought forward. His plea is that it ought to be sent for the consideration of a Committee upstairs. Well, I think that is a really sound plea for an improvement scheme brought forward by a representative authority which is entrusted generally with the improvements of a town; but I must say that I do not think that that plea can be brought forward equally in favour of a Bill promoted by a private company for private profit. The House, as a general rule, gives the benefit of the doubt, but to assume that benefit of the doubt the House must know that the Bill is promoted on behalf of the benefit of the inhabitants who have to pay for it, and it is right that this House should endeavour very jealously to inquire into the circumstances of a Bill of this character before it is allowed to go upstairs. There are two points of view in which to regard this matter, and on which I shall speak very briefly. The first is from the point of view of one who has had considerable experience in Private Bill legislation in this House, and the second is from the point of view of representing in this House the London County Council in this matter, which, of course, is the authority which ought to undertake and might well undertake this business. Now, Sir, in the first place, I think that we ought to assume from the point of view of Private Bill legislation that it would be an unsound principle to contend or to admit that such a Bill as this ought to go upstairs without consider-
  1116
  able examination by this House, and the question that one naturally puts to the promoters is: What are you going to give to the public by your Bill—what do you propose to do? Now I have listened very carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London had to say as to what were the improvements that this Bill effected, because the principal reason—the main reason—for which I opposed this Bill, as a Member of this House, is that it does not effect the improvement which ought to be effected. There are two great improvements required: the first is a broad, straight street from here and continuing to The Avenue, and the second is the opening up to the public generally of that bank of the river so that there might be an open space for the public. But these two great improvements are not effected by this Bill. On the contrary, both are indefinitely postponed if this Bill be passed into law, because you are going to make a broad street, or a fairly broad street, further away from the river than the present Millbank Street, and you are going to bring it up to the Horseferry Road, and there you have to turn a right angle to bring it to the present Embankment. That is to be a permanency, and if you are going to fill up by permanent buildings the space between that road and the river you will be unable ever to continue that road on. And the only way of continuing it on in a straight line would be to acquire two of the most expensive properties in London. In point of fact I do not see how this Bill carries out in any way a public improvement which we would desire to see carried out. That is the first matter. Then we come to a further question. This Bill asks power for recoupment and for the removal of a number of the population, requests which have, I will venture to say, never been granted to any local authority under similar circumstances before. I will show what I mean. The area which is proposed to be dealt with by this Bill, and which is to be compulsorily purchased by this syndicate, goes far beyond the area which is affected or touched by the improvement. It is no answer to say that it is an improvement, nor is it necessarily improved by the improvement, and I say, therefore,

  1117
  that you are being asked to give to this private body powers of a character which you would not give, and have not yet given, to any public body connected with London, nor, so far as I know, to any other public body anywhere else. Under these circumstances, with the experience that we have had in London—the unfortunate experience, the failure, the loss to the public, the loss to the roads, the loss to individuals concerned, in all cases where there have been public improvements undertaken by private individuals, is there anything—any advantage to the public—in this Bill, which would tempt us to have anything to do with it? I say none whatever. Now, as to the position of the London County Council, because the right honourable Gentleman has referred to that. The last London County Council most undoubtedly did declare their opposition to the principle of this Bill. Here are their words on the 17th of February last—
  "We do not think that a scheme of this kind, involving large works of a public character, and large compulsory purchase of property, should be promoted as a private undertaking."
  That is quite true, as the right honourable Gentleman said. But it does not mean to say that we should pledge ourselves to carry out this undertaking. We refused to pledge ourselves to carry out this undertaking, and I think the right honourable Gentleman can very well approve of that position. We have in London a very large number of undertakings to consider. This one I think will have, and ought to have, its due consideration, but there are a great many things which might stand before it, and there are questions upon which we might differ as to any particular scheme. For instance, let me put this to the House. If you were to carry out the widening of Millbank Street by a street put along there just now, and if that is too large an undertaking to carry out at present, then I say better that that be done as a step towards the end than carry out this scheme, and prevent anything else being done for many a long year. Now there is another point to which I wish to direct the attention of the House. It is said that this scheme will effect an
  1118
  improvement by clearing away an insanitary property. If this property is insanitary, it is the duty of the London County Council or of the vestry, or both together, to take action. If the local bodies are neglecting their duty let this House say so, and then that will be an argument for passing this Bill on its Second Reading, and sending it upstairs to a Committee. But there can be no such argument. There is no shadow of it, no such statement has been advanced, nor can be advanced, by which it can be said that the public bodies are neglecting their duties. We admit fully that the widening of Millbank Street is a necessity, that it is desirable that there should be this clearing away of the river bank, and that nothing should be done which would have the object of preventing that. I hope that before this Debate is concluded, we shall see the Government taking up some position as to dealing with this great improvement in conjunction with the London County Council. It has a national element in it. It is close to these Houses of Parliament. Without detaining the House another minute, I think I have said enough to ask the House to abstain from giving this Bill a Second Reading until it is shown that the public authorities are derelicting the duties which they ought to exercise. I ask the House to reject the Second Reading of this Bill, and not to be led away by the argument that in its nature it ought to go before one of our Committees.
  MR. W. F. D. SMITH: I was quite aware that there was a great deal of difference of opinion upon this question. One of the previous speakers has referred to the fact that a certain Member interested in this Bill had not signed the Whip which was sent out in support of this Bill. I suppose he referred to me. I may say that I did not do so because I thought it might be possible that some honourable Gentlemen might think that by so doing I was acting on behalf of the majority of my honourable Friends who generally act with me. I was most especially anxious that no mistake of that kind should exist. Those who have spoken in opposition to this

  1119
  Bill have divided their objections into those of principle and those of detail, and, although they have laid great weight upon the question of principle, they have, I think, devoted the largest part of their speeches to the objections in detail. I agree with my right honourable Friend the Member for the University of London that some schemes generally may be properly left to private enterprise, and I was rather surprised to hear from my honourable Friend, the Member for Westminster, that no scheme for the public improvement of London should be carried out by any other body than the London County Council.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: I never gave utterance to any such sentiment; what I said was that a scheme which involved necessarily a conflict between the interests of the public and the private interest of shareholders ought to be carefully looked into by the House.
  MR. W. F. D. SMITH: I thought the honourable Member said that any such scheme should be referred only to the London County Council. I recognise that the element of profit must enter into the consideration of a question of this kind. It would be absurd for any private body to attempt to promote a scheme of this sort and to get money from the public without holding out the inducement of the element of profit. But, at the same time, I do say, with some confidence, that, at any rate in this particular Bill, so many safeguards have been already introduced, and so many conditions have to be satisfied both for the Government, the London County Council, and the Vestry, that the danger of the work being badly done or scamped, or being done for profit and for profit alone, is reduced to a mimimum, in fact to a vanishing point; and I cannot myself see why, if such precautions effect what I am sure we all have in view, the great improvement in the vicinity of the Houses of Parliament, this question as to the element of profit should not be allowed to be brought into consideration. Honourable Members who are opposed to this Bill have mentioned other schemes which have been brought about in the Metropolis. The scheme which I am now about to mention is not such a large
  1120
  scheme as this present one, but, at any rate, it took place in my own constituency during the present Parliament, and is one which, although it is not exactly the same thing, involves the principle which is involved in this particular Measure. It was, I think, in the Session of 1896 that a Bill was introduced into this House called "The Strand Improvement Bill." That was nothing more or less than a Bill promoted by the Hotel Cecil for obtaining compulsory powers to purchase the houses running along the front of the Hotel Cecil in order that the Hotel might have a proper frontage to the Strand. That Bill was passed by this House, and was supported by the London County Council. I admit that in the case of a scheme of this magnitude, if there was any chance of its being carried out by a public body, then a public body on the whole is the best body for that purpose. And if any public body does carry out an improvement scheme for this portion of the Embankment, the Government of the country should be that body, and I say that for this particular reason. Great stress has been laid upon the fact that in the plans which have been submitted to honourable Members, the plot in front of the river between what is known as the Victoria Tower Gardens and the Lambeth Bridge is to be covered to a certain extent by a block of buildings. Of course, everybody in this House must admit, and fully realise, that it would be infinitely better if that space were to consist of gardens and gardens alone; but, on the other hand, we must remember what the cost of leaving that space vacant would be. We have consulted the best experts, and I may say that those experts are perfectly willing to back up the opinion that they have given before the Committee, if this Bill should go to a Committee. They say that, at the very least, the expense of leaving that space unoccupied would amount to £500,000, and in all probability to £750,000. I think that shows at once that if this work is to be undertaken by anybody it had far better be undertaken by the Government. So far as I am concerned, and I believe I am speaking for all interested in this Bill, we should be perfectly ready to retire at once from any advocacy of this Measure if the Government would come forward and say that

  1121
  there was the slightest chance of their carrying out that improvement. I may as well say that already arrangements have been made for buying one quarter of the land required, a quarter more is in negotiation, so that it is not at all unlikely that by the time the Bill reaches Committee more than half of the land required will have been acquired by private treaty and not by compulsion. I do not desire to occupy the time of the House by going through the Bill in detail, but there is one point to which I should like to refer which was mentioned by my right honourable Friend the Member for the University of London as to the housing of the poor. The provisions which the promoters of this Bill have made are infinitely wider than are demanded by law. Within a quarter of a mile from the centre of the district, five acres of land have already been obtained, and that is a great deal more than is required to house the whole of the working class population affected by the Bill, and I can say now that the promoters are perfectly ready to accept the Instruction which the honourable Member for Islington has down on the Paper, and are ready to house, not the number which they are bound to house by law, but the whole of the working classes disturbed by this Bill. One word as to the insanitary state of the district. I have no doubt that the eulogiums which the honourable Member for Westminster has passed upon the Westminster Vestry are very well deserved, and I have no doubt that the work of the district is carried out as well as if can be carried out; but there is no gainsaying the fact that, as my right honourable Friend has said, there are in this district over 100 houses which have neither light nor air at the back, but which have only access to light and air from the front; and there are several courts which are not only cul de sacs, but have only one convenience for all the houses in the court. That itself shows that if there has been no serious outbreak in this locality, it is not due to the sanitary state of the houses. It is perfectly obvious that when the district is cleared and built up the sanitary state must be better than it is now. After all, the majority of these details which have been mentioned are questions for
  1122
  Committee, and not questions for discussion in this House. The question of laying out the streets is a matter for expert evidence, which cannot be given here, but which can be given to a Committee upstairs. No doubt some alterations would be made in Committee, and previous speakers have said that we are ready to do the very best we can, and to accept any suggestions which may be made for the improvement of our scheme. We are ready to submit to the Government, and we have already promised to submit, plans of the elevations to a very considerable extent. We are ready to offer the very best expert evidence on all questions that can be raised upon this matter. I hope the House will agree to the Second Reading of this Bill. I have not heard anything since I came down here, nor have I seen anything in the considerable amount of literature which has been circulated among Members, to alter the opinion I formed when first I promised to support this Bill. It may be rejected. If it is rejected, I cannot help thinking that the matter may be postponed indefinitely. But, in any case, whether rejected or not, the promoters of this Bill will at least have the satisfaction of feeling that through all the discussion and all the agitation which has taken place, they have brought nearer to realisation a great metropolitan improvement which ought to have been carried out years ago.
  MR. H. J. GLADSTONE: I wish to say a few words in support of the Second Reading of this Bill. I listened with great attention to the speech of my honourable Friend the Member for Shoreditch. This Bill is promoted by a private syndicate. I, personally, have no interest whatever in the matter, and I am absolutely unprejudiced and impartial. There is no objection to giving powers to a private syndicate working, and professedly working, for profit, provided you are satisfied that the public gets some good out of their operations, and provided you are satisfied that there are no authorities ready, and more competent, to undertake the work. That is the principle on which Parliament has acted in the past. Parliament sanctioned the Second Reading of the Parliament

  1123
  Street Bill, promoted by a private syndicate, on, I think, three occasions, and the conditions under which these Bills were brought forward were not nearly so favourable nor satisfactory as the conditions under which the present Bill is brought forward. The financial condition of that Parliament Street Syndicate was less sound than, apparently, the position of this syndicate is, but, inasmuch as neither Government nor County Council would deal with that side, Parliament referred those Bills to Committee, and eventually they became law, the Committee being satisfied that some good for the public would be got out of them. My honourable Friend asks of the promoters of this Bill, "What are you going to do for the public?" and he then went on to criticise certain details as to plans, the laying out of streets, and so forth. For myself, I do not agree with everything that has been put in the plans by the promoters, and I think it is capable of a great deal of improvement. Probably a great number of honourable Members have not troubled themselves very much about the scheme at all; but does any one honourable Gentleman who has formed a clear idea of any one of the leading details of the scheme think that this Debate had advanced our knowledge of the details by one inch. Here is a great and involved scheme, full of technicalities and full of matters of opinion. The honourable Member says it is very simple; at any rate, it is not simple to me if it is to him, and such details as these cannot be settled in the course of discussion of two or three hours in this House; they can only be settled in the ordinary way by reference to a Committee upstairs. I say this, that if the House refers this Bill to a Committee, it will lose no power over this Bill. We do not say that if it goes to a Committee it necessarily will become law; we only send it there so that the expert evidence on these technical details may be given. I understand that the promoters of this Bill are perfectly willing to insert a clause giving power to the First Commissioner of Works or Her Majesty's Government to interfere with their plans, and, in fact, to get power to sanction both the elevation of the buildings and the general laying out of the plans over the whole area. If that is done. I do not see how we can
  1124
  suffer. Then the question arises, what is the position of the London County Council in the matter? I quite agree that if the County Council comes forward and says this is a duty belonging to us, we must undertake it at once; then, by all means, theirs is the first claim, and let them do it. But they have not done that. They have not come forward until the whole scheme has been formulated by private enterprise and placed before Parliament, and now they have given no distinct pledge on the subject. They have referred the matter to one of their Committees, and we do not know what they are going to do. If the House rejects the Bill on a Second Reading, and the London County Council declines to move, or only to a very small extent, it seems to me that the public may be deprived for a great number of years of a very considerable and useful public improvement. Undoubtedly, in a matter of this sort, reference to a Committee is the best method of action, even assuming that the London County Council means to take the matter up. If you refer it to a Committee, the Committee will be able to take the evidence of the London County Council, and to ascertain exactly what its opinions are, and what it wishes to do, and whether it can do this work better than this private syndicate. It seems to me that there is an alternative course, it may be that the London County Council may come to some arrangement with the syndicate to take advantage of the money which the syndicate is prepared to risk in the matter, and by so doing to give the public additional advantages. For these reasons I hope the House will pass the Second Reading, because, as I said before, if the Bill is rejected this greatly needed and important public improvement will be postponed indefinitely. I would point out that the House of Commons is primarily interested in the matter. The House of Commons and the Government are really responsible for Westminster and the Houses of Parliament. They are responsible for this part of London—you can, of course, use the argument either way, but that being so, if the House rejects this Bill now, a great hold will be lost over the question to a certain extent. If the Second Reading is passed, and is referred to a Committee, the House will retain full control over that Committee when it

  1125
  reports upon the Measure. If you put the Bill aside altogether, you will have to deal alone with the County Council, and you will have to take anything that the County Council may be pleased to give you. For these reasons, I say that it would be wise for the House of Commons to keep a firm hold over these questions, to strengthen its position, and do the best thing possible to safeguard the whole of this historic neighbourhood. I do not know whether the right honourable Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means is going to give up the benefit of his advice. We are rather in want of light and leading from the Front Bench opposite, and perhaps, the First Commissioner is going to intervene. If he does, I hope, at any rate, that it will be in the direction of supporting the Second Reading of this Bill, and send it, if not to a Committee in the ordinary way, at any rate to adopt the precedent set in 1887, and refer it to a hybrid committee.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I think the House will see that the Bill which is now before us is no ordinary private Bill, but we are discussing a matter of the very greatest importance, both as regards ordinary Private Bill Procedure and the policy which we shall adopt respecting an area which has great national and historical associations. What is the question before us? It is briefly this: that a commercial company shall have power of a very wide character over 28 acres of land in immediate proximity to this building. Like every other Member of this House, I have received piles of literature on the subject, and I have been appealed to from all quarters. There has grown up in this House, as everybody knows, by precedent, by carefully-devised Standing Orders, and by various arrangements of machinery a state of things whereby this House of Commons and the public in general are safeguarded from being mulcted in any way by the private speculator. A private Bill cannot be introduced in the same way as a public Bill. It has to pass through various gates of a narrow character before it can get to a Second Reading here. The intention of that is that the request for power made under a Private Bill must be formed upon some distinct public
  1126
  advantage—that the public element and the public advantage shall be the paramount consideration, and that the private element must only be incidental. Take the case of our great railways, which have perhaps led to more changes and developments of Private Bill Procedure than any other. It has always been laid down that there must be a public advantage proved to be the paramount consideration. What is the case this afternoon? I have listened with great attention to what fell from the right honourable Gentleman the Member for the University of London, and particularly to the honourable Member for the Strand Division, who spoke with great frankness and candour. He admitted that it was much better that this scheme should be carried out by a public authority. I think it should be done by the London County Council. But nothing that fell from the right honourable Gentleman, or from others who have addressed the House, has proved to us that the public advantage to be derived was such as to lead us to give these great powers to a private company. I venture to say that now is not the time for the House of Commons, in this day of syndicates and private adventures, to relax that principle that public advantage must be proved to be predominant and paramount. We all feel that we are dealing with precincts of no ordinary character. I am one of those who have welcomed the Measures that have been passed successfully for the spending of the surplus of £2,500,000 on beautifying and adorning this part of the Metropolis for its great public buildings, and also making proper provision for the great public Departments. I was a warm supporter of that scheme. That is an indication of what will go on in the future, but I appeal to the House not to block the way by giving these powers over a very large area of land to this private company, and thus stopping future improvement of that kind. The right honourable Gentleman and the honourable Member passed very lightly over the question of the great pile of buildings, which is the essence and vital feature of this scheme. With reference to that, I may say that we cannot regard statements as to what may take place before the Committee upstairs. Our

  1127
  duty is to look at the thing as it comes before us. Having approached this matter without the slightest prejudice, and having gone through these slums more than once, I have no hesitation as to what I feel it my duty to do this afternoon, and I shall give my vote against the Second Reading of this Bill.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I think that this question has been pretty well discussed as regards detail, and I think that all Members are pretty well acquainted with the details of the scheme. I am a strong advocate for sending a scheme of this nature upstairs, and I think it is only on very rare occasions that the House should depart from a time-honoured practice. But now and again there are occasions when we ought to take into consideration, not only the essence of a scheme such as this, but the surrounding circumstances under which it is brought forward. I must give my vote against the Second Reading of this Bill, not for the reason that it is brought forward by a private syndicate or a public company and not by public enterprise, and I will not waste time by speaking about any body of gentlemen of whom I know absolutely nothing, but who may be quite sincere in their efforts for metropolitan improvement. I take, for the moment, this scheme on its merits, as it comes before us to-day, and I should not attempt to say a word in this Debate were it not for the speech of my honourable Friend the Member for the Strand Division. We have just placed in the hands of the First Commissioner of Works a very large sum indeed for carrying out works, in order that we shall at length make the approaches and the precincts of our House of Commons and our old Abbey more worthy of the nation. That we have readily done, although many of us unfortunate landowners and others might have hoped for a reduction of the income tax, which would have been a luxury to us, if only to see what such a thing would be like, and yet we have willingly and cheerfully handed over a sum which would have amounted to a reduction of something like 1s. 3d. in the £ towards this great object. However excellent a body of gentlemen may
  1128
  be who are concerned in bringing forward this scheme, and however willing they may be to meet the views of a Committee upstairs, those of us who have made a sacrifice in this matter feel that that sacrifice would be thrown away if one side of these splendid national monuments is to be beautified and adorned by the Government and the other side left to the mercies of a private syndicate. There I give what is the kernel of the whole matter, and it is the one point alone on which I ask honourable Gentlemen to give their decision. I had an hour to spare this afternoon, and I went around this site, inspecting the streets, and also took the opportunity of standing in the very centre of Lambeth Bridge, and from that exalted position, with the plan in my hand, I had a very fair idea of what the result of passing this Bill would be. I say that no honourable Member who takes that plan in his hand, and looks at it from that point of view, not even if this particular scheme were brought forward by the Government of the day through the right honourable Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, could honestly vote for the Second Reading of this Bill without feeling that he was destroying, once and for all, the possibility of the improvement of the Thames Embankment. I never heard a long Debate upon a private Bill but it was urged that criticism upon details was not for this House, but was a matter for Committee upstairs. The Papers which I have had from the advocates of this Bill, show, however, that the clauses of the Bill are exceptional in their character. The matter is now in our hands, and it is for us, by our votes, to say whether we will allow this Measure to pass into a Second Reading. The promoters of the Measure could not give way about this great block of buildings, which would overshadow the Thames and destroy the whole outlook from Lambeth Bridge. The honourable Member for the Strand Division said that that must be done, otherwise the capital subscribed would prove a disastrous failure. This House has voted two and a half millions of money for public improvements. We have heard the whole story; it has all been unfolded before us. Let us give a vote, at all events, which will protect these splendid

  1129
  monuments and the Thames Embankment, and secure a proper continuity of plan. I will not detain the House any longer, but I could not give a silent vote upon such a question as this. There is only one possible vote that I can give, and that is a vote against sending this Bill upstairs.
  SIR H. H. FOWLER: I have waited to see whether the House is to have any guidance from the two responsible Ministers who are primarily interested in this question—the First Commissioner of Works and the President of the Local Government Board. The First Commissioner of Works has proved himself to be a very careful guardian, not only of the interests of this House and of its approaches, but also a very careful guardian of the beauty of London—and I think he is emphatically the ædile of London. The Government of this country has always had a peculiar power over any improvements in London, and I think we are entitled to have a statement this afternoon as to his views upon what my honourable Friend behind me described as one of the most important Measures ever submitted to this House. Then, Sir, I see seated upon the Treasury Bench the President of the Local Government Board. He is the official organ and representative of the local government of this country, and I think we are entitled to hear from him what view he takes in his capacity as the defender and representative of local government of the scheme which is now before the House. If either of these two right honourable Gentlemen intend to favour the House with their view, I venture to put before them one consideration, and it shall be only one. I am not going to follow my right honourable Friend with reference to the details of this scheme. My own uninformed opinion inclines to coincide with his view as to the nature and extent of this so-called improvement, but what I want to put to the House is this: Is this House prepared to surrender not only the power of local government, but to invest private individuals, no matter what their respectability, no matter what their responsibility may be, with compulsory powers over other people's property, to
  1130
  take that property for the benefit of a private speculation? That, in my opinion, is the whole crux of the situation. I appreciate to the full the argument of the honourable Member for the Strand Division, although I thought he surrendered his case in admitting that if the County Council was ready to take up the scheme they were the body who ought to do it, although the honourable Member for the Strand suggested as an alternative that it might be done by the Government of the day. With respect to that suggestion I agree with my honourable Friend the Member for Nottinghamshire that this is not so much a question for the Government as the county council. There is no attempt to disguise that whatever other merits the county council may have possessed—and I am not going to belittle their very many desirable enterprises and achievements—they have not done what I venture to think they ought to have done for the improvement of London. During the last few years metropolitan improvement has been entirely in abeyance. There was an exceedingly unwise attempt on the part of the county council to endeavour to compel the Legislature to adopt a certain course of legislation, and to do that under a threat of not proceeding with metropolitan improvements. I hope that that era has passed away. But the mere neglect on the part of the London County Council to deal with some crying scandals in regard to the present condition of metropolitan street improvements will not, I think, justify us in stamping with the sanction of the House the introduction of a most dangerous principle with reference to the local administration of this country. Where are you going to draw the line? If the local authority is to abnegate its power, and Parliament is to delegate the extraordinary power of compulsion to private individuals, where are you going to stop? My honourable Friend mentioned the case of railways, but there was no body in existence who had the power to make a railway, no local authority. It was necessary that railways should be made in the public convenience, and Parliament empowered companies to perform that necessary work. Parliament, by its own legislation, has not only given the power to, but has imposed the duty on all local authorities of remedying all

  1131
  insanitary areas and of dealing with necessary improvements, because those local authorities represented the community by whose taxation those improvements are defrayed. The honourable Member for the Strand said, with perfect candour, that, of course, the element of profit must be introduced into these undertakings, or else nobody would embark upon them. That is quite true, and that is an admission that there is a profit upon them. There is a profit in every well-devised and well-designed improvement, but that profit, in my opinion, ought to go into the public pocket, and not into the hands of the private individual. The proposal and carrying out of great municipal improvements deserve the best consideration of the most capable men, and it is to be regretted, in the interests of the Metropolis, that the County Council of London does not possess a leader possessing the municipal patriotism, the statesmanship, and the capacity of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who by his great powers made Birmingham what it is, and also made it an example which has been followed to a great extent by many of the municipalities of this country. You cannot have public improvements without putting your hands into somebody's pocket, and if the public are to pay for these improvements the public should reap the benefit of them. These are the grounds on which I intend to vote against this Bill. I will not go into the details of the Bill. The scheme may be as objectionable as my honourable Friend has pointed out, and that it may be safeguarded by the First Commissioner of Works and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; but however much you may approve this scheme, you do not get rid of the elementary unanswerable objection that you are delegating public powers to private people, the profit of which is to go into private pockets, and not into the public pocket. Upon these grounds, and upon the ground of defending the integrity and the power of the local authority, I shall cast my vote against this Bill.
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: It has been pointed out that the whole of this property will not necessarily be taken compulsorily, and that part of it is being taken voluntarily. I may state that the portion of the area which
  1132
  belongs to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners is to be acquired voluntarily, the terms having been practically arranged. There is another small matter to which I should like to refer. A printed memorial has been circulated, the original of which has not reached the Commissioners, containing a request from tenants and occupants for protection as regards some supposed injury to the Abbey. I may say that the Commissioners have had the protection of the architectural and archæological features of the Abbey and its surroundings in their minds, and several amendments to the scheme have been made in consequence of their suggestions. At the same time I wish to state to the House that the position of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners is one of neutrality: their wish is that the House should give a Second Reading to the Bill, and then let it be referred with regard to details to a Committee.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: A number of Members, with great ability, and with much experience and authority in this House, have asked for the rejection of this Bill. I venture to say something with regard to it from the point of view of the local authority that, properly speaking, should be looked to to carry out the improvement which this Bill seeks to effect, and before I do so I must express my sincere regret that the late First Commissioner of Works should have blessed this Bill in the way he did. But I have one consolation, and that is that the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton most effectually undid that blessing and counteracted all that the Member for Leeds said. But I do ask the late First Commissioner of Works to call his mind back to this fact—that he and myself and the present Chief Commissioner, with a number of other Members of this House, have been on two Site Committees for the last two years to provide new sites for Government buildings, and by virtue of the report of our proceedings the House of Commons has practically voted two and a half millions of money for improving the approaches to this House. The late Chief Commissioner of Works subscribed to that report. But that two and a half millions is to be spent for improving the east side of the Houses of Parliament,

  1133
  and here we are asked practically to give for next to nothing on the west side of the Houses of Parliament what I venture to say is the finest site in the whole Metropolis. My opinion is that if it is to be occupied by any building at all, then let it be occupied by the new War Office, the new Education Department, or some other Government building that has a right to be in close proximity to the Parliament buildings. We are told by the late Chief Commissioner of Works that the plans proposed by this Bill are to be safeguarded by the present Chief Commissioner of Works as to elevation and so on. Does the late Chief Commissioner of Works know what he is really talking about? He ought really to know this: that it is impossible for this syndicate to make a profit out of the block of buildings that they purpose erecting parallel with the House of Commons at an elevation of less than 82 feet, or 35 feet, on an average, higher than the general elevation of this House itself. Consequently, if the present Chief Commissioner lays down 45 or 50 feet as the height of the elevation the scheme must be unprofitable, and will have to be abandoned. Then the late Commissioner of Works asked, Is the London County Council genuine in its desire to make this Embankment worthy of the precincts of Parliament, and to continue the Embankment from Blackfriars up to Chelsea Bridge? I can throw a little light upon that, and it is for that purpose that I have risen. Is the Council genuine in its desire to improve the Embankment of the River Thames? Well, we must ask the House to judge by what has been done. Poplar Gardens is an Embankment space that the Council has secured for ever. Wandsworth Embankment on the south side is an instance of our desire in another direction. The Council assisted in the acquisition of Fulham Palace Grounds, and helped the Local Authority to secure an Embankment space there, and the only occasion on which the County Council has come to the House of Commons for continuing the Thames Embankment was when they proposed to do so from Battersea. Bridge in the direction of Wandsworth Bridge, with the final idea of carrying it right up to Hammersmith. That proposition was
  1134
  thrown out by the House of Commons, and against the Council's own wish. If this Bill is rejected, as I believe it will be rejected, after the weighty speeches which have been directed against it, the Council is pledged to go on with an Embankment scheme in this immediate neighbourhood; but we object, and rightly object, to be dictated to as to what form this scheme should take, and for this very practical reason: the Council has spent half a million of money on a new bridge for Vauxhall and the approaches on the north and south sides. Immediately that bridge is completed the old one is to be demolished. The Council has decided that that shall be followed by a new bridge to take the place of the unsightly one at Lambeth, and our view, or at any rate our officers' view, as to the sequence in which the work should be done is to complete Vauxhall, then to do the Lambeth Improvement, and so on, till we get down to this site now under discussion. The fact that we have done what we have done—the fact that we have carried out Vauxhall and intend and are pledged to carry out Lambeth—necessarily, in my opinion, commits us to carry the Embankment from Lambeth up to Vauxhall and up to Westminster—not at the expense suggested by the hon. Member for the Strand Division, but at an expense for the vacant piece of land necessary to make a garden of no more than £200,000. The late Chief Commissioner of Works said that if any public body is to carry out this important improvement Parliament ought to be that body; but when doctors differ, who is to decide? But I see no reason why, considering the peculiar relationship of this House to any Embankment scheme practically within the precincts of the House and the Abbey, Parliament, together with the London County Council and the Local Authorities, should not agree as to plans and designs, and the extent to which all three of them should contribute towards the expense. But even supposing that Parliament were indisposed to contribute a penny towards the expense, I pledge my word to this House that when Vauxhall and Lambeth are completed, then, as a necessary and consequential improvement, the London County Council must carry the Embankment right up

  1135
  to Westminster Bridge. Now the late First Commissioner of Works said it sometimes happens that private enterprise can be advanced and public interests also served. I want to put this point to the House of Commons: can he put into money value the case from every point of view of having a block of buildings on the suggested site next to the House of Commons? The right hon. baronet the Member for the University of London mentioned that he had stood on Lambeth Bridge—at daytime, I suppose, not at midnight—but I would ask any member of this House to come to Vauxhall Bridge now. From Vauxhall Bridge you can see Westminster Abbey—two-thirds of it is exposed. You can see the Chapter House that has recently been revealed, and you will be able to see two-thirds of the river frontage of the Parliament buildings. Come to Lambeth, and, as the right honourable Baronet says, you can see one of the finest views of one of the finest blocks of buildings in Europe, and certainly at one end of it the finest tower that exists in any country in the world—the Victoria Tower. What does this Bill propose? Look at the plan, and you will find that a block of buildings longer than the frontage of the Parliament buildings will be put up at the end of these Parliamentary buildings—at the end of the garden—equal in width to the Parliamentary buildings themselves, minus the terrace. Now, we will take the height of the buildings. As I said, to be profitable they must be 82 feet—the highest height, that is, that the London Buildings Act allows. That is the height at which these buildings positively must be put if this site is to pay, and the result will be that you will have a red brick building; a cheap and nasty blocks of flats, or, worse still, an Hotel Continental, full of derelict millionaires from South Africa and America. You will provide accommodation for these people, at what cost? At the cost of vandalising the approaches to Parliament, turning out merchants, traders, and wharfingers, for the benefit of gentlemen who have made their fortunes in other countries, and left their country for their country's good. Six thousand people to be turned out of their homes in order to accommodate Barney Barnatos, whom we do not certainly want
  1136
  in such close proximity to us as would be the case if this plan were carried into effect; or, worse still, we should get a number of American statesmen, who have given up log-rolling in their own country and come over here to instruct us how to push private enterprise schemes through the British House of Commons. I trust that from the architectural and archæological points of view, and also from the point of view of the relationship of the Council to this scheme, pledged, as I think it must be, to carry the Embankment up to Westminster, this Bill will be rejected. Then there is the very serious question as to the dishousing of 6,000 people. We are told that it is a very slummy district. I want to point out that the worst slums in Westminster are untouched by this Bill, and I am glad to see present to-day the honourable Member for Islington, who knows this district very well. I served my apprenticeship at Millbank, outside, not inside, the prison, and I say that the worst slums of Westminster are untouched by this Bill. Blue Anchor Lane is a slum that ought to be pulled down. Take Chadwick Street, Peter Street, Pye Street; all of these are unpleasant areas which ought to come down, and which are untouched by this Bill. Then we are told that this district is insanitary, but it must be remembered that these poor people are driven to greater overcrowding in this district than they ought to be, but by adopting this scheme you are not going to improve their condition, because you will be turning 6,000 people out, and you will be increasing the rack rent prices for competitive accommodation in close proximity to the dishoused area. If these places are insanitary, if the people suffer from diseases, then it is for the vestry and the council to be indicted by the President of the Local Government Board for neglecting their duties. What are the positions of the men that will occupy the houses that we are told will be built? Look at the conditions of the clauses in this Bill. Parliament does not allow a railway company to put in restrictions with regard to an improvement if it is to turn out people for a railway station, and why should a private syndicate impose such terms? One of the restrictions is that no man earning over 30s. a week shall come

  1137
  within the scope of this Bill as to rehousing. That will mean that every postman, every policeman, waiter, cabdriver, and busman, whose work necessarily loads hem to wish to live as close to the House of Commons as possible, will be exempted from the provisions of this Bill with regard to rehousing. Then I want, if I may be allowed, to give one or two instances in which the House of Commons has neglected its public buildings in the past, to the detriment of buildings that have remained. For instance, lock at Somerset House, one of the finest buildings we have in England. Yet some one has allowed an enterprising builder to erect a yellow terra-cotta building jammed up to the side of Somerset House, and which is many feet in front of the building line. I am not disposed to take the opinion of a First Commissioner of Works upon this subject who allows that sort of thing to be done. St. Paul's Cathedral cannot be seen, simply because Sir Christopher Wren's view has not been adopted as to keeping a space clear around it. Some one has allowed buildings to come too close. The best example I can give is that of Greenwich Hospital. Sir Christopher Wren said with regard to that, and it has been adhered to by the Admiralty, that no building should approach within a given number of yards of that hospital. He went further. On the north side of the river, opposite to the frontage of Greenwich Hospital, he said there should be a narrow strip of land equal in length to the front of Greenwich Hospital from which it can be for ever seen. I am glad to say that the Council has got hold of that piece of land which Sir Christopher Wren earmarked, and it is now a splendid open space from which Greenwich Hospital can be seen. Architects in those days were able to do these things because the "syndicate" was unknown. Log-rolling was not in existence, and the stomach had not been taken out of Members of Parliament by the system of worrying and wearying them in the Lobby by persons interested in the carrying out of certain proposals, which has characterised some of our modern experiences. I venture to say that this Embankment Bill is not an Embankment Bill at all. It diverts Abingdon Street to the north from following the natural line of the river right into the centre of Horseferry
  1138
  Road, and if a Member of Parliament wants to go to Vauxhall Bridge he has either to bend to the north and then go to the south and then go to the west, or else go to the south, go straight along raid bend to the north and get into the Grosvenor Road. It is a scheme for avoiding an embankment altogether. The Vestry does not want it, the London County Council is opposed to it, the Dean and Chapter of Westminster are strongly against it, and I have not yet received from any of the men who live and who work in the neighbourhood of this House a single request that this Bill should be supported. The honourable Member for the Strand Division did more to damage this Bill than anyone who has spoken against it. What did he say was the reason that the House should pass it? That the House of Commons some time ago passed the Hotel Cecil Bill. That is true, but that was a case in which private enterprise did not conflict with public profit and advantage. The Hotel Cecil Bill added to the space in the neighbourhood in which the building was erected, it did not turn any artisans out, and it certainly did not go beyond the frontage line; so that the very case which the honourable Member quoted was more against his Bill than in support of it. Now we have heard to-day a mention of Jabez Balfour. But let us admit the fact, which is undoubted, that, artistically and architecturally, Jabez Balfour was infinitely better than the promoters of this Bill. Go to Whitehall Court, and there, with all its financial disgrace and with all its criminal associations, you will say that it is probably one of the finest blocks of buildings we have on the north side of the river. But Jabez Balfour had got a good architect, and he was kept in check by the building line in the rear of Montague House, by the National Liberal Club, and the local authorities would not allow him to obtrude himself on his buildings beyond the natural and well-established building line. But in the case of the Westminster Improvement Bill, so called, you will allow this block of red buildings, full of derelict millionaires, to obtrude right in front of the north side of Abingdon Street, diverting the traffic to the north, and inconveniencing Members of Parliament and all who have business in this particular locality. I trust that as a

  1139
  protest against the way in which this Bill has been log-rolled and lobbied, and in view of the artistic abominations and architectural defects that it contains, it will be rejected by a large majority; and then I trust that the House of Commons will co-operate with the County Council and the Vestry for taking over the precincts of this House and bringing to an issue as speedily as possible a really good and sound Embankment scheme worthy of the dignity of the Abbey and of this great House of which we have the honour to be Members.
  MR. R. J. PRICE: My honourable Friend the Member for Battersea has arrogated to himself a certain amount of knowledge. He assumed to know what the promoters of this Bill were going to do with a piece of land which I may say he does not know in the least, and he also assumed to know precisely what the County Council was going to do. As a matter of fact, he is not in a position to pledge the County Council to any method of procedure. The County Council are undoubtedly going to make a bridge at Lambeth, and when they do so they will have to make proper approaches to it, and it is owing to that fact that the County Council are bound to make the Lambeth Bridge that some of the plans of the promoters have been objected to. The reason why the avenue does not follow the line of Millbank Street to the corner of the bridge is precisely because the syndicate have looked a little further ahead, and have realised that when this new approach is built, and the bridge is built and complete, there will be a necessity for a gradual and easy gradient over the bridge, and it will be absolutely necessay for this avenue not to hit this road several feet below the surface, but to come across the road at a proper level. So much for the detail. Now let me say a word or two about the housing that has been referred to. I am sorry that there should be any question of dishousing, but whether this Bill is carried or not, whether this scheme is carried or abandoned, there is no question whatever that the owners of the property in which these poor people are now housed must begin to take some action. They have allowed a very valuable property to remain non-rent paying, or nearly so, and this Bill
  1140
  would undoubtedly have the effect of making these landowners look to themselves and begin to improve their property, and when they do so the poor people will be dishoused, whether it is done by this Bill or whether it is done, in the way I have mentioned, but it will not be as well done as would be the case if it were done under this Bill. Every precaution and every protection that could be given we have given under this Bill, and if my honourable Friend has an opportunity of moving his instruction that we shall provide for the rehousing of the working classes—and his instruction places us under no restriction whatever—we shall be ready to accept it. But if this work is undertaken by the landowners themselves, the poor will have no provision whatever made for them, and they will be driven entirely out of the neighbourhood. As a matter of fact, there are several charities connected with this parish, the benefits of which are not receivable by people who are not living in the parish, and that fact this syndicate has perfectly well known and has provided for, and arrangements have been made by which the people who have been dishoused will be rehoused and so not deprived of the benefits of those charities. And now let me deal very shortly indeed with the general question. The ground taken by my honourable Friend the Member for Shoreditch was practically this: that he did not deny that private individuals or private companies might very legitimately undertake large public improvements and ask Parliament for compulsory powers, but he denied that in the present instance the consideration was sufficient to allow the Bill to go to a Committee. Now I cannot help thinking that he has come to this conclusion without full knowledge of the facts. The roadway will be magnificent; the Embankment which has been sneered at will not be such a paltry thing as people have endeavoured to make it out; it will be 70 feet wide, and would connect with the Grosvenor Road. This is the only logical Embankment, and the Embankment will be of precisely the same width as Grosvenor Road itself, and, therefore, I think that my Friend has not really been fair to this scheme when he said that no consideration had been given. If he works it out in £ s. d. he will find

  1141
  that we have given it very great consideration indeed. As to the avenue, honourable Members are entirely mistaken in thinking that the way for the avenue to go is along the Embankment. The true line is from the Houses of Parliament, and if this is done you come right upon the Tate Gallery, and then you have an avenue second to none in Europe. I know that it is the duty of the Committee upstairs to take the greatest care that not only should a proper consideration be given for the powers asked for, but that the public interests Should be safeguarded in every way. My honourable Friend seemed to think that no private body ought to undertake any such scheme. He seemed to think that municipal bodies should undertake work of this kind. All I have to say is that we have no evidence whatsoever that the County Council of London or any other public body could undertake this scheme in anything like its
  present condition. It is possible, no doubt, that sooner or later the Embankment will be made to the river, but the delay before it is made will be very considerable indeed. In the meantime you throw out this Bill, and what will be the result? The area will be dealt with piecemeal by the different private occupiers, who will build each of them according to his own private and personal fancy. The poor will be dishoused, and they will not be exceedingly thankful to the working men's Member who has raised his voice against this Bill. I do hope that before this Debate closes we shall hear from the Government, or from the Chairman of Committees, the views that they take. My own view is strongly—and, of course, I speak as an interested party—that this is a Bill in which a primâ facie public advantage is shown, and that it should go upstairs and be threshed out by one of our Committees.
  House divided:—Ayes 84; Noes 336.

  AYES.

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  Monk, Charles James

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (C. of Lond.)

  More, Robert Jasper

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. John

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

  O'Malley, William

  Baden-Powell, Sir G. Smyth

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Baird, Jno. Geo. Alexander

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. J. B. (Clackm.)

  Heath, James

  Pryce-Jones, Edward

  Barry, Rt. HnAHSmith- (Hunts)

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l)

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Billson, Alfred

  Johnstone, J. H. (Sussex)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Mdsx)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Spencer, Sir Ernest

  Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)

  Knowles, Lees

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Lawrence, Sir Ed. (Cornwall)

  Thorburn, Walter

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh)

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Llewellyn, E. H. (Smerset)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

  Cox, Robert

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Wodehouse, Edm. R. (Bath)

  Denny, Colonel

  Lowe, Francis William

  Wylie, Alexander

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lowles, John

  Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

  Drucker, A.

  Maclean, James Mackenzie

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  M'Killop, James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Edwards, Gen. Sir J. Bevan

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Sir Barrington Simeon and

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Martin, Richard Bidduloh

  Sir Robert Penrose-Fitz-

  Forster, Henry William

  Milner, Sir Fredk. George

  gerald.

  Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Ascroft, Robert

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Aird, John

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Allan, Wm. (Gateshead)

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Allen, Wm. (Newc.-under-L.)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Ambrose, Robert (Mayo, W.)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Barry, F. T. (Windsor)

  Arnold, Alfred

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Engledew, Charles John

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Beach, W. W. B. (Hants.)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  Jessel, Capt. Herbt. M.

  Bethell, Commander

  Evans, Sir F. H. (S'th'mp'tn)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Biddulph, Michael

  Evershed, Sydney

  Joicey, Sir James

  Bigwood, James

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Birrell, Augustine

  Farrell, J. P. (Cavan, W.)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Blake, Edward

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn. Sir U.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Ffrench, Peter

  Kemp, George

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Mdsx.)

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Kenrick, William

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Field, William (Dublin)

  Kenyon, James

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Kilbride, Denis

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Kinloch, Sir J. G. Smyth

  Brown, Alexander H.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Kitson, Sir James

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Fison, Frederick William

  Knox, Edmund Francis Vesey

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Lafone, Alfred

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Lambert, George

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverp'l)

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (Wol'tn)

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.

  Burns, John

  Fowler, Matthew (Durham)

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Butcher, John George

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Leng, Sir John

  Caldwell, James

  Garfit, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Carew, James Laurence

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Sw'ns'a)

  Carlile, William Walter

  Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Logan, John William

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Lorg, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Godson, Augustus Frederick

  Lorre, Marquess of

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Gold, Charles

  Lough, Thomas

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Charrington, Spencer

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Gretton, John

  McDonnell, Dr. M. A.

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Greville, Captain

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hall, Sir Charles

  McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  McCalmont, Col. J. (Ant'm, E.)

  Colomb, Sir J. Chas. Ready

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  McCartan, Michael

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. A.

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  McDermott, Patrick

  Colville, John

  Hardy, Laurence

  McEwan, William

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.)

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  McIver, Sir Lewis

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Hazell, Walter

  McKenna, Reginald

  Crean, Eugene

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  McLeod, John

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Healy, Thomas J. (Wexford)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  Curran, Thos. (Sligo, S.)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Messey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)

  Hedderwick, T. C. H.

  Mellor, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Yorks.)

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Minch, Matthew

  Daly, James

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Hill, Sir Edw. Stock (Brist'l)

  Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montr'se)

  Davitt, Michael

  Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)

  Morris, Samuel

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devenport)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hogan, James Francis

  Moss, Samuel

  Dillon, John

  Hornby, William Henry

  Mowbray, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Howard, Joseph

  Murdoch, Charles Townshend

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Howell, William Tudor

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Doughty, George

  Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Myers, William Henry

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Newdigate, Francis Alex.

  Duckworth, James

  Hughes, Colonel Edwin

  Nicholson, Wm. Graham

  Dunn, Sir William

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Ellis, John Edw. (Notts.)

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. L.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Eills, T. E. (Merionethshire)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  1144

  1145

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Rothschild, Baren F. J. de

  Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Round, James

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Tully, Jasper

  O'Kelly, James

  Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelt.)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wallace, Robt. (Edinburgh)

  Pease, Alf. E. (Cleveland)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Pease, Arthur (Darlington)

  Saunderson, Col. E. James

  Walrond, Sir William Hood

  Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Pease, Sir J. W. (Durham)

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

  Pender, James

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Waring, Col. Thomas

  Penn, John

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Warkworth, Lord

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Shee, James John

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of Wight)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Souttar, Robinson

  Weir, James Galloway

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Spicer, Albert

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Purvis, Robert

  Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Stanley, H. M. (Lambeth)

  Williams, J. Carvell (Notts).

  Randell, David

  Steadman, William Charles

  Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M. T.

  Wills, Sir William Henry

  Reid, Sir Robert T.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Strachey, Edward

  Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)

  Richardson, J. (Durham)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Stuart, Jas. (Shoreditch)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Woods, Samuel

  Roberts, J. H. (Denbighshire)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Robertson, E. (Dundee)

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Robinson, Brooke

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Robson, Willam Snowdon

  Thomas, Alf. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Mr. Burdett-Coutts and Sir

  Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  William Hart Dyke.

  Roche John (E. Galway)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  BELFAST CORPORATION (HOSPITALS) BILL.
  On the Order for the Second Reading of this Bill,
  MR. E. F. VESEY KNOXsaid: I am sorry to have to trouble the House with another private Bill, but I am encouraged to think, by the figures in the last division, that the House does not regard the Second Reading of a private Bill as a matter of course. The subject of this Bill is very much less than that of the last Bill, but still it is one of considerable importance in itself and in what it involves. It is a Bill which proposes to allow the Corporation of Belfast to devote for hospital purposes about 60 acres of the present lunatic asylum grounds, outside the city, and also to give some five or six acres out of their other lunatic asylum grounds within the city, for the purposes of a hospital. There are two general hospitals in Belfast, one of which is mainly Protestant, and the other is mainly Catholic. The proposal
  1146
  of the Corporation of Belfast is that they should be allowed to give this site, which is provided out of public money, for the purpose of the Protestant hospital, while they refuse to make any sort of equivalent grant for the purpose of a Catholic hospital. I am, therefore, very reluctantly compelled to appeal to the fair feeling of Members on both sides of the House not to allow an injustice of this sort to be done. I say that I do so very reluctantly, because it is no pleasure to me, year after year, to have to oppose and expose the sectarian bitterness of the Corporation of Belfast; but still, on the other hand, there is the duty of protecting minorities, and I feel sure that honourable Members opposite, who will be anxious, under the Local Government Bill, to protect minorities, will be anxious, in regard to this Bill, to show that they are equally desirous to protect minorities, no matter whether they are Protestant or Catholic. Now I must trouble the House, with a short statement of the facts in connection with this Bill. Up till

  1147
  about 20 years ago there was only one general hospital in Belfast, the Royal Hospital. I do not intend to say anything against the Royal Hospital, because, among other reasons, a relative of mine spends a great portion of his time in connection with the administration of that hospital; but still there is no doubt that, while at one time the Catholics had a large share in the matter, the Management of the Royal Hospital was mainly Protestant, and has tended to become more and more Protestant as the years have gone by. But there was great need for the further hospital accommodation for the Catholics in Belfast, and they made great sacrifices to secure the establishment, out of their own funds, of another hospital, the Mater Infirmorum, and they have recently raised a sum of £50,000 for the extension of that hospital, and when it is completed, and it is now nearly completed, it will have very much more accommodation than the present Royal Hospital, and indeed it will compare very favourably with any other hospital in Ireland. It is a hospital which is open to all classes of the community. Although it is chiefly under Catholic management, and generally supported by Catholic subscriptions, it is open to everybody and to all classes, and I find that when this question was before the Corporation of Belfast the Protestant labour members supported the grant to the hospital on account of the good treatment which they knew had been extended to Protestant working men in it. The hospital is fully equipped, and has a complete medical and surgical staff, and I find that the great argument used against it before the Corporation was that it was mainly under the management of the medical and nursing staff, although I should have thought you could have no better management for a hospital than that. Now the Protestants of Belfast, not to be outdone by the example of the Catholics, and in a spirit of generous emulation, last year raised the sum of £100,000 for a new hospital to take the place of the Royal Hospital. The £50,000 raised by the Catholics, I may say, was a proportionately larger sum than the £100,000 raised by the wealthier Protestants. The new hospital, which is to be a general hospital, is to be called the Royal Victoria, and
  1148
  the price of the site for it, valued at £12,000, belongs to the lunatic asylums ground, which is practically the property of the ratepayers of Belfast. It is held under the Board of Control, and therefore I should have expected to see some representative of the Irish Government here when we are dealing with this matter. It may be said that the Board is not a Government Department, and I do not wish to make too much of that point, because, apart from technicalities, this ground is no doubt in effect the property of the ratepayers of Belfast. They are paying for it year by year, and therefore a grant of this lunatic asylum ground is in every way equivalent to a grant out of the rates. I think there are the greatest objections, from the point of view of lunacy administration, to this proposal. I do not want to go into details, which, I think, should be considered by a Committee; but there are, to my mind, the greatest objections to taking anything away from the very narrow and restricted ground now available for the lunatic asylum. I pass from that point to another. The site chosen for the new hospital is a considerable distance from the centre of the town, and much further removed from some of the largest mills than the Mater Infirmorum Hospital. The inevitable effect will be that the cases of accident at the mills will have to be sent to the Mater Infirmarum Hospital, and as that is said to be a Catholic hospital, it would be only fair that the extra burden should be met by some extra form of equivalent public grant. And, furthermore, I find that the new hospital is not to be under the same management as the old hospital. We may fairly hope that the people will put their hands into their pockets in support of a charitable hospital which is free from sectarian management; but I understand that one of the conditions of this grant is that the new hospital is to be more or less under the management of the Belfast Corporation. Now, unfortunately, it is a fact that the universal experience of the Catholics of Belfast has been that everything managed by the Belfast Corporation is managed in a spirit of sectarian bitterness. The Catholics do not get a fair chance in connection with anything under the management of the Belfast Corporation; and, therefore, although

  1149
  they have not much complaint to make against the management of the Royal Hospital, I do not think the Catholics of Belfast will have reason to expect anything like the same liberality in the new hospital if it is to be under Corporation management. I may refer to another hospital in Belfast which is under the management of a public body, the Workhouse Infirmary. The evidence given before a Committee of this House six or seven years ago, a Committee of which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board was a member, was of a distressing nature, for it showed that in the Workhouse Infirmary Catholic inmates were allowed to die without the ministrations of the priests of their own faith because there was not any one on the nursing staff who would take the trouble to go for a priest. The nursing staff was almost entirely Protestant, and these facts had a lamentable effect in increasing sectarian bitterness in Belfast; and if this new hospital is to be under the management of the Belfast Corporation, there is no reason to expect that it will be anything but a sectarian institution. Now, when this Bill was first proposed by the Corporation the Catholic members of the Corporation took what I think will be considered, under all the circumstances, the generous course of not opposing a grant to the Royal Victoria Hospital; but they did propose that provision should be made in the Bill for a grant of the same amount to a Catholic hospital. There was a Division on that question, in which 21 Members voted against and 12 Members voted for it, and I find that among those who voted in favour of the grant were a number of the Protestant Labour Members. One of those Labour Members put the matter in a very plain and simple way. Mr. Taylor, who, no doubt, is well known to the Members opposite who represent Belfast, said they knew that Protestants as a rule preferred to go to the Royal Hospital, and Rowan Catholics preferred to go to the other hospital. The Roman Catholics could go to the Royal Hospital if they wished, and the Protestants could go to the other, for it had been stated that the doors of the older hospital were open to all denominations, and that being so he could see no reason why the grant proposed should
  1150
  not be allowed, There was something, however, in the sentiment which led people to prefer one hospital to another, and he did not see why it should not be indulged. Now, I venture to say that that is a common-sense view of the question. It is a view that would have been taken by any public body in Ireland, I would almost say in the world, except the Corporation of Belfast. But the Corporation of Belfast outvoted it. They take rates from the Catholics quickly enough, but they will not give a grant to any institution which is mainly a Catholic institution. Now I will compare with that the case of Dublin. The Dublin Corporation is, of course, largely Catholic, but it gives grants out of the rates to the hospitals of that city without distinction of denomination. It gives those grants to hospitals which are very much more distinctly denominational than any in Belfast. As a matter of fact, some hospitals in Dublin to which grants are given are distinctly and almost exclusively Protestant. Now, I think it is a most unfortunate thing that Belfast should set an example like this to the other cities of Ireland. It represents a larger number of people than any other, and might be expected to show a better spirit in this matter. If it does not we have reluctantly to bring the matter before the House, and we ask the House to enforce upon the Corporation of Belfast the same principles of liberality which the Corporation of Dublin have acted upon so freely. I oppose the Second Reading of this Bill because, as it stands it chooses out of the two general hospitals in Belfast, and there are only two, the one which is mainly Protestant, to which to give a grant out of the rates and refuses any grant whatever to the other general hospital because it is mainly Catholic. That, I venture to think, is a ground which will justify the House, even on Second Reading, in refusing to pass this Bill. I have to bring the matter before the House on the Second Reading because, by the rules of the House affecting locus standi, the Catholics, although they are a large minority, have no right to appear before the Committee, unless it is a hybrid Committee, in opposition to the Bill. They could not, therefore, put their case at all before the Committee, and the Belfast Corporation, who

  1151
  are bringing forward this proposal for a grant out of the corporate funds, could get it passed through Committee without there being anybody else before the Committee to explain what the facts really were. For that reason I have felt bound to bring the matter before the House on the Second Reading. But I should be glad if honourable Members opposite would assent to the proposal for a hybrid Committee, with the Instruction I have put on the Paper, which would enable me to avoid putting the House to the trouble of a Division. I think it would be unfortunate if, on the eve of discussion on the Local Government Bill, which must involve the question of the protection of minorities in Ireland, the spokesman of the Irish minority should set such a bad example of what it is they aim at by supporting this unfair and narrow Bill. I think that when we are making, as we are, every effort to secure that local government in Ireland should be worked in a spirit of fair play between creed and creed, and between class and class, it is only right that we should look to honourable Members opposite for some assistance in this effort which we are making, and for some sign that they will treat the Catholic minority in Belfast with the same fairness that they demand, and rightly demand, should be extended to the Protestant minority in the south of Ireland. I venture, therefore, to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, and I beg to move that it be read a second time this day six months.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Sir, it is a remarkable fact that this Bill should propose to extend the powers of the Board of Control in Ireland, and that we are discussing it at half-past six o'clock, on the eve of the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill, which abolishes the powers of the Board of Control. Now, is not that a remarkable fact? The Government by their Local Government Bill propose to abolish the Board of Control, and then certain gentlemen connected with the Department bring in a private Bill to extend the powers of the Board of Control. My honourable and learned Friend has, I am sorry to say, had to make his speech against this Bill, and against any extension of the powers of the Board of
  1152
  Control, in the absence of any representative of the Irish Office. I am glad to see that the Chief Secretary has entered the House, for this matter is essentially one for his Department, and I should like to ask him one or two questions. He has brought in a Bill to abolish the Board of Control. Does he think it is a reasonable thing that his office should give its consent to this Belfast Bill? Because I know that in practice the Irish Office do not allow any private Bill to go forward without the imprimatur, in some form, of the Irish Office. Does the right honourable Gentleman think it is reasonable when he is going to abolish the Board of Control that we should pass a Bill to transfer its powers to the Belfast Corporation? Is that a reasonable thing? What will English Members think of a proposition of that kind? Here is a body, consisting of two or three clerks in Dublin Castle, called the Board of Control, and they are to be allowed to do by this Bill a thing which, in my judgment, should be left over to the assent of the body which is to take the place of the Board of Control, namely, the new Local Government Board. It is most unfair. There is another matter, and it is this: the right honourable Gentleman knows that by the Local Government Bill the grand juries' powers are to be transferred to the county councils. Well, Sir, the infirmaries and hospitals throughout Ireland got grants of from £600 to £1,200 a year from the local rates. The city of Dublin voted £6,000 per annum out of the local rates for hospitals of all denominations. The city of Cork voted £2,000 a year out of the local rates for hospitals of all denominations. One Cork infirmary has been controlled by Protestants, and another is more or less under the control of Catholics, but this grant was given by the Cork Corporation without any consideration of different sects. Well, now, we shall be asked under the Local Government Bill to continue the grant to the county infirmaries in Ireland, which is at present £23,000 a year. We shall be asked to agree to a continuation of that grant, although many of these county infirmaries in Ireland are controlled by Protestants. A strong appeal will be made to us not to object to a continuation of these grants, and yet on the eve of that

  1153
  Bill being considered we have the Corporation of Belfast seeking for extended powers to be confined, so far as charitable purposes are concerned, to a single Protestant hospital. Sir, why should not Belfast take example from Catholic Dublin or Cork? Why should the exercise of charity be confined to any one religious sect? When a man is stricken by the wayside, why should the minds of these eminent Puritans of Belfast be confined solely to the question whether the wounded man is Protestant or Catholic? Surely, Sir, it is only reasonable that the Catholics of Belfast—who are 100,000 strong, and contribute largely to the rates of the community—should get a fair proportion of the contribution which is given for the infirmaries which prevail amongst the Catholic and Protestant populations alike. And yet, Sir, while the whole of Ireland is, in this matter, giving an example to Belfast, the Government, as I understand, claim to have no opinion in the matter, and have absolutely given their sanction to the Board of Control handing over this plot of ground to a narrow-minded gang which refuses to exercise that Christian charity which every one of the other towns in Ireland is willing to exercise. I respectfully say that the Government ought not to give this plot of ground to the Corporation of Belfast unless it extends its charity and acts the Good Samaritan in the same way as the Catholics are willing to do to Protestants throughout the rest of Ireland. The Chief Secretary for Ireland did not think it was worth while to come into the House while my honourable and learned Friend was making his speech; but we do not ask for the Catholics of Belfast champagne or anything of that sort. All we ask is that they shall have a share of the rates to which they contribute in the same proportion as the Protestants contribute, and we ask that the Protestants of Belfast shall show themselves to be equally Christian-like in spirit to those of the Catholic community. Until they do that we ask that the Government shall withhold their assent to a Bill of this kind, and refuse to allow the Board of Control to transfer this plot of ground. This Bill opens up a whole series of questions which will be raised on the Local Government Bill, and
  1154
  if we are defeated on this private Bill, we shall move Amendments on the Local Government Bill to restrain the Board of Control from dealing with any of its property as from the 1st of March last. But this Bill is no longer a private Bill. It has all the characteristics of a public Bill, and we are entitled to ask that its operation shall be suspended until the Local Government Bill is passed.
  MR. G. W. WOLFF: Sir, I cannot accept the view that this Bill which the Corporation of Belfast are promoting has anything to do with the Local Government Bill, or that it has anything like the importance which honourable Members opposite appear to attach to it. The whole question, it seems to me, whether the Corporation of Belfast should contribute not only to the Royal Victoria Hospital, but also to the Mater Infirmorum, depends on the consideration whether those hospitals are general hospitals in the ordinary sense of the word. I take it that a general hospital is the general hospital of the town, and I take it that that is the case in almost every town. A general hospital is one which is willing to receive and treat every kind of disease and accident, and also a hospital which is totally devoid of sectarian government and of sectarian influences. It should be a hospital in which the religious teaching of any particular sect—or, for that matter, any religious teaching at all—should have no place whatever. The Belfast Victoria Hospital which is about to be built is to be in place of the hospital which has existed for many years in Belfast. It is a hospital which is absolutely free from any religious or sectarian bias whatever, There are notices of the regulations affixed to the walls of the hospital, and a copy of them is given to every patient, no matter to what religion he belongs, directing that if he or she wants the attendance of any particular minister, no matter whether Catholic or Protestant, he shall be sent for. The management of the hospital is in the hands of a General Committee, which consists of life governors—and any man who subscribes £10 a year is eligible for the office—and other representatives of the subscribers, and they elect a general

  1155
  Committee of Management, consisting of 15 members. So far from its being a Protestant hospital, out of the number of these life governors there are several who are Catholics. On the Board of Management there are three Catholics, and certainly the best doctor in that institution is a Catholic, and has great influence in the hospital. Under these circumstances I consider that this hospital, which is supported by voluntary subscriptions, is the general hospital of the town. On the other hand, the Mater Infirmorum, however good it may be—and I have been over it, and can testify to the excellence of its management—is not a general hospital. It is distinctly a sectarian hospital. I do not mean to say that they would refuse admission to any suffering Protestant, but its management is entirely in Catholic hands. Honourable Members will understand what I mean when I say that it is under the direction of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Belfast, and that the doctors on the staff are all Catholics. The nurses are all nuns, and in the centre of the hospital there is a Roman Catholic chapel, in which Roman Catholic services are carried on. I cannot understand, under these circumstances, how it can be called a general hospital, or why the Corporation of Belfast should be called upon to contribute to its support. The honourable Member for Derry has told us of the noble effort which has been made in support of this hospital by raising £50,000, or whatever the amount was; but I am sure that the honourable Member will not deny that a very large proportion of that amount was subscribed by the Protestant people of Belfast. And that money has been subscribed under the idea that this hospital was a general hospital, and they never had an idea that it could be claimed as anything but the general hospital of Belfast. Well, Sir, the ratepayers of Belfast are perfectly entitled to give their money in support of a general hospital, but I do not think they are justified in giving their money to any special hospital of a purely sectarian kind such as that mentioned by the honourable Member opposite, or to such hospitals as the Children's or the Maternity Hospitals. The honourable Member for Louth has told us what has been done in Dublin and Cork and
  1156
  other cities, but I cannot but regret that honourable Members opposite should have taken up the attitude that they have taken, and that they should have accused the Protestant people of Belfast of narrow-mindedness. In my view, the narrow-mindedness is all on the other side. I remember the time when the Catholic bishop was one of the most active supporters of the Board of Management of the General Hospital, but a different spirit seems to prevail now. It seems to me that no matter what is on the tapis in Belfast, whether it be municipal elections or other matters, the great object of the Catholic clergy is to get the control of the whole matter into their own hands. This Bill, if it goes through, will prove to be one of the greatest boons ever given to Belfast; and therefore I think it would be a great pity if hon. Members opposite were to throw it out. I will only make one more remark, and that is with regard to what the honourable Member opposite has said as to the Board of Control. All we ask is that the Board of Control should transfer to the Corporation certain lands which the Corporation bought with their own money.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The ratepayers' money.
  MR. WOLFF: All they want is that the property of the ratepayers shall be taken out of the nominal management of the Board of Control and placed in the hands of the Corporation. I do hope that the House will agree with me that an institution which has done so much good for the town of Belfast shall be assisted in the way proposed by this Bill.
  MR. P. G. H. CARVILL: I only rise to say that in my constituency public opinion is certainly hostile to this Bill. I think honourable Members opposite will agree that where public money is to be distributed, at any rate, the claims of rival establishments should be considered. I had the opportunity of a conversation with the Lord Mayor of Belfast this afternoon. We discussed this matter very fully, and he had nothing but compliments to pay to the Mater Infirmorum Hospital. We have every confidence in

  1157
  the management of that hospital, which has conferred great benefit on Belfast; and I hope, Sir, that unless the promoters of this Bill will consent to allow it to have a share of the benefits of this grant, the Bill will be rejected, and not sent to a Committee of the House.
  MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I wish to ask whether the House is really inclined to go beyond the decision of the Belfast Corporation in regard to this matter? The fact is this: that a majority of the members of the Belfast Corporation, in a matter which was entirely within their own competence, came to a certain decision. The honourable Member for Londonderry says that the minority of the Corporation took another view, and therefore it is the duty of the House of Commons to refuse to recognise the opinion of the majority.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: That was not my contention. My contention was that the matter should be discussed on its merits.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I submit that it would be establishing a most dangerous precedent to go behind the decision of such an important body as the Corporation of Belfast. But with regard to the matter itself I think it has been put a great deal too high. What are the facts of the case? They are extremely simple and have been stated already. A large sum of money was raised by voluntary subscription in Belfast on the occasion of Her Majesty's Jubilee, as was done in so many other places, and a contribution is to be made to make that splendid effort more effective. But beyond that the Corporation will grant a piece of land which will be suitable for this object, and the Board of Control, which has been introduced into this discussion by the honourable Member for Louth, is merely an incident and has nothing to do with the merits of the case. The proposal is to transfer certain land of the Corporation of Belfast, and the point raised by the honourable Member opposite is that there should be a species of blackmail exacted.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: I beg to ask whether it is in order to describe my Motion as blackmail?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, no; I did not intend to do that. My idea was that it was undesirable that the Belfast Corporation should be compelled to make a contribution to a particular section of the community on every occasion as a condition precedent to exercising their undoubted rights.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Why a condition precedent?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Because it is an undoubted fact that if this demand is made as a matter of right, then the same demand may be made as a matter of right on every hospital in Belfast. There is no doubt that this hospital will be absolutely open. The honourable Member for Derry spoke of Roman Catholic control, but that depends very much on the amount of subscriptions. There is no English or Scotch town which would admit the validity of the contention that you are to set up two sharp divisions in every city in the United Kingdom, one for the Roman Catholics and the other for everybody else, and to regard them as being equally entitled to receive grants of public money. This hospital, which is intended to commemorate the Jubilee, is an unsectarian hospital, open to all, and has been subscribed for by the generosity of the citizens of Belfast. I cannot understand why the honourable Member opposite should object. If his Amendment is carried, and this Bill is thrown out, what will be the result? Would there be any advantage to the present hospital? Not the least in the world. The only result will be that a further burden will be placed upon the contribution of the citizens to find £12,000 to get another site. No human being will be advantaged by the passing of the Amendment, and I trust we shall not be prevented in Belfast from managing our own hospitals in our own way.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I should be very sorry to say one word against the generous desire to subscribe for hospital purposes either in Belfast or anywhere else. Whether the subscribers are Protestants or Catholics we are proud of their character for generosity, but at the same time it is

  1159
  impossible to blink the fact that in Belfast the circumstances are different from those of other communities in the United Kingdom. We have heard a great deal about the protection of Protestant minorities in Ireland, but we hear very little about the protection of Catholics in Ireland. The honourable Member who has just sat down has appealed to English corporations. Why, Sir, there is no corporation in England that would treat a minority as the Belfast Corporation have treated the Catholic minority there. What are the facts of the case? The great General Hospital of Belfast was no doubt at one time ruled by an authority including many Catholic gentlemen, of whom the Catholic bishop was one. But the Catholics of Belfast experienced in respect of hospital treatment that which they had experienced in many other directions; and, although they are a poor community, they were driven in self-defence to establish a hospital for themselves, the Mater Infirmorum. Now, what is the present proposal? It is that out of what is the common property of the citizens of Belfast there shall be made an appropriation for the exclusive benefit of one section of the community only. I say one section only. It is true that the present hospitals are open to all patients, and to that extent they stand on an equal footing, but as a matter of fact, as everyone knows with regard to one of those hospitals, the majority of the patients are Protestants, and with regard to the other they are Catholics. Now it is proposed out of the common fund of the citizens of Belfast to make an appropriation entirely in favour of one of those two institutions, and to afford no compensation or set-off whatever to the other. I do not know whether my honourable Friend who has brought this matter before the House is desirous of preventing this Bill going forward, but, as I understand, all he asks is that the Catholics of Belfast shall be treated fairly and equitably in respect of contributions made out of the common fund. If that is done I do not suppose that this Bill will be further opposed, but I do think that we are entitled to appeal to the Government not to support this Bill unless Catholics are treated equitably with Protestants.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the House to give for a few moments a calm and careful consideration to the proposition which is before it. My honourable Friend for West Belfast has already told the House that the cause of this Bill being now before us is the fact that, in order to distinguish the Diamond Jubilee of Her Most Gracious Majesty, a hundred thousand pounds was subscribed by the people of Belfast, in order to establish a new general hospital in the city, and by permission of Her Majesty it was called the Royal Victoria Hospital. In order that those funds might be expended and a hospital erected it was necessary that a site should be obtained. The proposition is that a portion of the grounds of the Belfast Asylum in Grosvenor Street, and not required for asylum purposes, should be taken over from the Board of Control by the Belfast Corporation. We have heard a good deal about the sectarianism of Belfast, but it was only the other day that the Corporation of Belfast consented—and may I be permitted in parenthesis to say I regret they did?—that two wards should be marked out within the boundary, in order to secure representation to the Roman Catholics. That the corporation voluntarily agreed to this is admitted—[Mr. T. M. HEALY: No!] Yes! and it sufficiently indicates their desire to be fair-minded and to give the Roman Catholic portion of the population a share in the representation, and to enable them to take part in the government of the city. However, the opposition to this Bill emanates from what is called the Catholic Association of Belfast. I am sorry the honourable Member for South Mayo is not present, for I had a very pleasant journey with him to Belfast when he went to oppose the Roman Catholic Bishop in Belfast. I will not allow myself, subject to your ruling, Sir, to be put out by the jeers of honourable Gentlemen opposite. The petition presented by the Catholic Association deals with statements entirely devoid of foundation.
  "Your petitioners"—(it says)—"will have no representation on the Committee of Management of the said hospital, and no voice in the appointment of the managing, medical,

  1161
  surgical, or nursing staffs of the said hospital. It is understood and believed that the new hospital is to take the place of the existing Royal Hospital. Your petitioners' co-religionists have been almost entirely excluded from the management and staff of the hospital, and notwithstanding repeated remonstrances, no provision has been made for ministering to the spiritual wants of Catholic inmates. Moreover, the Catholic poor requiring hospital accommodation very often found it impossible to obtain access to the wards of the Royal Hospital in consequence of the system of nomination for admission to the wards of the hospital which prevailed and still prevails."
  Mr. Speaker, the Royal Hospital issued a statement on the 16th of April contradicting the assertions contained in this petition. They state very truly that at no period of their existence did there exist any religious test or qualification whatever for becoming a member of the general committee or of the board of management, or of the medical and surgical staff of the Royal Hospital. According to the Charter everyone who subscribes £50 in one payment, or £10 annually for six years, becomes thereby a life governor and member of the board of management, and every subscriber of one guinea annually may be elected a member of the general committee, and subsequently of the board of management. Of those qualified by payment of £50, eight are Roman Catholics, of those elected by the guinea subscribers there are three Roman Catholics out of a total of 15, and of these, one, an active and able member of the Board is a Roman Catholic priest. From 1837 till the close of his valuable life the Right Rev. Dr. Denvir, Roman Catholic Bishop of Down and Connor, was one of the most influential and respected members of the board of management. From the year 1849 till the present the medical and surgical staff has never been without one Roman Catholic member; commonly, there have been two, and occasionally three. The relations of these gentlemen with their colleagues have always been of the most cordial and amicable nature. For many years a Roman Catholic surgeon filled the post of secretary, and for the last nine years a member of the same Church has been chosen by the suffrages of his colleagues to occupy the position of Chairman of the Staff. The principle of non-sectarianism has been carried out with the most scrupulous care in every detail of hospital
  1162
  management. No question as to his religious belief is ever addressed to any applicant for admission to the hospital; no illuminated texts or religious emblems are displayed on the walls; no public prayers are recited in the wards; there is no chapel within the building—in fact, the hospital is managed as an institution with the primary object of the cure and relief of disease, while at the same time the Committee have taken pains to give to the sick every facility for obtaining the aids and comforts of religion. The nurses have directions to put into the hands of every patient the following notice—
  "If at any time, while you are an inmate of this hospital, you feel desirous of seeing a clergyman, on your communicating your wish to one of the Medical Staff, the House Surgeon, or a resident pupil, the clergyman whom you name shall be sent for, provided the visit is considered not injurious by the Medical Attendant."
  And further information on the same subject is given in a notice hung up in wards and passages. Every possible provision has been made for the convenience of clergymen called on to give the ministrations of religion to any of the inmates. The honourable Member for Derry has made the assertion, which I am sure he cannot substantiate, that the nurses refused to summon a Roman Catholic priest to attend a Roman Catholic patient. [Mr. KNOX: I did not say so of the Royal Hospital; I said it of the Infirmary.] I think every Member in the House who heard the honourable and learned Member was under the impression that he said the Royal Hospital. The charge that the Roman Catholic poor found it very often impossible to obtain access to the wards of the Royal Hospital is sufficiently met by the fact that while it is impossible to state accurately the relative number of Roman Catholics who have been treated in the hospital, as no inquiry is made regarding the religion of patients, and there are consequently no records, it is the opinion of all those connected with the institution, and who have the best opportunities of forming a judgment on the question, that about one-half of the patients admitted to the wards are

  1163
  members of that Church, while their co-religionists probably do not amount to more than one-fourth of the population of the city. I resent most emphatically the allegations of want of Christianity and want of charity that have been hurled against Belfast. There is no city in the Empire more generous, more Christian, than Belfast; nor is any tyranny over the Roman Catholic population ever resorted to. This Bill is an
  unsectarian Bill, promoted by the Belfast Corporation, for the accommodation and relief of the poor, and I confidently ask the House to give it a Second Reading.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Vesey Knox.)
  House divided:—Ayes 269; Noes 94.

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Aird, John

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Allan, Wm. (Gateshead)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. R.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Colston, C. E. H. Athole

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Arnold, Alfred

  Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

  Gretton, John

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

  Greville, Captain

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Ascroft, Robert

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

  Hall, Sir Charles

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Cox, Robert

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Crombie, John William

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H.

  Cruddas, Wm. Donaldson

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

  Baird, John George Alex.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Balcarres, Lord

  Denny, Colonel

  Heath, James

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

  Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. J. B. (Clackm.)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Helder, Augustus

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Hill, Sir E. Stock (Bristol)

  Barry, Rt. Hon. A. H. Smith-

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)

  Barry, F. Tress (Windsor)

  Doughty, George

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hornby, William Henry

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l)

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. H.

  Beach, W. W. B. (Hants)

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Howard, Joseph

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Duckworth, James

  Howell, William Tudor

  Bethell, Commander

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

  Birrell, Augustine

  Dunn, Sir William

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. W. Lawies

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Ellis, T. E. (Merionethshire)

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Evershed, Sydney

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Brigg, John

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Johnstone, J. H. (Sussex)

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Brown, Alexander H.

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc.)

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn. Sir U.

  Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Kenrick, William

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Kenyon, James

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Butcher, John George

  Fison, Frederick William

  Kimber, Henry

  Caldwell, James

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Knowles, Lees

  Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Lafone, Alfred

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall)

  Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Forster, Henry William

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir. A. B.

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs.)

  Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

  Galloway, Wlliam Johnson

  Leng, Sir John

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Garfit, William

  Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Gedge, Sydney

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Sw'ns'a)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (C.ofLdn.)

  Loder, G. W. Erskine

  Charrington, Spencer

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Godson, Augustus Frederick

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Gold, Charles

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Lowe, Francis William

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Lowles, John

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

  Lowther, J. W. (Cumberl'd)

  Pease, Alf. E. (Cleveland)

  Stephens, Henry Charles

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Strachey, Edward

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Thorburn, Walter

  McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Pryce-Jones, Edward

  Tollemache, Henry James

  McCalmont, Col. J. (Ant'm, E.)

  Purvis, Robert

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  McEwan, William

  Pym, C. Guy

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  McIver, Sir Lewis

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Valentia, Viscount

  McKillop, James

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Wallace, Robt. (Edinburgh)

  McLeod, John

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Walrond, Sir William Hood

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Waring, Col. Thomas

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of Wight)

  Monk, Charles James

  Round, James

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

  More, Robert Jasper

  Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltm.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Mount, William George

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Murdoch, Charles Townshend

  Saunderson, Col. E. James

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Wylie, Alexander

  Myers, William Henry

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Young, Com. (Berks, E.)

  Newdigate, Francis Alex.

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Mr. Wolff and Mr. William

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Spencer, Ernest

  Johnston.

  NOES.

  Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Ambrose, Robert (Mayo, W.)

  Hogan, James Francis

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Price, Robert John

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Randell, David

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Reid, Sir Robert T.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Labouchere, Henry

  Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

  Carew, James Laurence

  Lambert, George

  Roche, John (E. Galway)

  Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

  Lloyd-George, David

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Logan, John William

  Shee, James John

  Collery, Bernard

  Lough, Thomas

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Curran, Thos. B. (Donegal)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Souttar, Robinson

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  McDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qn.'s Co.)

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Daly, James

  MacNeill, John G. Swift

  Steadman, William Charles

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  McCartan, Michael

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Dillon, John

  M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.)

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  Tully, Jasper

  Doogan, P. C.

  Minch, Matthew

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Weir, James Galloway

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  Morris, Samuel

  Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)

  Farrell, Jas. P. (Cavan, W.)

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Wills, Sir William Henry

  Fenwick, Charles

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfoik)

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, H. J. (Yorks., W. R.)

  Field, William (Dublin)

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Woods, Samuel

  Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow)

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Kelly, James

  Mr. Knox and Mr. T. M.

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  O'Malley, William

  Healy.

  Healy, Thos. J. (Wexford)

  Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)

  Bill read a second time.

  MR. VESEY KNOX: I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name: After Second Reading of Belfast Corporation (Hospitals) Bill [H.L.], to move—
  "That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee of five Members, two to be nominated by the House and three by the Committee of Selection; that all petitions against the Bill presented five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their counsel, or agents, be heard against the Bill, and counsel heard in support of the Bill; that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records; that three be the quorum."
  It is a matter which the Catholics of Belfast have strong views upon, which they wished to place before a Committee of the House. Under the rules of locus standi they have no power to be heard in any other way, and are by no means to employ counsel. Under the very special circumstances I think the House ought to accept this Motion. The Bill is one of a very peculiar character, and one, I think, there is no precedent for; and under all the circumstances it is most desirable that the Motion should be allowed. It has a considerable bearing on the proceedings of the Local Government Bill, into which we are about to enter. If we find that honourable Members opposite have so strange a view of the rights of a minority—if they thought the minority should not be heard on a Bill of this kind before a Committee of the House, then we (the Nationalists) will bring it before the House on the Local Government Bill. I cannot help thinking that the Chief Secretary will consent to the Motion, for it is of such a kind that it throws a new light which will have to come out on the Local Government Bill. I venture to hope that the Chief Secretary will intervene in favour of this Motion. I should like to know the views of the Board of Control on the subject. There are other questions which could not be discussed unless the Motion is carried, and therefore I hope the House will support it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to second the Motion. I will read the Section of the Local Government Bill, which abso-
  1168
  lutely took away from the Board of Control their powers over lands whatsoever.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That question is not before the House.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I am going to show that this Bill is of a semi-public nature, and therefore the Committee should be of a semi-public character, and I say that you take away from the Lord Lieutenant all powers of dealing with these lands. It is an argument why the House of Commons should treat this Bill as a semi-public one, and therefore should be dealt with by a hybrid Committee instead of an ordinary Committee of this House. It is an argument which is unanswerable from the point of view of public business. The ordinary Committee of this House meets and considers questions solely within the four corners of the Bill, and has practically nothing to do with Acts of Parliament. Furthermore, before the Ordinary Committee the Catholics of Belfast would not have the right to be represented on petition or by counsel, because by the rules of locus standi every ratepayer is supposed to be represented by his Corporation. I have just reason to complain that Her Majesty's Government, with regard to a Measure which goes to the root of their own Bill, should vote for it. I should like to know upon what grounds the Lunatic Asylums Board is to part with lands and hand them over to a private concern; and therefore I think that these lands should remain in the hands of the Lunatic Asylums Board. Furthermore, the last Belfast Bill—in 1895—was dealt with by a hybrid Committee, which established a precedent. It raised questions similar to those raised here, and it is due to the honourable Gentleman the Member for Manchester to say that he piloted that Committee with great success. I can only say that, as the Government have given their support to the promoters of this Bill to the present time, I think they are now entitled to come forward and say to the promoters: We gave you our support to this Bill up to the Second Reading, and we think now, having done as we have for the majority,

  1169
  that the minority should have a fair show, and that they shall have a full and fair hearing before the Committee. Our only chance of doing that will be by the appointment of a hybrid Committee. We are told that Parliament is able to deal with any Irish grievance. Is this matter so to be dealt with as to shut out the voice of the Catholic minority? If that is so, it is only one more proof of the power of the Government, of which we hear so much and see so little, and of their incompetence to deal with Irish affairs.
  SIR JAMES H. HASLETT: I venture to trespass upon the time of the House, as I happen to be one of the unfortunate "gang" that has been referred to. Here I might, perhaps say that I think it would be far better if language of that kind were not to be indulged in in this House. I think it is unworthy of this House with regard to the question of the difficulty connected with the hybrid Committee. I have only had the honour of sitting on one hybrid Committee since I have been a Member of this House. I trust it will be the last that I shall ever sit on in the House of Commons. The reason for the appointment of a hybrid Committee is easy to understand. It is that the honourable Member might be enabled to act as counsel for a party. I feel there can be nothing more scandalous than that such an enunciation should be made from the benches of this House. With regard
  to the hospital, it has been said that this property, which is now vested in the Board of Control, a body which is about to perish, should be revested in them by a special Act. In my opinion, if there is anything scandalous in the transaction, it is that the Board of Control should have anything to do with the matter. Honourable Members will be surprised to learn—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member is now going beyond the scope of the question. The only question is of what kind the Committee shall be.
  SIR J. HASLETT: I was only wanting to show that the scandalous part of the transaction is the present position of the land. We ask that it should not be vested in the Board of Control, but that it should pass to the citizens of Belfast. We ask why the power to deal—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  SIR J. HASLETT: I quite understand the object of these hybrid Committees. It is in order that witnesses may be brought over to give evidence; and to what can they speak but that which has already been brought before this House? I trust that this House will resist this suggestion for a hybrid Committee, and leave it to a Committee of this House to deal with the matter without bias and without prejudice in any way.
  House divided:—Ayes 99; Noes 205.

  AYES.

  Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

  Curran, Thos. B. (Donegal)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo)

  Hogan, James F.

  Ambrose, Robert (Mayo, W.)

  Daly, James

  Jacoby, James A.

  Austin, Sir J.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir C.

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Dillon, John

  Joicey, Sir James

  Barry, E. (Cork. S.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Birrell, Augustine

  Duckworth, James

  Kilbride, Denis

  Bolton, Thomas D.

  Engledew, Charles J.

  Kinloch, Sir J. G. S.

  Brigg, John

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lambert, George

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Farrell, J. P. (Cavan, W.)

  Logan, John William

  Brunner, Sir J. T.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lough, Thomas

  Burt, Thomas

  Field, William (Dublin)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Caldwell, James

  Flynn, James Christopher

  McDonnell, Dr. M. (Qn.'s Co.)

  Carew, J. L.

  Gourley, Sir Edward T.

  MacNeill, John G. Swift

  Carvill, Patrick George H.

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  McCartan, Michael

  Channing, F. A.

  Hayden, John P.

  M'Hugh, E. (Armagh)

  Clancy, John J.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  M'Leod, John

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  Collery, Bernard

  Healy, Thos. J. (Wexford)

  Minch, Matthew

  Crean, Eugene

  Hedderwick, T. C. H.

  Molloy, B. C.

  Morris, Samuel

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Norton, Captain C. W.

  Reid, Sir Robert T.

  Tully, Jasper

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Roberts, J. H. (Denbighshire)

  Weir, James G.

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Roche, Hon. Jas. (Kerry, E.)

  Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Wills, Sir William Henry

  O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Shee, James John

  Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)

  O'Kelly, James

  Souttar, Robinson

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  O'Malley, W.

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

  Parnell, J. Howard

  Stedman, William Charles

  Woods, Samuel

  Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Strutt, Hon. C. H.

  Mr. Knox and Mr. T. M.

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Healy.

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Lawson, J. G. (Yorks., N. R.)

  Allhusen, Augustus H. E.

  Finlay, Sir Robert B.

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Leng, Sir John

  Arnold, Alfred

  Fison, F. W.

  Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

  Arnold-Foster, Hugh O.

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Flower, Ernest

  Loder, Gerald W. E.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. J.

  Forster, Henry William

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Grid W. (Leeds)

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Galloway, Wm. J.

  Lowles, J.

  Barry, F. Tress (Windsor)

  Garfit, William

  Lowther, J. W. (Cumberland)

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l)

  Gedge, Sydney

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Bethell, Commander

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Ldn.)

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Boscawen, A. Griffith-

  Giles, C. T.

  Macartney, W. G. E.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. J.

  Godson, Augustus F.

  Macdona, J.

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Gold, Charles

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Goldsworthy, Mj.-Gen. W. T.

  McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Butcher, John George

  Gordon, Hon. John E.

  McCalmont, Mj-Gn. (Ant'm, N.)

  Campebll, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  McCalmont, Col. J. (Ant'm, E.)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  McIver, Sir Lewis

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbvsh.)

  Goulding, Edward A.

  McKillop, James

  Cayzer, Sir C. W.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Marks, H. H.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Gretton, John

  Monk, Charles James

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. H.

  Greville, Captain

  More, R. Jasper

  Charrington, S.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Morrell, George H.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Muntz, P. A.

  Coghill, D. H.

  Hatch, E. F. G.

  Murdoch, Charles T.

  Cohen, Benjamin L.

  Heath, James

  Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Colomb, Sir John C. R.

  Helder, Augustus

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Myers, William Henry

  Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

  Newdigate, Francis A.

  Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

  Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)

  Nicholson, W. G.

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

  Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Cox, Robert

  Hornby, William H.

  O'Neill, Hon. R. T.

  Cruddas, W. D.

  Houldsworth, Sir W. H.

  Parkes, E.

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Howard, J.

  Phillpotts, Captain A.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Howell, William T.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Denny, Colonel

  Howorth, Sir Henry H.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. W. Lawies

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Jebb, R. Claverhouse

  Pollock, H. F.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. D.

  Jeffreys, A. F.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Johnson-Ferguson, J. E.

  Pryce-Jones, E.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kenrick, William

  Purvis, Robert

  Doxford, William T.

  Kenyon, James

  Pym, C. Guy

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Duncombe, Hon. H. V.

  Kimber, Henry

  Rentoul, James A.

  Dunn, Sir William

  Knowles, Lees

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Farquharson, Dr. R.

  Lafone, Alfred

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc.)

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  1172

  1173

  Royds, Clement M.

  Stephens, H. C.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. L.

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Whittaker, Thomas P.

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Thorburn, W.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. M.

  Tollemache, H. J.

  Willox, Sir J. A.

  Saunderson, Colonel E. J.

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edward M.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Tritton, Charles E.

  Wodehouse, Edmund Robert

  Scoble, Sir A. R.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Sharpe, William E. T.

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Wyndham, George

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Walrond, Sir W. H.

  Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Waring, Col. Thomas

  Skewes-Cox, T.

  Warr, A. F.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Spencer, Ernest

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Sir James Haslett and Mr.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Webster, Sir R. E. (Isle of Wight)

  William Johnson.

  Resolutions agreed to.

  MR. SPEAKERruled out of order the following Motion, which also stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. VESEY KNOX—
  "That it be an instruction to the Committee that they have power, if they think fit, to insert provisions for an equivalent grant, whether by a capital sum, or by annual payment out of the rates, to the Mater Misericordiæ Hospital, in the city of Belfast."
  A proposal to endow another hospital out of the rates should be the subject of another Bill.
  Bill Committed.

  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (NEW WORKS) BILL. [H.L.]
  On the Order for Second Reading,
  MR. WILLIAM FIELD: I claim the indulgence of the House for a few moments. I regret very much, at this late hour, that private business occupies so much of the time of this assembly, but the position has been forced upon me of opposing this Bill before the House this evening. Now I am not in opposition to the Bill in connection with the expenditure of the money, or in regard to the improvement of Liverpool. On the contrary, I only desire that the improvement should be extended to the home trade, and that more money should be laid out. It has been represented that I am in opposition to the shipowners because the shipowners have presented a petition in favour of this Bill. Now I wish to point out—my remarks will be as concise as possible—that the Liverpool Shipowners' Association passed a resolution to the effect
  1174
  that it was essential that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board should consider the necessary requirements of the home trade. That is precisely the position I occupy upon this matter. In the year 1893 the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board came to this House voluntarily, without any pressure whatever, and asked for certain powers, among which was the construction of a landing-stage at Waterloo Pier. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board have carried out almost all the powers given to them under the Act of 1893, but they have neglected to carry out that one in regard to the landing-stage. Further, the Prince's landing-stage was for the purpose of affording accommodation to the coasting trade, and that stage, which was used for that purpose, has been practically taken away. The result is that instead of the Act of 1893 increasing, as it was hoped, the facilities for the coasting and the cross-Channel trade with Ireland, they have been decreased by the action of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. With regard to my personal interest in this matter I only claim to represent other people. Allow me to point out, if that Board did as it ought to have done, it would have afforded facilities for the home trade. At an enormous cost they have afforded facilities for the American trade. To that I have no objection; nor have I any objection to the Board spending £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 of money in improving the docks generally for the foreign trade which comes to Liverpool; but I do most respectfully submit to this House that if millions of money are to be expended for the benefit of the foreign trade, then we, who are home traders, whose trade is not in any way to be despised, are certainly entitled to receive equal treatment at the hands of the Board. I submit

  1175
  that the expenditure of a large sum of money like this amounts to a bounty to foreign trade. I have no hostility to the improvement of Liverpool. On the contrary, I desire most earnestly to see Liverpool as a port improved and increased in activity and efficiency, because Liverpool is the principal port in England of which use is made by Irish producers; and anything which forwards the interests of Liverpool must of a necessity forward the interests of Ireland. But what I object to is that, while they do everything in their power to benefit the foreign they do nothing whatever to assist the home trade. That view may be denied, but if it is I will ask this question and press for a definite answer upon the point: Why is the Irish trade exactly in the same position as it was 60 years ago? It has not improved. An honourable Gentleman says that it is worse, and I believe it is worse; and there is no clause in this Bill which proposes to expend any portion of all these millions of money for the purposes of improving that trade. The Prince's landing-stage as I have already pointed out, gave some facilities for the Irish cross-Channel trade, but even that has been taken away. I have had personal experience in this matter, because I have been down to Liverpool several times in connection with it. The result of that is that you will see three or four boats lying out in the middle of the river waiting for the tide, and only a very small place available for them at the landing-stage. This should not and ought not to exist. I know perfectly well that the smallness of a certain portion of the trade is the reason given why the subject should not be pressed, but this. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board is not a trading concern—it is a public trust, which is administered for the benefit of the port and for the benefit of the whole of the traders who, from choice or necessity, use the port of Liverpool. With regard to the traffic coming from Ireland—I will not weary the House very long. I find the six of the Steam, Packet Company's vessels in the year 1896 carried nearly 146,000 packages, 254,000 cattle, 380,000 sheep, 6,900 horses, and 38,000 tons of produce. I submit respectfully to this House that this is a trade worth catering for. It is the absolute duty of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board to provide faci-
  1176
  lities for the carrying on of that trade. It may be said that this is entirely an Irish question, but I deny that. I would like to point out that now the war has broken out between Spain and America it is more important that facilities should be given for landing supplies from Ireland than hitherto. The position taken up by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board is that there is no certainty as to the situation of the Liverpool cattle market, and that the Bootle market scheme might be revived. I wish to disabuse the minds of honourable Gentlemen opposite of this kind of fairy dream. The Bootle market is dead, and cannot be revived until the matter again comes before the House of Commons. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board applied for certain powers last Session to build a jetty, which were refused to them by this House. [An HONOURABLE MEMBER: They were glad it was refused.] Yes. Sometimes even an opponent can set a body like the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board right. We saved them from themselves last Session, and I hope we are going to do the same this Session. Surely the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board do not labour under the delusion that the Corporation of Liverpool are going to allow Bootle, or any other place, to start a market for Liverpool? This House has had before them this evening a proposal of a private syndicate in London, where private syndicates generally rule the roast, to obtain a certain portion of London so that profits may be made out of it for the benefit of certain shareholders, and that proposal was carried by an enormous majority. Now, I want to know, is this House going to pass another Act of Parliament giving a certain number of interested gentlemen in Bootle the power to start a private syndicate with greater powers against public utility than that which was sought for by the Victoria Embankment Extension and St. John's Improvement Bill? I make bold to say, as a young Member of this House, having some knowledge of the principles which guide its action, that no private syndicate in Great Britain or Ireland have any chance whatever of obtaining from this democratic House of Commons power to start a private market which would in any way affect the food supplies of the

  1177
  people. The proposition is absurd, but the Mersey Docks and Harbbour Board seem to think differently. I trust it will not be necessary for me to divide the House in opposition to this Bill. I hope honourable Members opposite will give some cue as to the line of action proposed to be taken. This question affects, undoubtedly, the prosperity of the producers of Ireland, and I appeal most earnestly to the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture to place his views on this question before the House, as he always does, in a perfectly fair and straightforward manner. I do not desire to delay the time of the House further. I would not have taken up such a long period of its time did I not feel that this is a matter of national importance to Ireland, because Liverpool is the principal receiving port for Irish produce in Great Britain, and I say it is the duty of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board to provide at least the same facilities for native producers as that which it proposes to give to foreign importers.
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we who represent the city of Liverpool have anything to complain of in the way in which the honourable Member has stated his opposition to the Bill, although I must say I think on the whole the House will agree with me that there have not been sufficient reasons given for the line of action which apparently he has taken. I understand that he is not anxious to hang up this very important Bill, and that his criticisms deal rather with the Instruction on the Paper. I do not think I can minimise the importance of the Bill to the locality which I and my colleagues have the honour to represent. It deals with the expenditure of a sum of three and a half millions, and it will bring about the construction of three new graving docks and six new branch docks, and the expenditure will be extended over no less than eight years. And when I tell the House that this money will not be spent in the purchase of land, but almost entirely in the employment of labour, the House will see of what extraordinary importance the Bill is to the community. It will so influence certain parts of the city of Liverpool that have somewhat stagnated of late years, owing to the
  1178
  obsolete character of the docks, as to probably impart entirely new life to those parts of the city. The importance of renewing the docks is shown by the very striking increase that has taken place in the length of vessels. I do not intend to go into any great quantity of details, but I should like to point out that, whereas in 1872 ships were commonly 440 feet long, with a tonnage of 4,000 odd, they now are 615 feet long, with a tonnage of 12,000 odd, and there is one being built of 700 feet. Therefore the House will see that docks built 20 years ago are entirely obsolete. The honourable Member desires to convey to the House the impression that this public Trust, whose duty it is to carry out its work with due regard to the public good, and for no other purpose—a Trust that is manned by the most intelligent leaders of the mercantile community in that important district—has been regardless of the interests of the city which he has the honour to represent. I should like to inform the House that while the honourable Gentleman is Member for Dublin, and represents the Dublin community, yet I have authority for saying that the Belfast people are perfectly content with what the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board has done and is prepared to do. The honourable Member seemed to think that the Board has been unduly careless of his interests, but I think that in past years they have shown that they have been quite alive to the obligation which rested upon them to discharge fully their duties with regard to any trade which enters the Port of Liverpool. During the last few years they have appropriated to the coasting trade practically the whole of the Prince's and Victoria Docks, which were both formerly used by the foreign trade, and which are most conveniently situated. They have increased the landing-stage by 400 feet, and built a jetty 300 feet long at the northern end of the extension. They have also doubled the accommodation for ships of the length of 250 feet; that is to say, the number of berths have been increased from 28 to 51 since 1872. The length of the quay space in 1872 was 2,300 feet. Now it is 2,430 feet. I think I have shown that the Board have been from time to time quite alive to their obligation. The honourable Member

  1179
  seemed to complain that a year ago the Board were prepared to take powers to create a connection between the river and a certain market at Bootle. I submit that that cannot in any sense be credited to the Board as an improper action. The fact is, this House in two consecutive years approved the removal of the market from Stanley to Bootle, and it was only at the end of the second year that the Corporation of Liverpool came in and said they thought, on the whole, it was most improper that a private company should undertake the discharge of public duties. It is to me rather an interesting fact, Mr. Speaker, that I was strongly of that opinion. I did not associate myself with my colleagues in taking the line they did, and I did not sign the Whips sent out in support of the Bill at that time. I was of opinion that a private company was not quite the proper body to attend to such an important public duty, and, therefore, when I come to the House this year and join in the Whip in support of this very important Measure, I think I may be looked upon as an impartial authority. The honourable Member has mentioned that he desires that the Board should go to the expense of £350,000 in making a new wharf and floating pier opposite the Waterloo Docks, but those works were never a part of a definite scheme, as one would imagine from the honourable Gentleman's remarks. As a matter of fact, in 1892, when that Bill was first on the tapis in Liverpool, the Chairman of the Board said that this particular matter was not of immediate pressing importance, but that the Board proposed to apply to Parliament for powers to carry out this scheme in case it should be found necessary. Therefore, they never did intend to carry out this scheme unless it was necessary, and no one in Liverpool considers this floating pier to be at all necessary. I will read to the honourable Member a letter which I have received from the Secretary to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, which, I think, the House, and the honourable Gentleman himself, will agree is couched in very moderate terms. It is written to myself, dated April 26th, and is as follows—
  "With reference to the Mersey Docks Board (New Works) Bill, which comes on for second reading this afternoon, you may state to the House, on behalf of the Mersey Docks Board,
  1180
  that if they were sure that the site of the cattle market would remain at Stanley the Board would at once proceed to carry out the remainder of the works between the stage and the pier, under the authority of the Act of 1893, and which would have been carried out before this if it had not been for the altered condition of things brought about by the legislation of 1896. The future location of the Liverpool Cattle Market is at present uncertain, and until the question has been settled by arrangement between old and new cattle market companies and the Corporation, or otherwise, the Board do not consider that they would be justified in expending money, which might be thrown away should the site be changed. You may assure the House that when the future position of the market is known, the Board will do what may be reasonably necessary, either to improve the existing accommodation, so far as the improvement may be requisite, or to provide new accommodation elsewhere, suitable to the altered position of the market. The dock engineer has already taken measures to remedy the difficulty which has been experienced in the use of the jetty at the north end of the Prince's Stage during strong ebb tide."
  Well, Mr. Speaker, I hope the honourable Member will recognise that this is really a very reasonable proposal. The Board does not intend in the least to run away from their obligation to the cattle trade; they desire to have regard to the interests of that trade, and it is only owing to the legislation which took place in 1895–96 and 1897 that they have any hesitation in incurring further expenditure which this letter foreshadows. I do not think I need really dwell further on the matter. The honourable Member has told us that a few months ago the cattle trade had to give way to the Atlantic liner. I have authority to say that during the last year an Atlantic liner only on one occasion ousted a cattle coaster. I hope, Mr. Speaker, under these circumstances, and having regard to the letter which I have read, that the honourable Member will accept my assurance, on behalf of the Board, that they have no desire to enter any non possumus to the requirements of the trade, and that they desire to discharge their duty in regard to the great public interests which their position entails upon them.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Mr. Speaker, I am sure every Member for Liverpool will be very glad indeed that this prolonged controversy has come to a final and satisfactory conclusion. No Member has a greater desire

  1181
  to see that controversy closed than myself. My honourable Friend would have placed me in a position of difficulty if he had gone to the length of opposing the Second Reading of this Bill, because I could not have found it consistent with the interests of my constituents in Liverpool to oppose a Measure which will largely increase the facilities, and therefore the prosperity, of the city, and also give the labour of the city a very large amount of work to do. But, at the same time, I think we must all agree that this is a controversy which ought never to have arisen, and certainly ought not to be prolonged. I cannot myself quite understand where the difficulty exactly arises, except that it is owing to the question of the Stanley Market to a certain extent lying open. My honourable Friend behind me is perfectly justified—in fact, it is his duty, as representing the people of Dublin—in bringing before this House on every occasion the just and supreme demand of the trade of Ireland upon every facility that can be given to it by Liverpool. On the other hand, I cannot understand any citizen of Liverpool being undesirous of giving every facility for carrying on the trade upon which not merely the prosperity of Ireland but also the prosperity of Liverpool largely depends. This being to the interests of both sides I confess, speaking as impartially as I can, I cannot quite understand why there should be any difference of opinion. With regard to the complaints of the Irish cattle trade, I cannot come to the conclusion that those complaints are made without some just and adequate cause. I would be glad if the undertaking given by the honourable Member who has just preceded me, on behalf of the Board, were of a stronger character than it is. I am sure some of the other Members for Ireland will rise up and say that the Irish cattle trade ought to be assured that, not in an indefinite period, but promptly, their needs and demands will be considered in Liverpool, and every reasonable and just ground for complaint removed. These being the facts of the case, I do not think my honourable Friend will feel himself called upon to divide the House against the Second Reading of this Bill. At the same time I hope the Minister for Agriculture will
  1182
  be able to give some assurance that will satisfy the trade which he represents in this House.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. H. LONG,): The situation, as I understand it, is a simple one. I have had the advantage of frequent interviews with honourable Gentlemen who believe that their interests are jeopardised, and also with leading members of the Dock Board and of the Liverpool Corporation. So far as the Dock Board is concerned I have found in all cases a desire to put their case fairly, and I can safely say that I am convinced that they are not only anxious but determined to do everything they can fairly and justly do for the safe and convenient conduct of the trade which comes into their docks. But they have stated to my honourable Friend behind me that, so long as there is an element of doubt as to the future situation of the cattle market, it is not reasonable or fair to call upon them to spend a large sum of money on putting into a proper condition a landing stage which may prove unsuitable if a distant locality were afterwards selected for the market. I take it the suggestion of the honourable Member for Dublin is not that the large expenditure authorised by the Act of 1893 should be undertaken, but that proper provision should be made for the cattle trade at a spot convenient for the existing market. The answer to that is that that market may not continue to exist, and that the proposal before the House last year with regard to the market may be revived. Well, Sir, I can only say that the Department for which I am responsible would view with the greatest possible apprehension and with the greatest possible regret any attempt to establish in a great city like Liverpool a market which is not owned and controlled by the Corporation, who would be responsible to the Board of Agriculture for the conduct of that market. One of the most important details of our work is the superintendence of the various large markets of this country, in order to secure that they shall be properly conducted as regards sanitation, and that their condition shall

  1183
  be such for the reception and distribution of the cattle as shall secure the least possible amount of cruelty, ill-treatment, and suffering on the part of the animals Well, the experience of my Department has always been that it is in the interests of all concerned—Government authorities, individuals, and the trade—that these large markets should be owned and controlled by local bodies, who ought to be responsible for these details of local government. I, therefore, cannot help thinking that the difficulty as to the possible revival of that scheme is not a very real one, and I cannot myself help being convinced, after the assurances that have been given to me, that there will no longer be any unnecessary delay, and that there will be every effort on the part of the Corporation to provide a suitable market, and on the part of the Dock Board to give suitable means of access to it; because I think that these great bodies, who are trustees for the public good, have gone as far as one can reasonably ask them to go in the existing circumstances. I hope that the advice which has been given by my honourable colleague the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool will be accepted by honourable Members opposite without putting the House to the trouble of a Division, and that, considering the large space of time occupied to-day in the transaction of private business, and especially Irish business, we shall now be allowed to bring this Debate to a close. I am as anxious as honourable Members opposite can be that the interests of this great trade should be safeguarded. I believe that no risk whatever will be run by taking the course that has been suggested, but that, on the contrary, it will further the object that they and I, and I certainly hope my honourable Friends behind me, have in view.
  MR. FIELD: After the explanation given by the honourable Member for the Abercrombie Division of Liverpool, I feel that I should be only acting against my own judgment and against the interests which have been confided to me in dividing the House. I am quite satisfied that the right honourable Gentleman will safeguard the interests of the Irish cattle
  1184
  trade, and of the live stock trade generally, and I therefore accede to the suggestion that I should withdraw the Motion.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  BRECON AND MERTHYR TYDFIL JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
  Order [30th March] that the Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Railway Bill be committed, read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
PETITIONS.
  ADULTERATION (FOOD PRODUCTS) BILL.
  From Somerset, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY PENSIONS.
  For weekly payment, from Scarborough, Thingoe, Hungerford, Potterspury, Chester, Pontypridd, Epsom, and Buntingford; to lie upon the Table.
  CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Against, from Helensburgh and Edinburgh; to lie upon the Table.
  COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION BILL.
  From Portsmouth, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  DOGS REGULATION BILL.
  Against, from Torquay, Liverpool, Hove, Tonbridge, Birmingham, Reading (3), Parkstone, Cardiff, Redhill, Richmond, Hammersmith, Winchester, Margate, Hawarden, and Middleton; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
  Against State Regulation, from York (2), Ayr, Glasgow, Largs, Glendale, St. Leonards, Cray, Jarrow (6), and Edinburgh (2); to lie upon the Table.
  GROUND RENTS (TAXATION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  From Gorton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  From Featherstone, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  From Belfast, against alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
  From Scotland, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON UNIVERSITY COMMISSION BILL.
  From Nottingham, against; to lie upon the Table.
  MIDWIVES' REGISTRATION BILL.
  Of the British Medical Association, against; to lie upon the Table.

  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Of Mining Association of Great Britain, against; to lie upon the Table.
  In favour, from Broomfield, Chisnall Hall, Welch Whittle, Blainscough, Pros-
  1186
  pect, Giants' Hall, Worthington Hall, Stratford Main, Rothwell, Stourton Grange, Methley, Newmarket (2), Haigh, Flockton, Whitwood Mcre, Middlestown, Altofts, Wrenthorpe, Allerton Silkstone, Bowers No. 3, Snydale, St. John's Normanton, Crigglestone, Broomstair, Plaspower, Vron, Bersham, Great Bridge, Ilkeston, Normanton Common, Foxholes, Mitchell's Main, B. Winning, Oldham, Chorley, and Hartley Bank Colleries; to lie upon the Table.

  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  In favour, from Edinburgh (2), Crieff, Dumfriesshire, Kirkcaldy, Society of Solicitors in the Supreme Courts of Scotland, Lanark, Falkirk, Airdrie, and Hamilton (2); to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL.
  In favour, from Dumfries, Spalding, and Dromore; to lie upon the Table.
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL AND SALE OF
  INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour, from Buckie, Glasgow, Rosehearty, Altrincham, York (2), Hereford, Penpont, Bridgewater, and Holbeach; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour, from Norwich (2), Newport Pagnell, Pakefield, Penketh, Pangbourne, Oldham, Preston, Plymouth, Stanstead Montfitchet, Newport (Monmouth), Needham Market, Nottingham, Newport, Northampton, Longbridge, Melksham, Malton, Colne (2), Kendal (2), Leeds, Newbury, Sharnbrook, Maidenhead, Stockton-on-Tees, London (2), Pavenham, Pontefract, Peckham, Morley, Mosedale, Middlesbrough, Nailsworth, Neath,

  1187
  Weston-super-Mare, Wakefield, Witney, Wiveliscombe, Wilton, Zealand Conyers, Wellingborough, Wanstead, Wisbech, York, Keighley, Leicester, Wyresdale, Willesden, Stoke Newington (2), Stafford, Southampton, Cheltenham, Yatton, Thirsk, Scarborough, Spalding, North Moor, Mere, Preston Patrick, Somerton, Scotby, Spalding, Saffron Walden, South Shields, North Shields, Saltburn-by-the-Sea, Swathmore, Swansea, Smithfield, St. Ives, Wellington, Thakeham, Woodbridge, Nailsworth, Durham, Heeley (2), Maidstone (2), Hereford (3), Birmingham, Tavistock, Todmorden, Bedminster, Cranborne, Lancaster, Reigate, Redcar, Reading, Ramsgate, Taunton, Sheffield (5), Wombwell, Street, Liskeard, Loughborough, Germoe, Nottingham, Stretford, Stairfoot, Hitchin (2), Nelson, St. Leonard's-on-Sea, and Oldham (2); to lie upon the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  QUIT AND CROWN RENTS (IRELAND) (REDEMPTION).
  Return [presented 22nd April] to be printed. [No. 172.]
  MINES (ACCIDENTS) (EXPLOSION AT DRUMPELLER COLLIERY).
  Copy presented, of Report by J. M. Ronaldson, Esquire, and Henry Hall, Esquire, Her Majesty's Inspectors of Mines, to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on the circumstances attending the accident which occurred in Nos. 3 and 4 Pits of the Drumpeller Colliery, Coatbridge, on the 28th January 1898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES AND QUARRIES.
  Copy presented, of General Report and Statistics for the year 1897. Part I. District Statistics: Statistics of the persons employed, output, and accidents at Mines and Quarries in the United Kingdom arranged according to the Inspection Districts [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  DRUNKENNESS (SCOTLAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 21st March, Mr. Cox]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 173.]
  BRITISH MUSEUM.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 24th February, Sir John Lubbock]; to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [No. 174.]
  EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Annual Report of the Commissioners, being for the year 1897 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2064 and 2065 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  STAINES RESERVOIRS JOINT COMMITTEE BILL.
  Reported; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MUSEUMS OF THE SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT.
  First Report of the Select Committee brought up and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 175.]
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 175.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; to be rend third time To-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; to be read third time To-morrow.
  BIRMINGHAM, NORTH WARWICKSHIRE, AND STRATFORD-UPON-AVON RAILWAY (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL.
  Reported; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  CHIPSTEAD VALLEY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  GUY'S HOSPITAL BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, without Amendment.
  Bill to be read third time.
  Special Report brought up, and read, as felloweth:—
  Mr. JAMES WILLIAM LOWTHER reported from the Committee on the Guy's Hospital Bill [H.L.]. That they had agreed to the following Special Report—
  "That the Bill seeks to alter the general law by enacting that the death of the grantor of any land to the Corporation of Guy's Hospital within twelve months from the date of the execution of the Deed of Gift, of such land shall not invalidate the said Deed, but it appearing that Mr. Attorney General was satisfied with the provisions of the Bill as submitted to the Committee, they were of opinion that the said provisions should be allowed. Under these circumstances the Committee had passed the Bill without Amendment, but had determined to report the same specially to the House."
  Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  SWANSEA GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  AGRICULTURAL COMPANY OF MAURITIUS BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read third time.

  FOLKESTONE GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  PATRIOTIC ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read first time.

  TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read third time.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolutions reported from the Committee—

  1. "That, in the case of the Crystal Palace Company Petition, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

  2. "That, in the case of the Gainsborough Gas Petition, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

  3. "That, in the case of the Sheffield Corporation Petition, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

  CRYSTAL PALACE COMPANY BILL.
  Report [this day] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. H. D. Greene and Sir Frederick Dixon-Hartland.

  SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
  Report [this day] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Stuart Wortley, Sir Howard Vincent, and Mr. Langley.

  GAINSBOROUGH GAS BILL.
  Report [this day] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bainbridge and Mr. Seely.

  SOLICITORS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee on Law, etc.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 176.]
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 176.]
  Bill, as amended by the Standing Committee, to be taken into consideration upon Thursday, 12th May, and to be printed. [Bill 188.]

QUESTIONS.

  STORNOWAY MAILS STEAMER.
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state how often the steamer, which is under contract to carry Her Majesty's mails to and from Stornoway as a speed of 11 sea miles an hour, has been late in her arrival at Kyleakin and Stornoway respectively during the months of February and March; and will he state how often the delay exceeded half an hour, and the maximum delay on any one occasion?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The packet between Kyleakin and Stornoway has been late, during the months of February and March, 18 times at Kyleakin and 46 times at Stornoway. The delay exceeded half an hour 12 times at Kyleakin, and 16 times at Stornoway. The maximum delay took place with the packet leaving Kyleakin on the 15th February when, owing to a severe storm, she was obliged to put into Portree for
  1192
  shelter, and did not reach Stornoway until 12.25 p.m. on the 16th February. On the 15th February there was consequently no dispatch from Stornoway.

  CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) ACT.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, if he will state whether the Congested Districts Board for Scotland have yet acquired any land either by purchase or agreement for the purposes set forth in the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act of last Session?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The answer is in the negative.

  ST. BARTHOLOMEW'S COLLEGE, OXFORD.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the honourable Member for the Thirsk Division, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether, under the scheme for dealing with St. Bartholomew's Hospital, Oxford, Oriel College will be at liberty to destroy the ancient hospital buildings, in order to use the site for erecting modern buildings in their place?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. J. GRANT LAWSON,:No scheme has been framed by the Commissioners for the regulation of this charity, but in certain negotiations which have passed between the Commissioners and Oriel College the Commissioners have stipulated that the ancient chapel of the hospital shall be preserved for such uses as they may by scheme direct. It is not proposed to deal by any scheme with the hospital buildings other than the chapel.
  LORD BALCARRES: Can the buildings be destroyed without the leave of the Charity Commissioners or some other public body?
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: The buildings cannot be dealt with unless leave is obtained either from the Charity Commissioners or the Board of Agriculture, acting under the Universities Acts.

  SHIPWRECKS IN BELFAST LOUGH.
  MR. J. DALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that 13 shipwrecks have taken place during recent years at Black Head, Belfast Lough, and can he state the number of lives lost; and whether he will consider the advisability of erecting a lighthouse on Black Head to prevent loss of life and property in the future?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): I am informed that 16 vessels have been stranded during the last 10 years in the neighbourhood of Blackhead, Belfast Lough, but that no lives have been lost through these casualties. As I stated yesterday, the Commissioners of Irish Lights have not made any proposal for the erection of a lighthouse at that place, but I understand that the matter is now being reconsidered by them.

  IRISH LIGHTS BOARD.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state who it is that elects the members of the Irish Lights Board in Ireland; and whether, after the passing of the Local Government (Ireland) Bill, the Irish Lights Board in Ireland will be placed under the control of the County Councils, or some other Irish Department?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The Commissioners of Irish Lights are elected by co-option as vacancies arise, and the remaining five consist of the Lord Mayor of Dublin, the High Sheriff, and three aldermen elected by the Dublin Corporation. The superin-
  1194
  tendence and management of Irish lighthouses, etc., were vested by Section 389 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, in a corporation established by an Irish Act of George III., cap. 19, and the name of this body was changed by the Dublin Port Act of 1867 to the "Commissioners of Irish Lights." The reply to the second paragraph is in the negative.
  MR. J. G. SWIFT MACNEILL: The expression co-option, I take it, means that the Commissioners elect themselves.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, it is according to law.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: Does the right honourable Gentleman think Belfast is properly represented?
  [No Reply.]
  MR. W. FIELD: Will the Government deal with the constitution of the Board?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I can add nothing to my answer.

  DISTRESS IN THE SOUTH AND WEST OF IRELAND.
  MR. FIELD: I bee to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the statements recently made by the Mansion House Committee respecting acute distress existing in the South and West of Ireland in certain districts; whether he will have them inquired into when the written applications and reports are placed in his hands; and whether he is aware that the funds of the Manchester and Mansion House Commitees are almost exhausted?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I believe the honourable Member was not in his place in the House when this question was raised and discussed last Friday. The Local Government Board are, at all times, prepared to inquire into any specific statements that may be addressed to them, in order to see that relief is afforded to destitute persons. I believe it was asserted at the recent

  1195
  meeting of the Dublin Mansion House Committee that the charitable funds referred to are nearly exhausted.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that any increase of taxation for the purpose of affording outdoor relief cannot be reasonably adopted by the guardians of those areas which are already overtaxed beyond their ability to pay; and whether, in this emergency, the Government will come to the aid of private benevolence, and assist overtaxed localities to meet the prolonged distress by relaxing the stringent rules regarding labour on relief works and by giving more employment?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no reason to doubt the ability of the ratepayers of these Unions to meet a fair proportion of the cost of the relief measures in operation, but I have already stated that if it can be shown at the conclusion of the relief works that the expenditure incurrred would involve a heavier burden on the rate papers than they could properly be called upon to bear, I will be prepared to consider the matter. I may add that, in view of a possible rise in the price of breadstuffs consequent upon the war between the United States and Spain, I have asked the Local Government Board how far the sufficiency of the wages now paid on the relief works may be affected. I am also considering the desirability, as the season advances, of having, in the case of large families represented on the works, employment afforded to a second member of such families.

  IRISH TREASURE TROVE.
  MR. J. J. CLANCY: On behalf of the honourable Member for East Clare, I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he has taken any further steps to trace the intermediaries in the transaction by which the treasure trove recently discovered in Ireland was sold to the British Museum, and, if so, will he state the result?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): No further evidence has been obtained, duo to the fact that the action of the police has been suspended pending negotiations now in progress between the last vendor, the Treasury, the Royal Irish Academy, and the Irish Government, which I hope will lead to a satisfactory result.

  MUSKETRY INSTRUCTION FOR MILITIA OFFICERS.
  CAPTAIN R. G. W. CHALONER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War (1) whether a General Order was issued a short time ago by the General Officer commanding the Home District, calling attention to the small number of Militia Officers attending the school of musketry at Hythe, and expressing a strong wish that at least one officer per battalion should attend the next course; (2) whether, in consequence, a large number of officers did so attend, and, after their arrival at the school, were informed that they would have to attend at their own expense, and without the usual pay and allowances; and, if so, why they were not informed of this when their application to attend was first sanctioned; and (3) whether, under these circumstances, he can see his way to granting them the usual pay and allowances?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. W. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): The statement in the first paragraph of the Question is accurate. The number of officers who attended was 16, of whom five, being above the rank of subaltern, were not entitled to their expenses under the existing regulations, of which they were presumed to be aware. The question of changing the regulations is, however, under consideration.

  FATALITIES IN BELFAST DOCKS.
  MR. M. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he can

  1197
  state the number of inquests held in Belfast since 1st January, 1897, in respect of dead bodies found drowned in the various docks within the jurisdiction of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners; (2) whether he can state in how many of these cases the coroners' juries found, by their verdicts, that these deaths were owing to the unprotected state of the Belfast Docks; and (3) if, in the interests of the lives of the people, anything will be done to remedy this defect?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed that the number of inquests referred to in the first paragraph is 15. In three of these cases the coroner's juries attributed death to the unprotected state of the docks. The Commissioners state that they have, in all places, where they considered such could be done without materially obstructing the traffic and trade of the port, erected protection railings or walls. I am also informed that the several docks and quays in the harbour have been constructed by the Commissioners in strict accordance with Parliamentary authority.

  O'DELL ESTATE, DUNGARVAN.
  MR. E. F. VESEY KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) will he explain why, though an Order was made by the Land Judge, under the 40th section of the Land Act of 1896, in the matter of the O'Dell estate, near Dungarvan, so long ago as March, 1897, the Land Commission Report has not yet been made; (2) whether he is aware that, while the matter was pending, the receiver has taken ejectment proceedings against 25 tenants, has seized all the stock of one tenant (James Walsh), and has served another tenant (Patrick Morrissey) with an ejectment claiming the old judicial rent of £103, though the rent for the second term has been fixed at £63; and (3) whether he will endeavour to secure that the tenants shall not be so pressed during the administrative delay, whether avoidable or unavoidable, as to render the Order for Sale, under the 40th section, of no use to them?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners inform me that they have hitherto been unable to report under the 40th section, with reference to the estate mentioned in the Question, owing to difficulties with regard to the rental, and also in connection with proceedings for arrears of rent. The former difficulty has been settled, and the latter, they trust, will be shortly removed. I believe the facts are as stated in the second paragraph of the Question.

  ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC SEA ROUTES.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will arrange to have placed in the Tea Room or Library at once large charts of those portions of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans lying between 10deg. and 50deg. N. latitude, showing the steaming distances between the chief ports of Spain and Spanish possessions, and between those of the United States and Spain and Spanish possessions, the main trade routes of the United States and of Spain, respectively, within, or crossing these water areas, and their approximate annual value, and the positions of the Spanish and United States fleets or squadrons, on the 23rd instant, as far as is known; and, if so, whether he will cause the Naval Intelligence Department to mark on the charts any changes of position from time to time of the naval force of Spain and the United States, according to latest information received?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): I will do my best to meet the wishes of my honourable and gallant Friend so far as it can be done, and I have directed the necessary arrangements to be made.

  CIVILIAN DOCTORS AND THE ARMY.
  COLONEL A. C. EARLE WELBY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that at stations in the United Kingdom troops and those

  1199
  belonging to troops are in medical charge of civilian practitioners; and whether he can see his way to employing in their stead Army Medical Officers retired on a pension or gratuity, where no additional expense would be entailed on the country?
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes, Sir. A number of civilian practitioners are in charge of troops in the United Kingdom, and always have been. Ninety-four medical officers retired on pensions are employed, and more would be employed if they were willing to accept appointments. There would be no objection to the employment of an officer retired on a gratuity if he were considered suitable for such employment.

  WALLACE ESTATE, LISBURN.
  MR. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether his attention has been called to a report in the Lisburn Standard of 10th July last, of a meeting of tenant farmers of the Wallace Estate at Lisburn, on the 6th July, in connection with the refusal of the new landlord (Mr. J. Murray Scott) to sell his interest in their holdings to the tenants who had taken advantage of the fair rent provisions of the Irish Land Laws; (2) whether all the tenants who had not their judicial rents fixed were offered sale of their holdings by the landlord; (3) whether he is aware that the exercise of their legal rights in becoming judicial tenants prevented the landlord extending to them the offer of sale given to the other tenants on this estate; and (4) whether he will make inquiry into the case?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have been furnished with a newspaper report of the proceedings at the meeting referred to in the first paragraph. I have no information to enable me to reply to the inquiries contained in the second and third paragraphs. The matter is one for private negotiation between the parties, and the Government have no right to interfere.

  ISLAND OF LEWIS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Congested Districts Board for Scotland has received a copy of the resolutions carried at a meeting of the crofters of the townships of Shader, Sheshader, Aird, and Portnaguran, in the Island of Lewes, on the 15th instant, urging that there is ample land contiguous to those townships, not suitable for grazing, but which, if cultivated, would afford sustenance for the numerous cottars and squatters in these districts; and whether, with a view to relieve the present congestion, the Board proposes to make efforts to acquire the lands indicated?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Congested Districts Board that a copy of the resolutions referred to by the honourable Member was transmitted to the Secretary of the Board in a letter received by him on Saturday, the 23rd instant, but it has been impossible in the brief period which has elapsed since that date for the Board to consider and deal with the same.

  FOREIGN TRAWLERS IN SCOTTISH WATERS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state what quantity of fish caught by foreign trawlers in prohibited Scottish waters has been landed at British ports during the year 1897?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Fishery Board inform me that so far as they know no fish caught by foreign trawlers in waters closed to British trawlers has been landed at Scottish ports. I am informed by the Board of Trade that as fishing boats do not usually report the particular grounds on which they have been working there is no means of saying how much of the fish landed at English ports by foreign trawlers may have been taken in prohibited Scottish waters.

  REGISTRATION (IRELAND) ACT RULES.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the rules provided for in the Registration (Ireland)

  1201
  Act just passed will be issued; whether they will affect the form of requisition necessary to be issued under the Parliamentary Registration Acts in April and May; whether in cases where such requisitions have been already issued they will be re-issued; and whether the rules will first be issued in a provisional form?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The rules under the Registration Act are being prepared as rapidly as possible. I am informed they will not affect the forms to be issued in the present year, and that it will not be necessary to issue the forms a second time. The rules will not, in the first instance, be issued in a provisional form.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD RULES.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is proposed, pending the passage of the Bill, to lay upon the Table a draft in a provisional form of the Local Government Board rules required to be made under the Bill and under the Orders in Council, drafts of which have been issued?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The work under the Registration Act and the preparation of the draft map relating to the alteration of boundaries have occupied so much of the time of the Local Government Board that they have not been able so far to approach the preparation of the rules referred to in the Question.

  SPLIT DUTIES IN THE POSTAL SERVICE.
  MR. S. WOODS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if representations have been received from the sorting staff with reference to the non-fulfilment of the Tweedmouth recommendations in regard to the abolition of split duties, and also if schemes have been submitted by the staff that would cause the recommendations to become operative without incurring much expense; and whether he will at once abolish the attendances complained of in London, Dublin, and Belfast?
  MR. HANBURY: Representations have been received from the sorting staff at certain offices upon the subject of the Tweedmouth recommendations in regard to split duties, but no schemes have been submitted by the staff that would cause those recommendations to become operative without incurring much expense. The Postmaster General is very anxious to carry out the recommendations of the Tweedmouth Committee in the matter of attendances—namely, that the duties shall be so arranged that the officer performing them may enjoy, during each 24 hours, nine clear unbroken hours at his own home. While much has been done in London in this direction, the improvement must of necessity be gradual, and a scheme is under consideration which will, it is hoped, admit of split duties being ultimately adjusted so as to provide for the desired interval. As regards Dublin and Belfast, some improvement has also been made, but the necessary revisions have been held over until the hour of the arrival of the day mail from England is definitely settled.

  NEWSPAPER REGISTRATION.
  MR. S. WOODS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware that there was registered at Somerset House on 17th January, 1898, a newspaper called the Nottingham City News; whether it was registered in the name of a person who is not the proprietor; and whether this is a breach of the Newspaper Libel and Registration Act, 1881, Section 12; and, if so, what course he proposes to take in the matter?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: It is by no means clear from the facts in the possession of the Department that there is a breach of the Act referred to. It is, however, open to any person aggrieved to take proceedings under the Statute if he is advised that there is a good case. The Board of Trade do not prosecute.

  KILKENURE GRAVEYARD.
  MR. J. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury

  1203
  have refused to sanction a loan of £100 to the Swinford Board of Guardians for the enlargement of the Kilkenure graveyard; whether the application for the loan was strongly recommended by the Irish Local Government Board; and, if the Lords Commissioners have refused, would he state on what grounds their refusal was based?
  MR. HANBURY: The guardians last year applied for a loan of £233. They already owed arrears of over £5,600. The Local Government Board, notwithstanding, recommended the additional loan in consequence of having received a resolution of the guardians undertaking to pay off the outstanding arrears as soon as possible; and they reported that in any average year the guardians could, they had little doubt, collect a rate of 4s., or about 1s. 2d. more than they were actually raising. A rate of even 1–13d. would meet the interest and sinking fund of the £233. The guardians, however, made no offer to raise the rate by even that amount. Last month the guardians reduced the proposed loan from £233 to £100, and if they make any reasonable effort to discharge their obligations, or even to provide for those of the proposed new loan, it will be granted.
  MR. DILLON: Then do I understand that the Swinford Guardians are not considered good for a loan of £100?
  MR. HANBURY: Yes, they would take no steps to raise the rate.
  MR. DILLON: Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that this is the most distressed union in the whole of Ireland?
  MR. HANBURY: That may be, but they could raise the rate one-thirtieth of a penny to produce the sum necessary for a loan of £100.

  WARRANT OFFICERS IN THE ARMY PAY CORPS.
  MR. C. J. ENGLEDEW: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is a fact that no Commissions are granted to the Warrant Officers of the Army Pay Corps; whether this is the only corps in the Service thus situ-
  1204
  ated; and if there is any special reason for treating this corps in this exceptional manner?
  MR. BRODRICK: There is nothing to prevent the Commander-in-Chief from recommending a Warrant Officer of the Army Pay Corps for a Commission if he should think it desirable in the interests of the Service to do so.
  MR. ENGLEDEW: Have no such cases arisen?
  MR. BRODRICK: I do not know that any have been brought before the Commander-in-Chief.

  ARMY MEAT CONTRACTS.
  MR. F. B. MILDMAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in connection with tenders for the supply of meat for the Army due on Wednesday, it will be open to those tendering to insert a war clause without prejudice to their tender; and, if not, whether, in the event of an abnormal rise subsequently in the price of meat owing to the war, the Government would allow a modification of the terms of the contract, as they did in the case of the forage contract after the great drought three years ago?
  MR. BRODRICK: Firms tendering for the supply of meat from the 1st June next are at liberty to insert any clause they may think desirable, and the tenders will be dealt with according to the relative advantages they offer.

  DEFERRED ARMY PAY.
  CAPTAIN C. W. NORTON: I bear to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether Clause 4 of Article 1146, Royal Warrant, Pay, etc., will admit of a man being permitted, if willing, to refund deferred pay received by being put under stoppages till the sum be made good; and, if the clause does not admit of it, whether he can see his way to modify the clause to meet such a case, or even to abolish it altogether?
  MR. BRODRICK: The subject of this condition is under consideration, and a decision will shortly be announced.

  FAIR WAGES ON GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state if the firm of Messrs. Siemens Brothers, electrical engineers, at Charlton, are now engaged on Government contracts; whether it has been brought to his notice that certain labourers (adult males) are being employed by the said firm at the rate of 4½d. per hour; and whether, seeing that this is below the current rate of wages in the locality, he will take steps to see that the Fair Wages Clause is carried out?
  MR. HANBURY: The firm referred to are at present engaged on contracts for several Government Departments. So far as I have been able to ascertain, no complaints have been made to those Departments as to the wages paid by the contractors. Any such complaint, if made by the parties interested, would be duly inquired into.

  NIGER COMPANY.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is intended to enter into any arrangement with the Niger Company with a view to purchase any of the rights that they have acquired by Royal Charter; whether, if so, he can state what portion of these rights it is intended to purchase; whether the estimate of the purchase money to be paid is based on the amount per annum that these rights bring in to the company per annum; and, if so, how many years' purchase are to be paid; whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a list of the first shareholders of the company, and of the present shareholders, together with their respective holdings; and whether, before any such arrangement is definitely concluded, the House will be given an opportunity to express its views in regard to it?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): This is a matter rather for the Foreign Office than the Colonial Office, and I reply to the Question in the absence of my right honourable Friend. Of course, the Charter of the Royal Niger Company could not be revoked without proper compensation being given to the company; but, as Her Majesty's Government have not arrived at any final decision as to the course that should be adopted with regard to the position of the company, I am unable to give the honourable Member the information he desires.

  BRITISH WARSHIPS AT PORT ARTHUR.
  MR. G. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what British warships have visited Port Arthur during this year; what was the date of the Iphigenia leaving that port; and whether he would read to the House a copy of the telegram referred to in No. 63, China (No. 1, 1898), which elicited the reply that the Iphigenia would be leaving Port Arthur in a few days?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: Port Arthur has been visited during this year by the Daphne, Immortalité, Iphigenia, and Red pole. I believe the date of the Iphigenia leaving Port Arthur was the 26th January. The telegram sent to the senior naval officer on the 21st January was to the following effect—
  "It is alleged by the Russian Government that Her Majesty's ships Immortalité and Redpole have arrived at Port Arthur. Will you state the facts?"
  MR. LAMBERT: Can the First Lord of the Admiralty give any information as to whether a telegram was sent which elicited the reply referred to in the Question—viz., that the Iphigenia would leave Port Arthur in a few days?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I cannot, without referring to the Blue Book and the Papers.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I wish to know whether there was any direction or suggestion from the Government, or from the First Lord of the Admiralty, to Her Majesty's Naval Commander-in-Chief in the China Seas that British ships should leave Port Arthur, in consequence of representations on the part of the Russian Government?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I must refer my honourable Friend to the Blue Book.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: No, Sir. I submit that is not a complete answer, because all the telegrams are not in the Blue Book. If I am asking a Question without proper notice, I am ready to give notice, but the point is one as to which we are very anxious to obtain information. Again, I ask was there any direction or suggestion from the Government, or the Admiralty, to Her Majesty's Naval Commander-in-Chief that the ships should be taken away from Port Arthur?
  [No Reply.]
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to give notice of the Question.

  ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE AND THE LEE-METFORD RIFLE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Lee-Metford rifle has now been issued to all of Her Majesty's drill ships on board which officers and men of the Royal Naval Reserve drill; and whether all the Royal Naval Reserve batteries have now been supplied with this rifle?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: Lee-Metford rifles have been issued for all drill ships and batteries of the Royal Naval Reserve, with the exception of the drill ships at Aberdeen, Inverness, Dundee, and Leith, and the batteries at Peterhead, Wick, and Lerwick. The remainder will be issued in the course of a few days.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu-
  1208
  tenant of Ireland whether the draft Order in Council, under Clause 64, sub-section (2), of the Local Government (Ireland) Bill, will be issued before Clause 5 is reached in Committee?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Amendments have been placed on the Paper to Clause 5, which will, I think, render unnecessary the issue of a Draft Order in Council under Clause 64 (2).

  RUSSIAN HARBOUR EXPENDITURE.
  MR. G. DRAGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he can lay upon the Table any information with regard to the sums spent by the Russian Government in recent years on harbour accommodation; (2) whether he can state what sums have been spent by the Russian Government on harbour accommodation in the White Sea for the development of the White Sea and North Siberian trade; (3) whether any official information has been received by the Foreign Office of a desire attributed to the Russian Government to acquire a port on the Varanger Fiord or elsewhere on the northern coast of the Kingdom of Sweden and Norway; and (4) whether such an acquisition, by lease or otherwise, would be a contravention of any Treaty between Great Britain and Russia?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): With regard to the first two paragraphs, all the information which has been received by Her Majesty's Government has been published in the Board of Trade Journal, and in Reports of Her Majesty's Consular offices. It is in a fragmentary shape, and does not admit of any complete statement being made. With regard to the third paragraph, according to the latest Information in our possesion, there is no foundation for the report that Russia is endeavouring to acquire a port on the Varanger Fiord, nor have we heard of any other port in Sweden or Norway in the same context. On the contrary, the Russians have for some time been engaged in constructing

  1209
  a port on the Murman coast of Russia at a spot named Ekaterina. The answer to the last paragraph is in the negative.

  FRENCH AND GERMAN COMMERCIAL MISSIONS TO THE EAST.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: On behalf of the honourable Member for Chester, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can lay upon the Table of the House copies of the Reports of the French Commercial Mission to China, and of the German Commercial Mission to East Asia?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: We will endeavour to obtain a copy, or copies, of these Reports, and place them in the Library.

  ASSASSINATION OF YUSSUF YUNNAN.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that two days before his assassination the late Yussuf Yunnan, agent of the Armenian Relief Fund at Sairt, wrote a letter to Mr. Andrus, of the United States Congregational Mission at Mardin, giving a detailed account of the demands and threats made by the Governor of Sairt and his subordinate officials; whether Mr. Stavides, legal adviser to the British Embassy at Constantinople, has communicated a copy of that letter to the Imperial Procureur General at the Sublime Porte; and whether a definite demand for the repayment of the stolen money and of the cost of maintaining the family of the late Yussuf Yunnan during the past 18 months has been made by Sir Philip Currie?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople has recently sent home a translation of the letter in question. He has communicated a copy to the Grand Vizier, and has requested that the stolen money may be restored, but he does not
  1210
  speak of having made a claim for the cost of the maintenance of the family of the late Yussuf Yunnan. It is understood, however, that the Armenian Relief Committee at Constantinople are in communication with Sir Philip Currie in regard to this latter point.

  COMMERCIAL TREATIES WITH GERMANY AND BELGIUM.
  SIR H. STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the German and Belgian Governments have suggested the temporary prolongation of the existing Treaties of Commerce with Great Britain, in order to afford more time for the negotiation of new Treaties to replace those which terminate at the end of next July?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes. A suggestion to this effect has been made by both the German and Belgian Governments. Her Majesty's Government, while expressing their willingness to make temporary arrangements for most favoured nation treatment in regard to the United Kingdom, with power to the British colonies to accede, have replied that they cannot in any circumstances consent to the renewal of Articles 7 and 15 of the existing Treaties, under which German and Belgian goods respectively are entitled in the British colonies to the same treatment as British goods.

  AMBASSADORS' POWERS.
  MR. J. F. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he can state the limitations imposed by precedent and diplomatic usage on the activities of an ex-Ambassador of a belligerent Power, who has taken up temporary residence in a British Colony; (2) whether the late Spanish Minister at Washington, now resident in Toronto, Canada, is at liberty to utilise the latter city as a base for supplying Spain with information; and (3) whether there is any foundation for the suggestion that the late Spanish

  1211
  Minister at Washington was accredited to the whole of America north of the Equator, and had therefore a definite status in the Dominion of Canada?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The late Spanish Minister at Washington, now resident at Toronto, is in precisely the same position as any other foreigner residing in a private capacity in Her Majesty's dominions, and has no limitations placed upon him other than the necessity of observing the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act. There is no foundation, so far as Her Majesty's Government are aware, for the suggestion contained in the last paragraph of the Question.

  RUSSIAN THREATS AGAINST CHINA.
  MR. J. M. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if any notice was taken by Her Majesty's Government of the passage in Sir C. Macdonald's telegraphic dispatch of 31st January, in which it is stated that, in reply to the British Minister's exhortation to China to make a stand against Russian threats, the Chinese Government said that a promise of protection against Russia was the only thing that would help them?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The request of the Chinese Government was a direct equivalent to a demand that we should guarantee Chinese territory. It is certainly not a demand which under the circumstances ought, in our opinion, to be granted.
  MR. MACLEAN: Was not all that the Chinese Government asked for a promise of protection against Russia?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Protection against any foreign Power, I presume, involves, among other consequences, guaranteeing the territory of the Power which asks for protection.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Has the right honourable Gentleman forgotten the Resolution of the House of Commons, which declared that it was of
  1212
  vital importance to British interests that the integrity of China—
  MR. SPEAKER: That Question is not in order.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: A motion pour rire.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Mr. Speaker, do I understand that you rule my Question out of order?
  MR. SPEAKER: I do. It is in the nature of a speech, and is not a Question asking for information.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury on what grounds the signature of the writer of the letter on behalf of the Marquess of Salisbury to M. de Staal, dated Foreign Office, 29th March, 1898, published in the correspondence respecting the affairs of China recently laid before Parliament, has been withheld from the knowledge of Parliament?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The dispatch to which the right hon. Gentleman refers was signed by one of the Under Secretaries by my direction.
  MR. MACNEILL: Why don't you give the name? What is the meaning of it?
  MR. T. C. H. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury why the correspondence respecting affairs in China contains no reference to the French demands upon China?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Because the negotiations in connection with those demands have not yet reached a conclusion.

  SPANISH AUXILIARY WARSHIPS.
  SIR G. S. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Spanish Government has explained whether the vessels which they contemplate adding as auxiliaries to their fleet are to be classed as public or private warships; and whether they are to fly the Spanish naval ensign or some other ensign?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Spanish Government have not given explanations with regard to the points mentioned in the Question. Her Majesty's Government have reason to believe that the Spanish Government intend to limit themselves to the employment of an auxiliary marine like that proposed to be employed by Germany in 1870, in which case they would presumably be classed as public vessels and sail under the Spanish national flag. Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Madrid has been instructed to make inquiries and to report immediately any information he may obtain.

  WAR AND THE CUTTING OF CABLES.
  MR. T. W. NUSSEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can inform the House if either belligerent has the right, and, if so, to what extent, to interfere with cables between the territory of the opposing Power and any other part of the world?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: A convention, to which Great Britain, Spain, and the United States were parties, was concluded at Paris, on March 14, 1884, providing for the protection of submarine cables. But by Article XV. thereof in time of war a belligerent, signatory to the convention is free to act with respect to submarine cables as it the convention did not exist. I am not prepared, therefore, to say that a belligerent, on the ground of military exigency, would, under no circumstances, be justified in interfering with cables between the territory of the opposing Power and any other part of the world.

  CONSULAR REPORTS ON CUBA.
  MR. E. J. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is now able to state whether it will be possible for the Government to procure for the use of Members of the House of Commons copies of the American Consular Reports relating to the affairs of Cuba recently presented to the
  1214
  United States Congress; and whether he is able to state the approximate date at which the Consular Report from Her Majesty's Consul in Cuba will be laid upon the Table of the House of Commons?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Three copies of the American Consular Reports can be placed in the Library of the House if desired. The Reports from Her Majesty's Consular officers in Cuba have not yet been received, and no date can at present be fixed for their presentation.

  ACCIDENTS ON BRITISH AND PRUSSIAN RAILWAYS.
  MR. H. E. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a Report presented to the Prussian Parliament in January last by the Minister of Public Works dealing with the question of safety in railway working, and purporting to show that the ratio of passengers killed on English railways is twice as high, and of passengers injured is more than five times as high as on Prussian railways; and whether this Report accurately represents the situation in the two countries; and, if so, whether he is prepared to take any and what steps in the matter?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to the Report referred to, and careful inquiries have been made with regard to its conclusions. I desire to safeguard myself against expressing any doubt as to the accuracy of the Prussian figures as applied to Prussian railways, but it appears to be clear that the deductions drawn from those figures by way of comparison with our own cannot be supported. I am, therefore, unable to admit that the Report accurately represents the situation in the two countries.

  KNUTSFORD PRISON.
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department

  1215
  whether, during the year ended 31st March, 1897, any juvenile prisoners were received at Kuntsford Prison, under the regulation reserving that prison for juveniles sentenced to one month and upwards from Cheshire, Lancashire, North Wales, Shropshire, and Staffordshire; and, if so, can he explain why the chief officers of Knutsford Prison have not made any reference in their Reports to this class of prisoners, as the chief officers of Northallerton, Warwick, Brecon, Devizes, and Bedford prisons have done?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS,): Twenty-nine juveniles were so received, and were treated in accordance with the rules. No special order was in force requiring Governors to comment on these cases; but it is now the rule for them to make a special report.

  FINES ON PRISON OFFICIALS.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of the schedule of fines which warders and other prison officers are liable to incur; what was the number of such officers who were fined; and what was the total amount of the fines imposed during the year ended 31st March, 1897; and will the Commissioners furnish similar information in their future annual Reports?
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I can see no sufficient reason for laying the approved scale of fines upon the Table. The amount of fines imposed during the year was £55 8s. 9d.; the number of officers fined could only be ascertained by sending a circular to the prisons, and that hardly appears worth while.

  LAW OF EVIDENCE IN IRELAND.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland (1) whether his attention has been drawn to a report of the proceedings in the Northern Division Police Court, Dublin, on a charge of
  1216
  murder against Miss Louisa Browne, on 31st March and 1st April, from which it appears that the magistrate declined to hear evidence tendered on behalf of the accused upon the ground that the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, limits his powers to the taking of the depositions of witnesses for the prosecution; (2) whether he is aware that such refusal is contrary to the usual practice in Ireland, as laid down in a work of high authority (Constantine Molloy's "Justice of the Peace"); and (3) whether, if the refusal of the magistrate to take such evidence is technically correct, he will introduce legislation to assimilate the law in Ireland to the law in England upon this subject?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): The facts are substantially as stated in the first and second paragraphs of the Question. The fact that a Statute was required in England to make it compulsory on the magistrates acting under Statutes similar to the Irish to take depositions of the witnesses of the accused shows that the Irish magistrate mentioned was not bound to do so in this case, but that by no means establishes that the existing practice is illegal. I have no reason to apprehend that the practice will not be generally followed as heretofore, and however desirable it may be to assimilate the law in the two countries on this point I am not in a position, in the present state of business, to undertake to introduce legislation with that object this Session.

  TRAWLERS IN BROAD BAY.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate (1) whether the Secretary for Scotland has received a copy of a resolution carried at a recent meeting of the Lewis and Harris Fishermen's Association, urging that a coastguard should be placed on duty at Tiumpan Head, Island of Lewis, with instructions to report trawlers working within the proscribed limits and in Broad Bay; and (2) will he consider the advisability of placing himself in communication with the Admiralty with a view to the suggestion being carried into effect?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: The answer to the first part of the honourable Member's Question is in the affirmative. On the general Question, the Secretary for Scotland has been made aware by the Admiralty that while the coastguard are ordered to report any breach of the bye-laws which may come under their notice, they cannot, having regard to their other duties, be stationed specially for that purpose.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) ACT.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, before Clause 5 of the Local Government Bill is reached, or otherwise, he could give a Return showing the number of towns in Ireland which have been partly or wholly separated by Provisional Order or local Act from the Grand Jury jurisdiction, the amount still contributed by the town councils of such places to the Grand Juries, and showing whether this includes all county at large charges or the nature of the contribution?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The information referred to in the Question will be found at Page 59, and subsequent pages, of the last published Returns of Local Taxation in Ireland (see House of Commons Paper, No. C—8602 of 1897).

  RAILWAY EXTENSION, KERRY.
  MR. JAMES ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether there is any fund now available, a small portion of which could be applied towards a short but urgently needed piece of railway extension in a very distressed portion of the county of Kerry; and, if so, whether, if the fact is brought to his notice that all the adjacent landowners give their land gratis, that the railway company affected contributes the chief portion of the capital required, and that all that is now needed is some slight assistance from the Treasury in order to complete an undertaking that, besides
  1218
  being self-supporting in the future, would give employment in the present to a sorely tried community, he would consent to receive a deputation on the subject or otherwise favourably consider it?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: As I have already more than once stated, the entire sum made available for the construction of light railways in Ireland by the Railway Act of 1896 has been hypothecated, with the exception of a small margin required for contingencies.

  ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS FOR SKINS.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can inform the House of the reason for issuing Admiralty tender forms for hides, leather, and leather goods in such a form as to exclude Colonial goat skins; whether there is any particular reason for excluding from Admiralty contracts morocco made from goat skins from the Cape of Good Hope and other South African Colonies, India, Australia, and New Zealand; whether he is aware that the supply of Colonial skins is larger than the European supply, and that any boycotting of Colonial trade in Government Departments is likely to injure the Colonial trade and cause the supply to fall off; whether he is responsible for the memorandum issued from the Contract Department of the Admiralty on 12th April last, complaining of the fact that some of the morocco skins used for chairs shed colours on being rubbed, and requesting samples in future; and whether he is aware that the skins complained of were of European origin, and, in view of that fact, whether he will at least give an equally fair market to Colonial skins as to European skins in all cases of Admiralty contracts?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. G. E. MACARTNEY,): The present specification was settled in 1885, and the Admiralty was then advised that the skins of European goats were the best for upholstery work. The memorandum referred to was issued in consequence of a complaint recently

  1219
  made of the colour of some skins covering seats of chairs shedding when in use. I am advised that the fault was in the dye, and not in the quality of the skins. Orders have been given for the purchase of samples of Colonial skins for the purpose of trial and comparison.

  KINGSBRIDGE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.
  MR. LAMBERT: On behalf of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for the Ashburton Division of Devonshire, I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it has been brought to his notice that at the election for the Kingsbridge Urban District Council, on the 4th instant, the returning officer refused a recount to a candidate who was in a minority of one; whether he is aware that the returning officer was the son of one and the nephew of another of the candidates, and that smoking and disorder were permitted during the counting of the votes; and whether he will take steps to prevent similar irregularities in future?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. CHAPLIN,): It is true that the returning officer in question refused a recount to a candidate who was in a minority of one. It is also the case that the returning officer was the son of one and the nephew of another of the candidates. I ought, I think, to mention, lest it should be inferred that the returning officer was influenced by this relationship, from the form of the right honourable Gentleman's Question, that these two gentlemen received 53 and 103 votes respectively more than the candidate who was defeated by one. There may possibly have been some smoking, which, as the room was a large one, may have escaped the notice of the officer, but it is distinctly denied that there was any disorder. Whether there was disorder or not, it is a matter in which I have no more jurisdiction than the right honourable Gentleman, and the remedy for irregularities, if any occurred, affecting the conduct or result of the election, was open to any candidate aggrieved, by an election petition.
  MR. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. ourable Gentleman take steps to secure that similar irregularities shall not occur in the future?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: I have already said I have no power to take any steps in the matter, any more than the right honourable Gentleman himself, or any other honourable Member.

  LUCAN POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that there is no delivery of letters on Sundays in the town of Lucan, county of Dublin, or in the vicinity of that place, although Lucan is but seven miles distant from Dublin and is connected with Dublin by one tramway and two railways; and, if so, whether steps will be taken to remedy this defect in the present postal arrangements in the county of Dublin?
  MR. HANBURY: There was formerly a special delivery at Lucan on Saturday evenings of letters brought by the Dublin night mail, which made a delivery on Sunday unnecessary. Recent changes have made the continuance of the Saturday evening delivery impracticable, and the Postmaster General has therefore given instructions for a delivery by postman to be made at Lucan on Sunday mornings, as requested by the honourable Member.

  IRISH MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether the Local Government (Ireland) Bill makes no provision for the extension of the municipal franchise in Ireland in towns which possess town boards but which will not become urban districts; and (2) if so, whether it is the intention of the Government to make proposals in Committee on the Local Government Bill to prevent the anomaly

  1221
  of a restricted franchise prevailing in those towns while an extended suffrage will exist everywhere else?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Under the Local Government Bill no alteration is proposed in the franchise or constitution of the towns which are not urban authorities, and which elect not to become urban district councils under Clause 26 of the Bill. Of course, such towns will form part of a rural district, and the rural district council will be the road and sanitary authority in them.
  MR. CLANCY: Will the right honourable Gentleman answer the last part of the Question?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The answer to that is in the negative.

  FULLER ESTATE, COUNTY KERRY.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that certain tenants on the Fuller estate, near Cahirciveen, in the county of Kerry, who have served originating notices to have fair rents fixed on their holdings, have been waiting for 18 months to have their cases heard; and, if so, whether he will communicate with the Land Commission with a view to its sending a Sub-Commission without further delay to Kerry for the purpose of disposing of the cases referred to and others which are also pending.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed that there are only ten applications to fix fair rents at present pending on the estate referred to in the Question. Of these, the earliest was received on the 12th March, 1897. A Sub-Commission has recently been employed in the county Kerry, and the Commissioners will arrange a further sitting for that county at as early a date as possible, having regard to the claims of other districts.

  BELFAST LUNATIC ASYLUM.
  MR. EDWARD M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) has his attention been drawn to a resolution of the
  1222
  governors of the Belfast Lunatic Asylum, requesting the Government to take over the management, and expense of the Irish asylums and make those institutions an Imperial charge; and (2) will he make provision to this effect in the Local Government Bill?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have seen the resolution referred to in the first paragraph, and as regards the second paragraph I have nothing to add to my replies to the similar inquiries already addressed to me on the subject.

  FISHING LICENCES ON THE RIVER DEE.
  MR. J. CALDWELL: On behalf of the honourable Member for Flintshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that some fishermen on the River Dee, between Overton and Chester, who had been granted a net fishing licence from the River Dee Conservators, have received notice from some of the landowners on either side of the river that they will not allow net fishing on the river; and, if so, what steps are the Government prepared to take to preserve the rights of the public which have been exercised for so many years?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I am not aware of the facts to which the honourable Member refers; but I would point out that Section 34 (5) of the Salmon Fishery Act, 1865, provides that "no licence shall confer any right to fish in any place or at any time at which the licensee is not otherwise entitled to fish," and it does not seem to be the duty of the Government to intervene in any disputed claim to public as against private rights, such as appears to be involved in this case.

  HALF-TIMERS.
  MR. NUSSEY: On behalf of the honourable Member for Bolton I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education if he can state the number of half-timers in England and Wales on the books of State-aided schools?
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. E. GORST,): A Return on this subject was presented to the House at the beginning of the Session. The numbers are: England, 119,693; Wales, 54.

  MOBILISATION ARRANGEMENTS.
  COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can say approximately how many days it would require, from the date of issuing the orders for mobilisation, to place in the field the First and Second Army Corps, laid down in regulations for mobilisation, complete in men, horses and matériel?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Secretary of State for War does not consider it expedient that the period required for complete mobilisation should be made public. My honourable and gallant Friend is probably aware that all such questions are kept secret by Continental Powers.
  COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, with reference to his statement that for a large war our two Army Corps will be complete, whether those Army Corps will, in details, be the same as the First and Second Corps laid down in regulations for mobilisation; and, if not, in what main features of area or organisation they will differ; and whether any Return or Army Order will be issued showing the numbers of men, horses, and guns in each of the units of those corps when mobilised?
  MR. BRODRICK: The units selected for the two Army Corps for service abroad are not identical with those in the First and Second Army Corps for home defence, but the establishment of units proceeding abroad in the two Army Corps is the same as that laid down in the regulations for mobilisation. No further Army Order will be issued.

  ARMY PENSION PAYMENTS.
  MR. J. ROUND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State
  1224
  for War if he has received representations from local bodies and guardians of local unions urging the desirability of the payment of Army pensioners weekly instead of quarterly; and if he will favourably consider such representations?
  MR. BRODRICK: Such representations have been received, but the objections to this course have been frequently stated in Parliament.

  INCOME TAX STATISTICS.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will be good enough to state the number of income tax payers on incomes under £400, £500, £600, and £700 respectively during the last financial year?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: As the income tax is to a very large extent levied at the source, it is not possible to say exactly how many persons there are whose total income is less than a given amount. The number of income tax payers who claimed abatements in the year 1895–96 was 458,527. These figures represent approximately the number of persons whose incomes exceeded £160 but did not exceed £500.

  ST. BRIGID'S INFANTS' SCHOOLS, BELFAST.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether the Commissioners of National Education enforce their Rule No. 117, which directs that the district inspector after each visit shall communicate with the local manager in case he shall have observed any violation of rule or defects; (2) whether the district inspector in Belfast reported alleged defects in the St. Brigid's Infants' Schools to the Board in March, 1897, without communicating with the manager; (3) whether, in December, 1897, the principal teacher was depressed and fined without the manager having received any previous notification of the alleged breach of rules for which she was

  1225
  punished; (4) whether the Lord Lieutenant has received a memorial from the manager making many serious and detailed statements regarding the treatment of the principal teacher; and (5) whether a formal and public inquiry will be held into the whole matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Commissioners inform me that the rule referred to in the first paragraph is enforced as far as practicable. Owing to the severe pressure of work on the inspectors the rule cannot be enforced rigidly. The fact is as stated in the second paragraph. The inspector was unable to call on the manager at a convenient hour, but his statements were at once communicated in writing to the manager from the office of the Commissioners. The fact is not correctly stated in the third paragraph. The irregularities were explained to the manager several weeks before the penalty was inflicted. The memorial mentioned in the fourth paragraph has been received. The matter has already been fully inquired into, and twice considered by the Commissioners. It was for fraudulent practices, clearly established, that the teacher was fined and depressed in her classification, and I see no reason for suggesting to the Commissioners that a further inquiry should be held in the case.

  GUN LICENCES IN IRELAND.
  MAJOR JAMESON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that Mr. Brady, resident magistrate, county Clare, had refused to grant Mr. Patrick Casey, farmer, of Cruiskeen, county Clare, a licence to carry a gun for the protection of his crops, although the granting of such licence was recommended by several Justices of the Peace and the foremen of the Grand Jury; and could he state the reason for the refusal to grant Mr. Patrick Casey a gun licence?
  MR. W. H. K. REDMOND: I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what are the reasons why Mr. Brady, R.M., refuses to grant a gun licence to Mr. Patrick Casey, a farmer, of Cruiskeen, county Clare?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The discretion of granting or withholding a licence to carry firearms is vested by law in the Resident Magistrate of the district, and it would be quite contrary to practice to state the reasons which have influenced that officer in refusing to issue such a licence in any particular case. My predecessor stated, in answer to a Question put to him by the honourable Member on the 11th March, 1895, that he had satisfied himself that the Licensing Officer had exercised his discretion in this case in a reasonable manner, and I fully concur opinion with my predecessor.

  SOUTH AND WEST CLARE RAILWAY DIVIDEND.
  MAJOR JAMESON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Treasury will continue to pay half the dividend on the South and West Clare Railway after the passing of the Local Government (Ireland) Bill?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The answer is in the affirmative.

  UNDERGROUND RAILWAY.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that during the past week the atmosphere of the Underground Railway, particularly between Swiss Cottage and Baker Street, has been almost unbearable with suffocating black smoke and choking gases; whether this state of matters is the result of the use of cheap bituminous coal; and whether he will take steps to remedy this?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I will direct the attention of the Company to the honourable Member's complaint. He is no doubt aware that the Company is seeking powers from Parliament to work electrically, and also to improve the ventilation of the portion of the line referred to.

  COMMISSION ON SEWAGE TREATMENT.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he has completed the Commission on the treatment of sewage; and, if so, whether he can state the terms of the reference and the names of the Commissioners?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: The terms of reference and the names of the Commissioners have been sent to the Secretary of State for submission to Her Majesty for approval. I hope to be able to announce them very shortly.

  WICKLOW HARBOUR WORKS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, is he aware that the Wicklow Harbour Commissioners have given away a contract amounting to over £14,000 for repairs, without advertising for tenders, to a Scotch contractor; whether this money is to be provided from Treasury grant of £25,000; whether the Scotch contractor is the same person against whom the Newry Navigation Company obtained a verdict of £10,000 in the year 1889, in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, for negligence in carrying out the Newry Navigation Works; and whether an inquiry will be made into this matter with a view to protect the ratepayers?
  MR. HANBURY: I understand that the Wicklow Harbour Commissioners have, under consideration a non-competitive tender of a Glasgow contractor for repairing works at a cost of £14,600. The money for the proposed works would be provided, not from a Treasury grant, but from a loan of £28,750 to be advanced by the Board of Works under the Wicklow Harbour Advances Act of last year. The Newry Navigation Company some years ago obtained a verdict for £6,200 in respect of the non-completion of a contract, the defendant being of the same name as the contractor now in question, but I do not know whether he was the same person. In cases where public works are aided by loan, the Board of Works have no power to interfere as regards the selection of a contractor.

  REPORTED SALE OF THE STEAMSHIP IRELAND.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if it is true, as reported in the evening papers, that the steamship Ireland, alleged to have been sold to the American Government, has been ordered not to leave the port of Kingstown?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I understand that the negotiations, if there ever were negotiations in connection with the Ireland, have broken down.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Is that any reason for ordering that she should not leave the port?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is an argument, not a Question.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Then, may I ask this Question: Has she been ordered not to leave the port? And may I further ask if the contract for her sale had been completed before the declaration of war, would her purchasers have been entitled to take her away?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: As I understand she has not been sold.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I must ask the right honourable Gentleman has she been ordered not to leave the port?
  MR. MACNEILL: Yes, or no? [Cries of "Order!"]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have informed the honourable Gentleman, although I might, perhaps, have asked for notice of the Question, that, so far as my knowledge goes, the Ireland has not been sold, either to the Spanish or the American Government, and under those circumstances nobody has a right to order her not to leave, or to leave, the port.

  QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
  MR. W. FIELD: I have to bring before the House a question of privilege. In a Debate which took place last week the honourable Member for South Antrim, who is a

  1229
  director of the London and North Western Railway Company, made a speech on a Bill in which that company was interested, and made it, as I understand, as a Member of the Government. I beg to call the attention of the House to the fact that I have no hostility towards the honourable Gentleman; on the contrary, I have received many courtesies from him, but as a matter of principle I object to a Member of the Government taking up the position he did. It is all very well for the honour able Gentleman—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! There is no question as to the right of speech, but only as to the right to vote. The honourable Member must confine himself to that question.
  MR. FIELD: He voted, unfortunately, as a Minister, and that, in my opinion, aggravated the offence. He not only voted himself—which was bad enough—but he also carried 23 Government votes along with him, which was worse, but as you kindly ask me, Mr. Speaker, to direct my attention to the question I beg to bring under the notice of the House, according to your ruling, Sir, that the honourable Member was not entitled to vote—
  MR. JOHNSTON: Speak loud.
  MR. FIELD (to the Member for): I am afraid you do not want to hear. "There are none so blind as those who will not see, and none so deaf as those who will not hear." I must respectfully submit that the honourable Gentleman was not entitled to vote upon this London and North Western question, in which he is a director, and had a pecuniary interest as a director; and I might point out that in the discussion upon the Victoria Embankment Bill the honourable Member for Northampton, some of whose property comes within the area of the Bill, walked out of the House to avoid voting. I beg to move, therefore, that the honourable Member for South Antrim's vote shall be disallowed in respect of the Division which took place last week on the London and North Western Railway Company's (Steam Vessels) Bill.
  MR. J. G. SWIFT MACNEILL: I rise to second that Motion. I am sure that the gentlemen on both sides of the House feel grateful to my honourable Friend for having contributed to the gaiety of nations after a most distressing and tiresome afternoon. Well, Sir, I am going to take rather a serious view of this question, and I desire to say anything I have to say in the presence of the honourable Member. The first thing I have to say is that between the honourable Member for South Antrim and myself there is certainly no unkindly feeling; but I wish to bring to the notice of the House the fact that I regard this vote as one of the most flagrant violations of the Rules of the House, that no Member should give a vote in any matter in winch he has a direct pecuniary interest of a private character. In every circumstance I shall prove that this comes under that Rule; and further, I wish to say that this vote is perfectly exceptional in the history of Parliament for this reason: that this is the first time that the vote of a Minister of the Crown has been impeached, as voting as a railway director, voting from the Treasury Bench, and voting in his own pecuniary interest. Now, Sir, this Rule, which is a very old Rule, was laid down in the Parliament of 1604, which was not a very high-minded assembly, for two-thirds of the House of Commons were in the pay of the French king. This ruling was to the effect that the vote of a Member "appearing to be somewhat concerned" (in the subject in hand), "his vote was disallowed." "Appearing to be somewhat concerned"—not a director of a company, not a Member of the Government, not a Member sitting on the Treasury Bench, but "appearing to be somewhat concerned." Now this Rule was acted upon, a century and a half afterwards, in the great case of the Loyalty Loan. I am always frightened when I hear the word "loyalty," because persons who profess to be loyal are generally loyal to themselves. The object of the Loan was to raise a sum of £80,000,000 at a certain security. Those securities were paid, and it was proposed by Mr. Pitt that for every £100 in securities 5 per cent. should be added, and that

  1231
  Motion came before Parliament; and then Mr. Manning, who was the director of the Bank of England and father of the great and eminent Cardinal Manning, who has gone, asked Mr. Speaker what he ought to do, and it was laid down by Mr. Speaker Addington, and which I say emphatically has been acted upon invariably ever since by every Speaker who has been asked the question. Mr. Speaker Addington then said—
  "Having been appealed to in so distinct a manner by the honourable Member, it is my duty to state what appears to me to be the rule and practice of the House upon questions of this nature. I have always understood the rule and practice of the House to be that no Member can regularly (subject to some qualification) vote on any question which involves in it an immediate interest of such Member. This, I have said, is subject to some qualification. I will not detain the House by entering into the detail of that qualification at present; but when any Measure is submitted to the House, the substance of which is to confer a pecuniary advantage or diminish a loss, which is the same thing, I am satisfied it is not consistent with that mode of proceeding, which the House has adopted on occasions of delicacy and importance, that any Member should vote on a measure by which he intends to derive any benefit in case that measure should be carried into law."
  "Mr. Manning said he was much obliged to the Speaker for delivering so clear an opinion; he should decline voting upon the question."
  "The Speaker: I am extremely desirous of being distinctly understood by the House upon this important question. It does not appear to me to be possible for the House under any existing Rule or Order to preclude any Member from voting. But I will state what appears to me to be the practice of the House as far as my researches have gone. The only precedent that I have been able to find analogous to this case is to be met with in 1664, when a Member voted in a question in which he was directly interested, and his vote was disallowed afterwards on a Division. If, therefore, any Members vote upon any question which includes that species of interest in the opinion of the House, the House may afterwards disallow their votes. I must, however, add that this applies to benefits which they expect and intend to derive. If Members who seem entitled to benefit shall say that they do not intend to derive any, it will be for the House to judge whether they will allow their votes."
  In the present case the Bill for which the honourable Member had voted was for conferring on the company, of which he was a director and a shareholder, a monopoly of traffic. It was a Bill clearly calculated to confer a pecuniary benefit upon himself. Now, Sir, that opinion of
  1232
  the Speaker was contested by two gentlemen on the highest moral grounds, that they were independent Members of Parliament; that they were so good that no idea of pecuniary interest would regulate their votes. They took a high moral tone when their pecuniary interests were concerned. One gentleman was Mr. Dundas, and Mr. Dundas was impeached afterwards for malversation of public funds. The other gentleman, who was a mere Government creature named Ryder—Ryder lived 87 years in the public service, and was pitchforked from one side to the other. There was only one good thing he did. When Ryder was Foreign Secretary, and he found there was nothing to do, he resigned. In this Debate in the House of Commons a century ago there was one very pertinent observation made. It was made by Sheridan, and I am sure honourable Gentlemen will be pleased to hear what Sheridan said on the matter, first to show how good they are, and how bad that House of Commons was—
  "But if these proceedings"—(said Sheridan)—"were carried on, the House would become more unpopular even than the Ministers. From the one the people expected only to be cajoled and plundered, but from the House they expected at least some attention to their interests."
  I have given enough of antique authorities. Let me come nearer home. I sat upon the Select Committee on Personal Interests a couple of years ago to discuss these matters as to how far personal pecuniary interest should affect the votes of Members of Parliament. That Committee was composed of eminent Members, all except myself; in fact, the Committee was composed of very eminent men indeed, and they thought that they should not in the slightest degree affect the old Rule. They wished the Rule to be as elastic as possible, in order to cover every case, and when the Speaker had stated the principle of the case, the House itself was to be judge and jury in the matter. They wished the Rule of 1664 on the Loyalty Loan to be supported. This was put to the vote, and the Motion was only lost by a majority of one. It so happened that two gentlemen who intended to vote for the old Rule if they had

  1233
  been present would have actually carried it, and it almost fits this case. The paragraph that they wished to be inserted in the Report was this—
  "Your Committee think it desirable that the position and votes of members who are directors or shareholders in companies affected by private Bills should be regarded more strictly than has been the case of late years."
  [Cries of "Order!"] Sir, if you, in your discretion, think that I am out of order, I will not proceed in reference to that, but I will proceed with the paragraph in Committee, which exactly fits this case—
  "Such instances as those of directors and shareholders, who have undertaken to represent their companies in conducting Bills through the House, appear to come within the spirit, if not the letter of the rule."
  [Here the honourable Member, in waving his hand, sent Mr. Knox's hat upon the Gangway; amidst the laughter of the House.] I am glad that I did not interfere with the brains inside that hat. Not one of the Members of the Committee ever contemplated, when they drafted that Resolution—and I had something to do with it myself—that a Minister of the Crown would himself be conducting a Bill in the House of Commons, and voting for it partly in his private and partly in his public capacity. The thing is outrageous, and utterly wrong. The House has listened to me with great attention, and I am obliged to them for it. If the Secretary to the Admiralty had voted as a Member of the House only there would have been nothing to say, but first he voted as a Member of the House, he then voted as a shareholder of the Company, and then as a director. But the honourable Gentleman also voted in another way—he voted as a Minister of the Crown in a matter conferring a personal and pecuniary benefit to himself. I say that there is no parallel for that. The theory is, of course, that every Member of the House, on the floor of this House, is equal. ["No, no!"] Yes, but no Member of Parliament, except a Minister of the Crown, could dare to propose to the House a charge on public funds. If a gentleman who has that power as a Minister of the Crown is able to go and work to his own advantage, good-bye to all purity of action in
  1234
  this House. Mr. Speaker, I remember some little time ago one of those men belonging to the genus Editors—an editor of an evening newspaper—asked a number of eminent men to give a list of the books which impressed them. They did not send to me; but I will tell you which book impressed me greatly; it is the Directory of Directors. I have studied that book, Mr. Speaker. I find the right honourable Gentleman is not only in one company, but he is a director in three companies. ["No, no!"] It was so till the first of the year. I will not pursue this; but, supposing now that any Member of that Bench were a director in more companies than one, it is a strange thing, having regard to this Rule, that a gentleman could vote in this House as a director of a public company in which he has an interest, and would be precluded from voting in this House if there was a contract in which he had an interest. In other words, how does it happen that the right honourable Gentleman could not have gone upstairs and appeared on that Committee without declaring that he had no interest in it, and then to come down here and vote for it? It is like a judge in a common law court who is unable to act because he had a personal interest, but when it comes to the Court of Appeal his case is much stronger, for he is in at the final adjudication of the case. I have two or three quotations, not in the Report itself, but in the evidence of the gentlemen who presided over this House with great ability, and whom we all respect very much, and that is Mr. Speaker Peel. If the House will allow me, I will just read one or two extracts from Mr. Speaker's view of the case. Mr. Speaker Peel said this, and Mr. Speaker Peel was only repeating the words of Mr. Gladstone in a similar case—The Mombasa Railway Company. Mr. Gladstone said—
  "Honourable Gentlemen ought to decide for themselves, and if there is a doubt to give the benefit of that doubt against themselves."
  Mr. Speaker Peel said exactly the same thing—
  "I have uniformly, if I may speak of my own rulings, said that the matter must be left to the House. I have been frequently consulted by Members privately as to what they

  1235
  ought to do, and my advice was always given against their voting if they had any doubt. I said: If you do vote you run the risk of subsequent disallowance, and speaking, not ex cathédra, but as a Member of the House myself, I should say, if you have any doubt upon the question, I should abstain from voting."
  And so should all the directors on the Treasury Bench abstain from voting when points to their own interests are at stake. Let them be warned by the past experience of the honourable Baronet who is the Member for Manchester, who displayed the better part of valour, and out he walked. There is another question to Mr. Speaker Peel perhaps you will allow me to quote. I have gone through every word of this Report. Lord Peel was asked how it came to pass that a Member could vote on the floor of this House and would be debarred from voting upstairs on the Committee, and this is what Mr. Speaker Peel says—
  "Of course, logically, it is difficult to say, if a Member is excluded from serving on a Private Bill Committee because of his personal interest, why he should not be precluded from voting in the House on a matter in which he has a personal and pecuniary interest. It is not, perhaps, a very logical reason to give, but he is supposed to divest himself of his character as a representative when he sits upon a Private Bill Committee and acts there in a judicial capacity; in the House his representative character returns to him and he acts as a Member of the House speaking on the subject as it affects not only individual interests but as it affects the general interests of the community at large. That is the only explanation I can give of the seeming discrepancy between the exclusion of a Member as regards Private Bill Committees and his comparative freedom when he deals as a Member of the House with the same subject."
  I say that the right honourable Gentleman did not fulfil those conditions. He is simply putting money into the pockets of the company of which he is a director. I feel obliged to the House for hearing me. I say, first, the right honourable Gentleman was a director of the company, then he is a shareholder of the company, and then, because he is a Member of this House, he has voted for the interest of the company; and, above all, he is a Member of the Government, who have control of the public funds. I say to act thus they could go down to the city if they chose, but I say that Members on the Treasury Bench should be above suspicion.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. G. E. MACARTNEY,): Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to follow the arguments laid before the House by the honourable Gentleman who has moved, and the honourable and learned Gentleman who has seconded this Motion. If they are worthy of the consideration of the House I have no doubt that the House will consider them. I rise simply for the purpose of, as briefly as possible, stating to the House the reasons why I consider I was fully justified in giving the vote on the particular occasion in question. In the first place, as far as I am aware, there is no Order or Rule of this House, which prohibits a Member of this House, though he may be a railway director from voting in relation to a Bill connected with a railway of which he is a director. On the contrary, for upwards of 60 years this House has uniformly declined to disallow a vote given under such circumstances, though on three or four occasions these votes have been challenged. The question, therefore, which remained for me to consider was whether I had, in relation to this Bill, such a "direct, personal, and pecuniary interest of a private and particular, and not of a public and general nature," as could be supposed to influence me in voting one way or the other. Mr. Speaker, I can best describe my interest in connection with the London and North Western Railway Company by quoting the words used by Mr. Gladstone in the Debate raised on the propriety of certain honourable Members' votes in connection with the Mombasa grant. Mr. Gladstone, alluding to the vote given on a previous occasion by the present Lord Rathmore—who was then a Member of this House, who sat on the Front Bench, and who was a director of the London and North Western Railway—on an omnibus Bill of the North Western Company, thus expressed himself—
  "I think that vote was, on the whole, wisely and properly allowed. What was the purpose of that Bill? The North-Western Company is engaged in a gigantic undertaking, in which it endeavours, by affording advantages and facilities to the public, to earn profits for itself; and the Bill was an extension and improvement of the means by which it was to carry on that beneficial and extensive business. It is quite plain, I think, that if the interest of the right honourable Member for Dublin University were

  1237
  concerned in that Bill in such a way that some infinitesimal faction of profit might possibly accrue to himself, it was a profit immensely remote, a profit absolutely unecrtain, and a profit which, if it were obtained, would be obtained in common with a body of shareholders—I know not how many, but I think probably numbered by hundreds of thousands."
  Well, Sir, that is precisely the position which I occupy, except that, with the best intentions in the world, I have been unable to arrive at any, even the most infinitesimal, estimate of how I could be affected by the passage or non-passage of this Bill. As regards my position as director, I think all Members of this House will recognise at once that it cannot be affected in a pecuniary manner by the passage or non-passage of this Bill. I feel, therefore, that, having regard to that sensibility which every Member of the House feels in questions of this sort, I was perfectly free to vote in favour of the Bill. If I had any interests at all in connection with the passage of the Bill, and especially in regard to the clause which was objected
  to by honourable Members opposite—the clause relating to the promotion of communication by steam-packet service between the United Kingdom and Ireland—my interests were infinitely greater on account of Ireland, than on account of possible profit to the London and North Western Railway Company. I believe that the general interests of Ireland, and especially of that part in which I live and in which I am entirely bound up have been greatly served by the communication established by the London and North Western Railway Company. These were the reasons which led me to vote. I believe that they are sanctioned by the practice of the House, and I believe that in so voting I have not in any way violated the sense of responsibility or the honour of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—"That the vote of Mr. Macartney be disallowed."—(Mr. Field.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 108; Noes 209.

  AYES.

  Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Owen, Thomas

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hazell, Walter

  Parnell, John Howard

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Billson, Alfred

  Healy, Thomas J. (Wexford)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Birrell, Augustine

  Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Blake, Edward

  Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Brigg, John

  Hogan, James Francis

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Holburn, J. G.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Shee, James John

  Burt, Thomas

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Souttar, Robinson

  Caldwell, James

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Carew, James Laurence

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Steadman, William Charles

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Stevenson Francis S.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Kilbride, Denis

  Strachey, Edward

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Collery, Bernard

  Knox, Edmund F. Vesey

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lambert, George

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Crean, Eugene

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Tully, Jasper

  Crilly, Daniel

  Leng, Sir John

  Walton Joseph (Barnsley)

  Curran, Thos. B. (Donegal)

  Logan, John William

  Weir, James Galloway

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Lough, Thomas

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Daly, James

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Davitt, Michael

  McDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qn.'s Co.)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  McCartan, Michael

  Wilson, John (Grovan)

  Dillon, John

  McDermott, Patrick

  Wilson, J. W. (Worc., N.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Wilson J. H. (Middlesbro')

  Duckworth, James

  M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, E.)

  Woodall, William

  Engledew, Charles John

  McLeod, John

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudd'rsf'ld)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  Woods, Samuel

  Farrell, Jas. P. (Cavan, W.)

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Fenwick, Charles

  Morris, Samuel

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Ffrench, Peter

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Mr. Field and Mr. Mac-

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Neill.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Monk, Charles James

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Garfit, William

  More, Robert Jasper

  Arnold, Alfred

  Gedge, Sydney

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (C. of Lond.)

  Mount, William George

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Murdoch, Charles Townshend

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Baden-Powell, Sir G. Smyth

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Myers, William Henry

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

  Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. Geo.'s)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Barry, Rt. Hon. A. H. Smith-

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)

  Barry, F. Tress (Windsor)

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l)

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Gretton, John

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

  Bethell, Commander

  Hall, Sir Charles

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Bond, Edward

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Pryce-Jones, Edward

  Brown, Alexander H.

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

  Purvis, Robert

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Heath, James

  Pym, C. Guy

  Butcher, John George

  Helder, Augustus

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Hill, Sir E. Stock (Bristol)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampst'd)

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles Wm.

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Round, James

  Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

  Hornby, William Henry

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Howard, Joseph

  Saunderson, Col. E. James

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc.)

  Howell, William Tudor

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Charrington, Spencer

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. W. L.

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Joicey, Sir James

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Skewes-Cox, Robert

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Kemp, George

  Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Kenrick, William

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Colston, C. E. H. Athole

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. Wm.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'T.

  Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

  Knowles, Lees

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cornwallis, F. Stanley W.

  Lafone, Alfred

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

  Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall)

  Thorburn, Walter

  Cox, Robert

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

  Verney, Hon. Richard G.

  Denny, Colonel

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Sw'ns'a)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Wallace, Robt. (Edinburgh)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Loder, Gerald Walter E.

  Walrond, Sir William Hood

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

  Waring, Col. Thomas

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

  Lowe, Francis William

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Evershed, Sydney

  Lowther, J. W. (Cumberland)

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of Wight)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Whiteley, Geo. (Stockport)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc.)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  McCalmont, Mj-Gn (Ant'm, N.)

  Wills, Sir William Henry

  Fisher, William Hayes

  McCalmont, Col. J. (Ant'm, E.)

  Wodeouse, E. R. (Bath)

  Fison, Frederick William

  McEwan, William

  Wylie, Alexander

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  McIver, Sir Lewis

  Wyndham, George

  Flannery, Fortescue

  McKillop, James

  Young, Com. (Berks, E.)

  Flower, Ernest

  McLaren, Charles Benjamin

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Malcolm, Ian

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Forster, Henry William

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Mr. Grant Lawson and Mr.

  Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Muntz.

NEW BILL.

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT (1879) AMENDMENT BILL.
  SIR ANDREW R. SCOBLE: I beg to ask the House for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879.
  Read a first time [No. 189.]

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member for South Somerset [Mr. F. J. STRACHEY] has upon the paper the following Instruction:—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert a time limit to the Agricultural Grant."
  As the limit could be imposed by an amendment in Committee, the Instruction is unnecessary, and therefore out of order.
  Considered in Committee.
  Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, in the Chair.]
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. THOMAS LOUGH: I beg to move—
  "In Clause 1, page 1, line 8, after 'County,' insert 'as defined by this Act.'"
  The words I have suggested seem to me to be an improvement, and I only suggest them to the Government.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): With reference to these words, I think they are quite unnecessary, and I would suggest to the honourable Member that they should be withdrawn.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to move—
  "In Clause 2, page 1, line 17, after 'electors,' insert 'except lodgers.'"
  In the case of cities which are merged into the counties at large, I should like to know if the aldermen under existing arrangements will disappear.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I should like time to consider that question.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: With reference to the lodger vote, no objection has been taken by the landlords to conferring this vote upon persons of this class, who really pay no rates whatever, and I think this is a class where we might fairly make an exception. In the English Act of 1888, no lodger enjoys the franchise for County Council purposes. It is quite true that when the Parish Councils Act of 1894 was passed the lodger might take part and exercise the franchise, but there is a principle derived from the English law that the lodger should not enjoy this franchise. I must admit, however, that under the Act of 1889 for Scotland the lodger does enjoy the franchise, and I am not prepared to say whether he did enjoy a similar right in England. But there are a number of peculiar questions dealing with the preparation of the roll in Scotland from which you can find some reason for his existence in Scotland. I do not think we should have raised this point, but for a recent scandal which has arisen in connection with the lodger vote. When I tell the House that, in four Parliamentary Divisions of Dublin, there are

  1243
  more lodgers in the St. Stephen's Green Division than in all the rest of the other Divisions put together, I think the House will see that there must be a brisk manufacture of the lodger for Parliamentary purposes in that Division. Well, Sir, it seems to me that this is a class of vote, apart from other objections, peculiarly open to fraud, and it is the more especially open to fraud in Ireland because the law, for some reason that I am not aware of, is not exactly the same in the two countries. With regard to punishment for this fraud in England, you have a state of the law in which you can in case of fraud punish the man by some indirect means, while in Ireland such is not the case. The Attorney General did make some attempt to assimilate the law, but it was not such as I should have expected from that gentleman. Well now, Sir, I do not propose to take up the time of the Committee by giving them statistics of lodgers in Ireland, but I must admit that, as regards the counties, they are very few. The honourable Gentlemen who are interested in the matter will find the figures in the Returns before this House for the three kingdoms (Parliamentary Returns No. 131) for 1897, which were moved for by the right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, and I must admit until you come to Dublin the lodger column is, I may say, almost empty. But I think that shows a peculiarity of the condition of things in Dublin, and the fact that the lodger is really of no use whatever in the county. Now, I should like to give two or three figures to show why, as I said a moment ago, there were more lodgers in one Division of Dublin than in all the other three Divisions put together. I think I might say that there are more lodgers in the St. Stephen's Green Division than in the rest of Ireland. I will take the great county of Antrim. There are only 40 lodgers in the entire county, which includes the great borough of Belfast. In
  1244
  Armagh there are only 13 lodgers. In the county of Clare there is not a single lodger at all, while in the county of Cork there are only three lodgers. Indeed, I think, Mr. Lowther, we may take the case of the county of Cork, with its three lodgers and a population of 500,000, and contrast it with the case of St. Stephen's Green Division. There are 1,351 lodgers in the St. Stephen's Green Division of Dublin, and that, I think, points to a great abuse of the lodger franchise. I am sure the honourable Member for St. Stephen's Green will believe that I am not making the smallest reflection on him in this matter. Taking the contiguous area of Dublin, the South Division, I find it contains 2,852 lodgers, and that, I think, also proves my contention, although the honourable Member for South Dublin no doubt considers it a most valuable franchise. The lodger vote, in fact, does not exist, and to continue it for local government purposes in cities is to perpetuate and continue a fraud. I remember on one occasion we had a widow lady and seven sons, and each of the sons swore he paid the mother £12 a year for a room. There is also the notorious case, which occurred in the city of Derry, of a man named McVicar, I think, who claimed the franchise. It was proved in open court that he was a divinity student in Belfast from January to June, when he had his holidays, and from August to November he lived with his father in Derry. It was sworn in open court that the father kept a top pair back for the use of this divinity student, who paid the father for it five shillings a week. When the case went to the Court of Appeal, that Court decided not to disturb it, on the ground that the facts were for the revising barrister. The proposals of the Bill would not be tolerated in any country, borough, or city in England, and it is only because it deals with Ireland that it is even suggested. I ask the House to say that, as in England, so in Ireland, the lodger

  1245
  vote is non-existent for the purposes I have mentioned. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSput the Question.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The question has been asked, "Why is it we have included the lodger franchise in the county electorate?" The answer is that it is because in doing so we have followed the latest precedent of Scotland and England. It is true, as the honourable Member says, that the County Council franchise in England does not include the lodger vote, but I think it is safe to say that if the English County Council Bill had followed, instead of preceded, the Scotch Bill, that franchise would have been given for English County Councils as for Scotch County Councils. I may remind the Committee that, in England, the franchise is not merely for pariah councils, but also for district councils, and that many of these district councils contain as many as 50,000 inhabitants. The honourable Member for Louth used one argument which was peculiar to himself in connection with this question. He urged that the lodger franchise should not be adopted for local government purposes in consequence of the practices connected with that franchise at a recent election in Dublin. That is not an argument the House ought to entertain. If there were any such practices as the honourable Member had described in connection with the lodger franchise, let them be met, not merely in connection with municipal and local government franchise, but in connection with the Parliamentary franchise itself. If it is reasonable, as I submit it is, to base the local franchise on the Parliamentary franchise, then it is unreasonable, in consequence of abuse in a particular instance, to make the two systems diverge, and so lay the foundations for the destruction of the simplicity of this Bill. The Bill has the further recom-
  1246
  mendation that it makes the work of registration, through it, simpler and cheaper than it would otherwise be.
  MR. E. F. VESEY KNOX: I doubt whether the proposed system will make registration simpler and cheaper. Under this Bill the female members of a man's family, as well as the male members, are on the register for local government purposes; they can all become lodgers. I venture to doubt whether including the lodgers will compensate for that. The matter will only be important in regard to doubtful constituencies. There are 76 lodger voters in Derry; in Belfast, with ten times the population of Derry, you have only four lodger voters. What is the explanation of that? The reason is that in Belfast the seats are all safe Tory seats. In every case in which there is a doubtful division, especially in the north of Ireland, there will be an attempt made by both parties, to flood the register; and there is no reason why this should not be done by voters putting their daughters upon the register. You may have an agreement by which your daughter, out of her earnings, pays you for board and lodging, and it will be just as easy to get the revising barrister to put daughters on the register as sons, because a great many daughters do as much work as sons, and perhaps even more. The effect will be to tremendously increase the trouble and expense of registration in any part of Ireland, in which there is any doubt as to electoral results. I cannot think that the right honourable Gentleman has fully contemplated the result which will follow from this apparently innocuous proposal, and I appeal to him to accept the Amendment. I do not believe the proposal to which we object, has any real support on the other side. I am sure that no one wants more money than is absolutely necessary to be spent on the work of registration.
  MR. LOUGH: I hope the Government will stand firm in this matter. I can see

  1247
  no reason whatever for excluding lodgers. Many of the best men in the country are lodgers. From the figures quoted it would appear that this is a very small class in Ireland, and if this Bill encouraged the people to take greater interest in their local affairs that would be a satisfactory result. In London we have the greatest trouble in this matter, owing to a defect in the county council franchise, because lodgers are not included. I believe that if the county council franchise had to be arranged now, it would be done on the lines of the Parliamentary franchise. I can see no justice whatever in excluding lodgers, and I hope the right honourable Gentleman will adhere to the position he has taken up.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I will allow the Amendment to be negatived; it would be a waste of time to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I rise now to move the Amendment standing on the Paper in my name, to exclude freeholders and leaseholders from the right of voting. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will not take the decision to which the House has just arrived at more than its proper value. I am aware that he has laid down that in his opinion, the Local Government register ought to be substantially the same as the Parliamentary register, but I think I can see a reason for doing, in the case of the class of voter pointed at in my Amendment, what the right honourable Gentleman has refused to do in the case of lodgers. The distinction is this. The lodger, although other objections may be taken to him, is, at any rate, a resident in the division in which he votes. Now, the freeholder or leaseholder is not necessarily a resident in the division. If he is a resident in the division he is invariably qualified
  1248
  in respect of some other franchise, he is an occupier or a lodger; but the freeholder or leaseholder is a person who is not resident in the division, but has some property there, and therefore can vote, although he may reside in America or India or anywhere else. If you take the register of the city of Cork you will find that out of 300 or 400 leaseholders, at least 90 per cent. of them reside out of the United Kingdom. I submit that no case can be made for retaining voters of that class on the Parliamentary list. It is not a very large question, I quite concede, because this class of voter is not at all a very large one, but I do think that when we are dealing with municipal matters, we ought to as far as possible restrict the franchise to those who are resident in the constituencies, and, to that extent, at any rate, interested in its affairs. It has been the principle of all the Acts that have been passed that the municipal franchise should be restricted to residents. If the right honourable Gentleman will refer to the English Act of the first year of Her Majesty's reign and to the Act of 3 and 4 Victoriæ, he will see among the conditions that those Acts impose, there is a special provision that, in addition to having the ordinary qualification, the voter shall also be resident in the constituency. So it has been ever since the municipal franchise has been allowed at all. The franchise has always been allowed on the principle that the voter shall be resident in the district, and to that extent interested in its welfare and wellbeing. There is a special reason why the freeholder and leaseholder should be excluded in the case of this Bill. The right honourable Gentleman has made provision in the Bill for putting an end to the contribution to the local rates, which has hitherto been made by the freeholder. Henceforward, the landlord will pay no contribution to the rates. Now, the interest of a freeholder or leaseholder is an interest as landlord, and in no other capacity, and accordingly the

  1249
  right honourable Gentleman must take up this position—

  "By this Bill I will henceforward take away in the case of the landlord all liability to contribute to the local rates, but, notwithstanding that fact, I will in my Bill retain the special landlord franchise that the freeholder or the leaseholder has."
  There is only one other reason for this Amendment with which I need trouble the Committee, and it is one not common to all constituencies, but peculiar to a few. I take it that the Government do not intend by this Bill to make any change in the Parliamentary franchise in any constituency in Ireland. I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman to state specifically whether I may assume that the Government do not intend by this Bill to make any change in the Parliamentary franchise in any part of Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There will be no change whatever in the Parliamentary franchise of Ireland.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: We may take it that the Bill does not intend to confer a right to the Parliamentary vote upon any class which has been hitherto excluded. [Mr. GERALD BALFOUR: Quite so.] So I assumed. Now the particular class of case to which I wish to allude, is this: let me take the borough of Belfast. In England and in Ireland, in boroughs, the Parliamentary franchise is restricted to occupiers. In counties, in addition to occupiers, there is, as we know, a leasehold and a freehold vote. Now, the peculiarity of both the English and the Irish law is this: that in a Parliamentary borough the freeholder or the leaseholder in the borough votes in the adjoining county in respect of his freehold or leasehold. Thus, if a man is a freeholder or a leaseholder he cannot claim a vote as a freeholder or a lease holder in the borough of Belfast, but, by virtue of the qualification which he holds in the borough of Belfast, he has a
  1250
  Parliamentary vote in the county division to which Belfast is joined. The effect of that will be that if this freehold or leasehold franchise is retained, the freeholder or householder voter in the borough of Belfast will have a vote in the adjoining division of the county, wherever that may be. Therefore, we shall not only retain the freeholder or leaseholder who has, at any rate, property and interest in the particular constituency, but we shall also retain a man who happens to have property in the borough constituency, who will be able to vote in the adjoining county in the affairs of which he has no sort of interest. On these grounds, Sir, I beg to propose the Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment proposed in Clause 2, page 1, line 17, after the word "qualification," to insert the words "other than a qualification as freeholder or leaseholder."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I think the general reasons I have given with regard to the lodger voters apply equally to the class of voters aimed at by this Amendment. The honourable Member, it is true, urges that the freeholder and the leaseholder, who are very likely not resident, ought upon that account not to have a vote, but I submit it does not follow because they are not voters that they have no interest in the administration of the place. Over and above that, I would take the more general ground that it is useless to look minutely at all possible objections which might be urged against any particular franchise. All those objections might have been advanced against the Parliamentary franchise, and if we are going to take the Parliamentary franchise as it stands (and the arguments for so doing are very strong) we ought not to have repeated on questions of local government all the arguments which, in reality, might with justice have been urged just as much

  1251
  against the Parliamentary franchise itself. The inconvenience and anomalies to which the honourable Member has called attention exist, of course, in Scotland and in England just in the same way as they would in Ireland if this franchise were accepted. Therefore I urge, not merely in connection with this question, but generally in connection with the Bill, that, if there is a general principle which is broadly applicable and convenient, we should not look too closely at these minute criticisms which may be made, and possibly with justice.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I think there is a great deal of force in what the right honourable Gentleman has said. Under the Act of 1885 we have the ballot in the case of non-resident freemen. Of course, it does not matter much with the Parliamentary franchise, but if you take the case of local government, and say no man shall have a vote who does not have an interest in the place, and yet you allow his interest to depend on the spinning of a coin, it is certainly very remarkable, and all the more when you consider that he will not keep the same qualification. For one year a man might represent, say, Belfast; he might have his qualification in North Belfast or West Belfast, and next year he might lose his qualification. His qualification will depend on what is done next year when the coin is spun; so that actually he may be properly qualified for his franchise in 1889, but you spin a coin for the year 1900, and, lo! his qualification disappears. Still, I agree that if we are going to have this thing at all we must take it with all its imperfections on its head. I should like, however, to ask the right honourable Gentleman for a distinct pledge that he will not be a party to creating, by a Local Government Bill, any new Parliamentary franchise. [Mr. GERALD BALFOUR: Hear, hear!] That pledge having been given, I advise my honourable Friend to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: The pledge, I understand, is not merely not to create a new Parliamentary franchise, but the right honourable Gentleman will not give people the right to vote in different constituencies from those that they are at present entitled to vote for.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Their position is not changed by this Bill.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: What we mean is this: you will not create in any place a new Parliamentary franchise where it could not have been exercised if this Bill had not been passed.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes. If the Bill did so, I think it would not be in order.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: But we may take it that if it is pointed out at a later stage that that would be the effect of it it will not be insisted upon.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Certainly not.
  Amendment by leave withdrawn.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: The Amendment I now rise to move partly covers the same ground as the Amendment we have just disposed of, but I think the position of the freemen is a very peculiar one. There are freemen, for instance, in the city of Galway who will now be county voters for this purpose. There are also freemen in the older Irish constituencies under various qualifications, some of them very antiquated. In the case of Derry I know that an agreement was arrived at between the parties there a few years ago, by which the freeman vote was practically abolished. The great difficulty is that you do not know where the freeman is to vote. In the case, for instance, of Dublin, I believe there are 15 wards. Are you to spin the teetotum, as the honourable and learned Member for North Louth suggests, in

  1253
  order to decide in which ward a freeman shall vote? That would obviously be open to objection. No method at all is provided in the Bill at present. As the Bill stands, so far as I can understand it, there is no direction given which would enable the revising barrister or the Clerk of the Peace, or any other person, to assign the freeman to the particular ward where he should be entitled to vote. Therefore, if the freemen are to have votes, some provision must be made as to where they shall vote. There is not a very large body of freemen voters. They are always on a separate list in the lists that are made up for revision; they are not assigned to any part of the city, and I venture to think it will be a simplification of the Bill as it stands if the freemen are not allowed to vote at all. I do not believe anybody wishes to insist on them. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will not allow any pedantry to interfere with his judgment in this matter. The Amendment, of course, only affects non-resident freemen, because where the freeman is resident he will get his vote in another way. The non-resident freemen are not a very large body, and I do not see that they are a body whose interests deserve to be conserved.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 2, page 1, line 18, after the word "county" to insert the words "other than the qualification of a freeman."—(Mr. Knox.)
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My reason for objecting to this Amendment is that I do not like to adopt any exception to the general rule. This is an excessively small question, as the honourable Member himself admits. There are not very many freemen, and whether they have votes or not is not really very material. I would suggest that the honourable Member should not press his Amendment.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: But where will the freemen vote?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: If necessary, we will insert some provision as to that.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: It would be very objectionable indeed if the freemen had the option themselves as to which ward they should vote in. It is clear that that might become a source of considerable grievance to one side or the other. If I understand that they are to be distributed equally between the different wards I shall be satisfied.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I would not like to pledge myself to that, but I will consider the question.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: Then, Sir, I will withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment by leave withdrawn.
  MR. HORACE C. PLUNKETT: I beg to move an Amendment that is not on the Paper. It is to insert the words—
  "Every person for the time being rated in respect of occupation of premises for the relief of the poor, while paying such rate."
  Everyone on this side of the House entirely agrees with the right honourable Gentleman when he says that if the Parliamentary franchise is to be accepted it should be accepted broadly, without exception being taken to it in details, but, as a great many who sit with me here know, considerable dissatisfaction exists at the position of the county government franchise, they wish to have the question discussed in this House. There is no desire on anyone's part, as far as I know—certainly on the part of no one who sits on this side of the House—to restrict the franchise, or in any way to water down the pledge that was given by the First

  1255
  Lord of the Treasury last year that Local Government in Ireland should be placed upon a broad and popular basis. I doubt indeed whether, if my Amendment were accepted, the franchise would be as restricted as it would have been if the Amendments that have just been disposed of had been accepted. It has been proposed to abolish four of the six existing Parliamentary qualifications. As far as counties in Ireland are concerned, I do not believe there is much difference between the Parliamentary franchise and a rate-paying franchise. In the towns the lodgers, according to my proposal, would be abolished just the same as under the proposal of the honourable Member for North Louth. The freemen leaseholders would, if they voted at all, only vote on the Local Government Register as ratepayers. The sole desire that we have in putting forward this suggestion is to secure economy and efficiency in administration.
  MR. CLANCY: I rise to a point of order. The right honourable Gentleman is proposing an Amendment in favour of restricting qualification to those who have paid their rates. The Committee has already decided that persons who are not rated are to be included as voters. I therefore submit that this Amendment is entirely out of order.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I do not think the Amendment of the right honourable Gentleman, after what the Committee has resolved, would be a restriction; it might be an expansion.
  MR. CLANCY: There will be no reason, I respectfully submit, in the Amendment if it is confined to those who are rated. The Committee has already decided that freemen are to be enfranchised, and they are not rated. The Committee has already decided that
  1256
  lodgers are to be enfranchised, and they are not rated. Under these circumstances, I submit that the Amendment is out of order.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: There might be some who are rated who are not already upon the Parliamentary Register, and they would be included under the Amendment of the right honourable Gentleman.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Must you not, Sir, construe the Amendment by the reasons offered in its support by the right honourable Gentleman who moves it? He has explained that the object of his Amendment is to restrict the franchise.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I think I must construe the Amendment by what is handed in to me.
  MR. CLANCY: If the Amendment of the right honourable Gentleman is carried it will confine the franchise for local Government purposes to those who are rated. If that be so, it will be entirely in contravention of the decision that the Committee has twice arrived at on two successive Amendments, one dealing with lodgers, and the other dealing with freemen
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I do not agree with the honourable Member. What the Committee has already passed, of course, cannot be reversed; that stands; but then, in addition to that, the right honourable Gentleman proposes to insert the words—
  "Every person for the time being rated in respect of the occupation of premises for the relief of the poor, while paying such rate."
  It may well be that certain persons who have paid their rates yet do not appear on the Parliamentary register. Under the Amendment of the right honourable Gentleman, even those persons would be entitled to obtain the vote for local government purposes.
  MR. CLANCY: With great respect, Sir—[Cries of "Order, order!"]
  MR. PLUNKETT: I only wish to make it clear to the House that there is no attempt to obtain any party advantage by this Amendment. In fact, my honourable Friends who sit around me are extremely doubtful as to what the effect of this Amendment would be from a Party point of view. The meetings at which we were asked to have this point discussed were meetings of ratepayers, and they looked upon the matter simply from the point of view of economy and efficiency. It is a matter of principle. They wish that representation and taxation should go together. I beg to move my Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 2, page 1, line 18, after the word county, to insert the words—
  "Every person for the time being rated in respect of the occupation of premises for the relief of the poor, while paying such rate."—(Mr. Plunkett.)
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It certainly does appear to me that this Amendment of my right honourable Friend will have the effect of reversing the decision which the Committee have already come to. If these words were inserted that would be the result, as far as I can see. Those persons whose rates are paid at the present time by the landlord have votes, not merely in the election of district councils and parish councils in England, and in all cases in Scotland, but also they have a vote for the county councils in England, because a householder is not excluded from voting in county council elections in England. As we have from the beginning been pledged to propose a system of local government on a basis no less broad and democratic than that which exists in England and Scotland, it must be obvious, I think, to the Committee that this is an Amendment that we cannot accept.
  MR. PLUNKETT: I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment by leave withdrawn.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: In rising to move the Amendment which stands in my name, I do so, Sir, with some hope that it will receive, at any rate, favourable consideration. It aims at the correction of what is now a great abuse, and at the establishment of the true principle of the Ballot Act. When the Ballot Act was framed, it was framed so that the voter should have absolute secrecy, and should be protected against intimidation, either by landlord influence or in any other way. If we are going to have a comprehensive and really satisfactory system of local government in Ireland, it seems to me absolutely necessary that we should have a pure and proper system of election. I would bring back the recollection of the Committee to what has been mentioned before, as to the working of this illiterate voting system in Ireland. I hold in my hand a return which was presented to this House in 1886. That shows that there were in the United Kingdom at that time 2,000,000 electors. In Ireland there were 194,000 polled, and of that number no less than 36,000, or about one-fifth, claimed to be illiterates; whereas in England, at the election in 1896, out of 2,400,000 who polled, only 38,000 odd claimed to be illiterates. In Scotland there were 348,000 who polled, and of that number only 46 claimed to be illiterates. That is to say, that in England one person out of every 64 claimed this privilege; in Scotland one out of every 74; whereas in Ireland one out of every five claimed the privilege. That is a very grave and very serious state of affairs. I had the honour to bring forward a Motion, I think it was in 1892, in this House, which was carried by a majority of 115 to 50 in favour of altering this system on the first possible occasion, and doing away with

  1259
  the illiterate vote altogether. We were told at that time that the illiterate voter was dying out—that he was really becoming gradually a thing of the past—but I find that in the return that I asked for at the beginning of this Session, so far from the illiterate voter in Ireland dying out, instead of there only being, as there were in 1885, 36,000 who claimed to be illiterate, there were in 1895 40,000.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I wish to know, Sir, whether this Amendment is in order. This clause creates a qualification, and specifies what that qualification is to be. The Amendment which the honourable Gentleman now proposes to move simply regulates the manner in which the vote is to be cast when you have the qualification. I submit that the Amendment is out of order on this clause.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I am bound to admit that I had very grave doubts as to whether the Amendment was in order or not, but I could not find any other place in the Bill in which it would appear to be in order, and as it was clear that the honourable Member was entitled to move it, I thought this was the only place in which he could do so.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: He could move this Amendment when we came to the section dealing with orders in Council. The whole method of election is provided under this section. He could have moved this Amendment in the form of a sub-section to that section.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I did consider that matter, but on the whole I came to the conclusion that I could not stop the honourable Member from moving his Amendment to this clause.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: To resume, I find that at the last election 40,000 electors in Ireland claimed to vote as illiterates. In Ireland there were only
  1260
  220,000 electors cast to vote, whereas, in England and Wales, there were no less than 3,100,000, and of those, only 23,000 claimed to vote as illiterates. That is to say, if the same proportion had been shown in England as for Ireland, there would have been 800,000 electors in England instead of 23,000 claiming the illiterate vote. Now, really, when one considers this question, one has to ask oneself, is this island becoming more and more illiterate? I believe that that is not the case at all. According to the education returns for 1871 it appears that there were then 33 per cent. of illiterates, and that is including women and children over the age of 7 or 8 years. In 1881 they had decreased to 25 per cent., and in 1891 to 18 per cent. Having regard to these figures, I do not think it can be contended, as the honourable Member for Donegal stated, that the illiterate voter is dying out in Ireland. If they are dying out it would appear that at the time of a general election there is something like a universal resurrection. The more you educate the Irish people the more illiterate they are at the polling booth. I think really that if individuals are too dense or are unable to be taught how to register their votes at the polling booth they ought not to be qualified to vote either at Parliamentary or Municipal elections. That appears to me more and more to be the case when one recollects the vast sums of money that this House pays annually for compulsory education—I might go further, for free education—in the country, involving a very heavy expense to the taxpayer and the ratepayers. Why should this class of voters be accorded this special privilege? I do not find that when this question was first discussed in the House at the time of the introduction of the Ballot Act, this particular clause was contained in the Bill. It was put in by the Select Committee, to whom the Ballot Act was relegated; and mainly, I acknowledge, through the instrumentality

  1261
  of the Party to which I belong, whilst the majority of Liberals on the Committee were opposed to it. The Liberal Party urged that there was no necessity for this privilege being granted. I believe what really happened was that on the Report stage of the Bill the provision was allowed to accidentally slip through. Now, we know that the system is not working at all well. I do not think that this is a question of disfranchising electors. I think as far as Ireland is concerned, this system has shown that the true principles of the Ballot Act have been evaded for the purpose of coercing voters. I will illustrate that, not from English newspapers or from newspapers published in the interests of the Unionist party, but by one or two quotations from papers representing the views of honourable Gentlemen opposite. This is an extract from the Freeman's Journal, of the 13th April, 1891:—
  "We must say that the secrecy of the ballot is completely set at nought by the practice of making a man illiterate for the purpose of showing how he votes, and it is a disgraceful evasion of the law."
  Again, the right honourable Gentleman, now the First Lord of the Treasury, pointed out to the House in 1891 that at the election in Sligo, 1300 out of a total poll of 1500 electors voted by the illiterate vote. Now, if you take any constituency in England and Wales, with an electorate of 8,000 or 9,000, you will not find more than two or three claiming the illiterate vote. The Independent, of the 19th July, 1892, contained the following:—
  "What are we to think of the state of education in those parts of Ireland, where the country is studded with national schools, which are in almost every case under the control of the parish priest, and 47 per cent. of the voters declare themselves illiterate? Of course, this is false; not 10 per cent. of them are unable to write or read. It was a device to violate the spirit of the Ballot Act."
  When I had the honour of moving the Resolution to which I have referred, in
  1262
  1892, it was seconded by the honourable Baronet, the Member for the Cockermouth Division, who expressed his opinion that the illiterate voter was as much a humbug as the bonâ fide traveller. To return to Ireland. I should like to point out to the Committee the way in which the system works there. I will not speak of individual cases, but the general system is somewhat as follows. I have every respect for clergymen of all religious denominations, but I do think that the priest in politics is in his wrong place. But what is done in Ireland? They appoint personation agents in all the polling booths. These personation agents have every means of seeing how the electors vote. The electors are told, I do not say by the priests, but anyhow by somebody, I feel sure, that if they do not vote openly and declare themselves to be illiterate, it will be worse for them. If that be not going behind the true principle of the Ballot Act I do not know what is. I know that honourable Members opposite have a very high opinion of American institutions; in fact, I believe they are rather jealous, if the truth must be told, that just at the present time Englishmen are becoming rather more popular with our friends across the Atlantic. Be that as it may, I will ask them to look into any system adopted in America, and they will not find this privilege of illiterate voting given in either the General Elections or the State Elections, or any other. I do not know that such a privilege exists in any part of Europe where there is voting by ballot; indeed, in Holland, I believe, they actually have an educational qualification. Now, Sir, this question is one of very great importance. I am sure that honourable Members opposite would desire to feel that they are elected by the free voice of the Irish people, and certainly that is the feeling of the Unionist Members sitting for Irish constituencies. I am not certain that during the last few years the illiterate

  1263
  vote has gone against the Unionist party; it may rather have gone against a section of another party, sitting on the opposite side of the House. But, however that may be, if honourable Members, whether Liberals or Conservatives, Nationalists or Unionists, will only vote according to their real feelings, I believe they will vote in favour of my Amendment. It is my intention to press the Amendment to a Division, in order to test the sense of the House, and I sincerely hope that the House will endeavour to abolish a system which has worked so badly. If it be abolished in Ireland, we may feel sure that it will not be long before we get a similar reform for the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 2, page 1, line 21, at end, to insert the words—
  "Provided always that Section twenty-six of The Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Act, 1872 (35 and 36 Vic, c. 33), and the forms of declaration referred to therein shall not apply to this Act."—(Mr. R. G. Webster.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): My honourable and learned Friend who has just sat down has been long and honourably identified with the particular subject that he brings before the Committee in this Amendment, and I think I am not going beyond the facts of the case when I say that in every part of the House it will be recognised that what my honourable and learned Friend has stated with regard to the existing abuses in connection with the illiterate voter is absolutely accurate. I do not wish to detain the House at this hour by going into the details of the question, but incidentally and parenthetically I would say that the Amendment in the form in which it appears on the Paper could not under any circumstances be accepted, for it clearly goes too far, and I think I shall be able to convince
  1264
  my honourable and learned Friend himself of that. If he will look at the subsection he proposes to omit he will see that the effect of his Amendment would be to disfranchise not only the illiterate voter, but also the blind voter, and any voter who by any physical defect is incapable of recording has vote in the ordinary fashion. That cannot be the honourable Member's intention, and, therefore, even if his Amendment, so far as regards the illiterate voter is to be accepted, his wording would have to be considerably modified. But I do not wish to delay the Committee on that point. The point I wish to put before the Committee is a much broader, and, as I think, a much more important one. I am entirely in agreement with the general principles laid down by my honourable and learned Friend. I do not know whether I took part in the Debate in 1892, to which he has referred, but I am perfectly certain that if I did. I spoke in support of his Motion, and, at any rate, if I voted, I voted in favour of it. I would even go further, and say that in my judgment the question of the illiterate voter has produced much scandal, and is open to so many objections, as everybody is aware, that I do not think this House ought to delay long before dealing with the question. But, Sir, I most earnestly deprecate dealing with it piecemeal, in a Local Government Bill, a Bill which applies to one part, and one part only, of the country. The main abuse, which is not confined to Ireland, though it may exist, and I believe does exist, to a far greater extent in Ireland than in other parts of the kingdom, is in connection with the Parliamentary franchise. I do not pretend that there is a total absence of similar abuses in connection with Local Government elections; but, at all events, let us, when we are going to deal with the illiterate voter, deal with him in England and Scotland and Ireland, at the same time, in the same measure, and by the same means. Let us deal with him first of all, and specially in connection with

  1265
  Parliamentary elections, not excluding, I freely admit, the less important, but still considerably important, aspect of the case which is brought before us in connection with local and municipal elections. Let the House remember this: we are earnestly desirous of approaching this vexed and much-controverted question of Irish local government in a spirit which shall convince everybody concerned, whether Irish or English, that we mean to deal in equal measure with all parts of the United Kingdom. I acknowledge—in fact, I have over and over again admitted—that, under the conditions with which we had to deal in 1892, very different circumstances had to be taken into account; but the whole object of our policy, the whole ground of what I may call this great measure of reform that we are bringing forward, is that we are now enabled, by special circumstances familiar to the House, to deal with Ireland, without attempting to draw invidious distinctions between her case and that of England. I think that, in departing from that principle in connection with this Measure, for the relatively small interval, as I hope, that must elapse before we can bring in a general and comprehensive Measure, we should lose much more than we could possibly gain by adopting my honourable and learned Friend's suggestion to stop some abuses here and there, which I do not pretend to conceal from myself, may exist under the Bill as it at present stands. I concur with the spirit of my honourable and learned Friend's arguments. I know that when the Government deal with this question we shall have his hearty and effective support; but I do venture to suggest to him that little will be gained and much may be lost by dealing piecemeal with this question. We are dealing here with a Local Government Bill for one part of the United Kingdom. The whole question of illiterate voters will be much better dealt with at one time in a broad spirit in connection with every form of popular representation, and in
  1266
  regard to every division of the United Kingdom.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Having read this Amendment carefully, I have come to the conclusion that it must have been drawn by an illiterate voter. In the first place there is no such Act as the Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Act, 1872. The title of that Act is the Ballot Act. There is a heading to the Ballot Act which is called "An Act to amend the law relating to procedure at Parliamentary and municipal elections; Article 1." Then the Amendment says that Section 26 is not to apply. Section 26 applies to Scotland, and deals with personation and has no reference whatever to the case of the illiterate voter. And what does deal with the case of the illiterate voter is not in the body of the Act at all, but it is in a schedule. If the honourable and learned Gentleman wishes to repeal Section 26 he would be repealing the law as to personation in Scotland, and not as to illiterates in Ireland. What he did want to deal with is in the schedule to the Act. The schedule deals not merely with the illiterate voter, but the honourable Member would have also disqualified the Jew from voting on a Saturday, the blind man (like the late Mr. Fawcett), or any person otherwise disqualified by physical defect. Why, Sir, the most illiterate peasant in Connaught would not have made such mistakes. It shows the amount of attention that those who pretend to legislate for Ireland give to their own Acts of Parliament. Sir, there is one advantage, at all events, in illiteracy; I have often thought about it; an illiterate man can never draft a bogus company prospectus. And, having said that, I will leave the honourable Member to the enjoyment of his reflections on his Amendment.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I do not understand the last paragraph of the honourable Member's remarks; it certainly does not refer to me. Regarding his attack on the drafting of my Amendment,

  1267
  that is merely a technical objection. I carefully examined the Ballot Act in the Library, and my Amendment is substantially correct. However, that is not the main question, which, as the honourable Member knows, he could not reply to. He knows he has no case, and so indulges in a well-known trick amongst a certain stamp of legal practitioners, and indulges in silly abuse and would-be vitriolic invective against the advocate or attorney for the other side. But I bring solely this question before the attention of the House, as I am determined, if I can, to have this abuse of our representative system done away with. I have listened to what has been said by the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, and I am pleased to think that I have had the honour of bringing this matter to the attention of the House and the country. I have gained the point I wished, and I sincerely hope that when this Local Government Bill becomes an Act, the power of voting, which it gives to illiterates so long as that power is allowed to exist, will not be abused.
  MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The honourable and learned Member for North Louth characteristically and entirely avoided the main point. He has not touched upon the fact that there is a gross scandal going on to his knowledge in Ireland, for certain purposes which he knows perfectly well. To divert the attention of the House from that fact, he has made an attack upon the honourable and learned Member below me, which does not in one degree touch the issue before the House. There has been a gross abuse of the privilege of voting. That gross abuse has taken place with the knowledge—I will not say under the patronage—of honourable Members opposite, and I regret that this important question should be for a moment diverted from its real significance by the false light attempted to be thrown upon it by the honourable and learned
  1268
  Member for North Louth. I do trust that the pledge which has been given by the First Lord of the Treasury to-night will be put into a substantial form, and that we who feel strongly about this matter may, before the end of this Parliament, see effect given to that pledge. If not, I will undertake that every Unionist Member from Ireland will do the very best he can on every available opportunity to insist on this pledge being enforced.
  It being Twelve of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Committee report Progress.
  House resumed.

  LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS BILL.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  DR. C. K. D. TANNER: I object.
  MR. C. SEALE-HAYNE: With the permission of the House I would appeal to the honourable Member to withdraw his objection. This Bill is the outcome of the deliberations of a Select Committee which sat last year. It has been before the House for a long time. It is a Bill which vitally affects the interests of many manufacturers in the country, and I sincerely hope that the honourable Gentleman will allow it to be read a second time.
  DR. TANNER: I myself sat upon that Committee. After the appeal the right honourable Gentleman makes to me, I will have much pleasure in withdrawing my objection.
  Bill read second time, and committed to Standing Committee on Trade, etc.
  House adjourned at 12.5.

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at a Quarter-past Four of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  CLERGY MUTUAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments.
  CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment.
  BLACKPOOL PALATINE PROMENADE PIER. BILL. [H.L.]
  Report from Select Committee, That it is not expedient to proceed further with Bill; Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  WHITWICK AND COALVILLE GAS BILL.
  Read second time, and committed.
  CITY AND BRIXTON RAILWAY BILL.
  Read second time, and committed; Committees to be proposed by Committee of Selection.
  GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  Read second time, and committed; Committees to be proposed by Committee of Selection.
  LONDON, WALTHAMSTOW, AND EPPING FOREST RAILWAY BILL.
  Read second time, and committed; Committees to be proposed by Committee of Selection.
  THANET GAS BILL.
  Read second time, and committed; Committees to be proposed by Committee of Selection.
  ENFIELD GAS BILL.
  Brought from Commons; Read first time, and referred to Examiners.
  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from Commons agreed to.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS, 1898.
  Annual Series: Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance:

  No. 2064. Germany (Stettin);

  No. 2065. Spain;

  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  AGRARIAN OUTRAGES (IRELAND).
  Return for the quarter ended 31st March 1898.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MINES (EXPLOSION AT DRUMPELLER COLLIERY).
  Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Messrs. J. M. Ronaldson and Henry Hall, Her Majesty's Inspectors of Mines, on the circumstances attending the accident which occurred in Nos. 3 and 4 Pits of the Drumpeller Colliery, Coatbridge, on the 28th January, 1898.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury Minute, dated 12th March, 1898, declaring that for the Office of Chief Inspector of Fisheries under the Board of Trade, professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired in the public service are requisite.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
  Presented by Lord Churchill on behalf of the Earl of Dudley; Read first time; to be printed; and referred to Examiners. [No. 43.]
  PARISH CHURCHES (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
  Presented by Lord Balfour; Read first time, and to be printed. [No. 44.]
  METROPOLITAN COMMON SCHEME (BARNES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Read second time, according to order, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  METROPOLITAN COMMON SCHEME (EAST SHEEN) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Read second time, according to order, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
PUBLIC BUSINESS.

  MILITARY MANŒUVRES.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, the Military Manœuvres Act of last year provides that military manœuvres may not take place unless they have first been authorised by an Order in Council of Her Majesty. The draft Order in Council has to be sent to the County Councils and to the other local bodies in the districts concerned six months before the manœuvres take place; and it is also provided that the Order in Council must lie for thirty days on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and that both Houses of Parliament must pass an Address in favour of the Order in Council before it can be submitted to Her Majesty. My Lords, the draft Order has been for thirty days on the Table of your Lordships House. It specifies the limits within which it is intended to hold the manœuvres, and it only remains for me to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to make the Order in Council under the Military Manœuvres Act, 1897, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 18th of February last."
  I beg to move that this Motion be agreed to.
  Agreed to accordingly.
  House adjourned at 4.40.