Sitting of 18 April 1899

Preamble
MR. SPEAKERtook the Chair at Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. Speaker Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing
  1436
  Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz:—

  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.

  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill.

  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time Tomorrow.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. Speaker Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—

  Metropolitan Common Scheme (Harrow Weald) Provisional Order Bill.

  Pilotage Provisional Order Bill.

  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time Tomorrow.

  CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
  Read a third time, and passed.
  VALE OF GLAMORGAN RAILWAY BILL.
  Read a third time, and passed.
  SCUNTHORPE URBAN DISTRICT GAS AND WATER BILL.
  Ordered, that the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee on the Frodingham Gas Bill, 1898, be referred to the Committee on the Scunthorpe Urban District Gas and Water Bill of this Session.—(Dr. Farquharson.)

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolutions reported from the Committee —
  1. "That, in the case of the Millwall Dock, Petition for leave to deposit a Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: —That the parties be permitted to deposit their Petition for a Bill."
  2."That, in the case of the London, Walthamstow, and Epping Forest Railway, Petition for leave to deposit a Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: —That the parties be permitted to deposit their Petition for a Bill."
  Resolutions agreed to.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP H.).
  Mr. Johnson Ferguson reported from the Committee on Group H of Private Bills, That the parties promoting the Dublin Corporation Bill had stated that the evidence of Sir Francis M'Cabe, K.C.B., of Park Cottage, Kilgobbin, in the county of Dublin, was essential to their case; and it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Sir Francis M'Cabe do attend the said Committee Tomorrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Ordered, That Sir Francis M'Cabe do attend the Committee on Group H of Private Bills Tomorrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. Halsey reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure: Mr. Solicitor-General; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Attorney-General.
  Mr. Halsey further reported from the Committee; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, the following Fifteen Members in respect of the Small Houses (Acquisition of Onership) Bill: —Mr. Bainbridge, Mr. Secretary Chamberlain, Mr. D:\vitt, Mr. Drage, Mr. Galloway, Colonel Hughes, Mr. Kimber, Mr. Stanley Leighton, Mr. Logan, Mr. Lowles, Mr. Maddison, Sir Blundell Maple, Mr. M'Kenna, Mr. Jonathan Samuel, and Mr. Ure.
  Mr. Halsey further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufacturers:—Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Gilliat, Mr. Lloyd-George, and Sir Stafford Northcote; and had appointed in substitution: Captain Chaloner, Mr. Lambert, Mr. Abel Smith, Mr. Solicitor-General, and Mr. James Stuart.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a. Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of the borough of Glastonbury to construct waterworks for the supply of the borough; and for other purposes." [Glastonbury Water Bill [H.L.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the time limited by the West Highland Railway Acts, 1891 and 1896, for the compulsory purchase of lands, and for the completion of the Railways authorised by the said Acts; and for other purposes." [West Highland Railway Bill [H.L.]
  Also, a, Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Trustees of the Harbour of Inverness to construct new quays and other works; and to confer farther powers upon the Trustees and upon the Town Council of the Royal Burgh of Inverness; and' for other purposes." [Inverness Harbour Bill [H.L]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "in Act to extend the limits of supply of and to confer further powers on the Cambridge University and Town Gas Light Company; and for other purposes." [Cambridge University and Town Gas Bill [H.L.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Corporation of Great Yarmouth to construct tramways and street improvements; to make further provision in regard to the electric lighting undertaking of the Corporation; and for other purposes." [Great Yarmouth Corporation Bill [H.L.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the time limited for the compulsory purchase of lands authorised to be acquired by the Surrey Commercial Dock Company; and for other purposes." Surrey Commercial Docks Bill [H.L.]
  Glastonbury Water Bill [H.L.]
  West Highland Railway Bill [H.L.]
  Inverness Harbour Bill [H.L.]
  Cambridge University and Town Gas Bill [H.L.]
  Great Yarmouth Corporation Bill [H.L.]
  Surrey Commercial Docks Bill [H.L.]
  Read the first time; and referred to Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL, TEINDS (SCOTLAND) BILL, AND PARISH CHURCHES (SCOTLAND).
  Petition from Dumbarton, against proposed legisation; to lie upon the Table.
  GROCERS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND) ABOLITION BILL.
  Petition from Burnbank, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  GROUND RENTS (TAXATION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Petitions in favour,—From Newport; Penzance; Warrington; Teesdale; Salford; Walker; Clayton le Moors; Lambeth: and, Holmfirth; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; —From Portessie; Lanark; Lesmahagow (two); Stonehouse; Hamilton; Glasgow (two); Kinross; Carluke; Alloa; Alva (two); and, Milnathort; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES SERVANTS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petition from West Ham, against; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Halifax in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Middleton Collieries; Radcliff e and Kearsley; Broad Oak; Swinton; Clown; Eston; Marske by the Sea; Lazenby; Huddersfield; and, Ilkeston; to lie upon the Table.
  PARISH COUNCILS ASSOCIATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Carluke, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  Petitions for extension to women;—From West Hampstead; Windsor; and, London (two); to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW ACT, 1897.
  Petition from Kesteven, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION ACT (1896) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from West Ham against; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Stirlingshire; Edinburgh; and Tillicoultry; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Bootle, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  REGISTRATION OF FIRMS BILL.
  Petition from Halifax, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Canterbury, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour; —From Castleford (three); Tulse Hill (two); Heaton Park; Pendlebury; Wragby; Shalbourne; East Farndon; and Shipston on Stour; to lie upon the Table.
  STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL.
  Two Petitions from Middlesbrough, against; to lie upon the Table.
  TEMPERANCE REFORM (THREEFOLD OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; —From Lanark; Ayr; and, Dornoch; to lie upon the Table.
  TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; —From Linlithgow; and, Falkirk; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  SCHOOL TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION RULES (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, —of Rules made for Scotland under the Elementary School Teachers' (Superannuation) Act, 1898 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  INTOXICATING LIQUORS (LICENCES REFUSED).
  Address for "Return of the number of Victuallers', Beerhouse, and other Licenses for the sale of Intoxicating Liquors, the Renewal of which has been Refused, in the year 1898, by the Justices of the Peace in each Licensing District in England and Wales, showing in each case the ground of such Refusal, especially when such ground was in any instance that the Licence was not required and showing also the Result of Appeal, if any (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 236, of Session 1898)."—(Mr. Henry J. Wilson.)
  REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "showing for the year ending the 31st day of March 1899 (1) the amount contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively to the Revenue collected by Imperial Officers; (2) the Expenditure on English, Scottish, and Irish Services met out of such Revenue; and (3) the Balances of Revenue contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively which are available for Imperial Expenditure (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 313, of Session 1898)."—(Mr. Lough.)
  IMPERIAL REVENUE (COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE) (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "relating to Imperial Revenue (Collection and Expenditure) (Great Britain and Ireland) for the year ending the 31st day of March 1899 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 310, of Session 1898)."—(Mr. Joseph A. Pease.)
NEW BILLS.
  STOLEN GOODS BILL.
  "To amend the Law respecting the recovery of Stolen Articles, "presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 26th I April, and to be printed. (Bill 159.)
  UNIVERSITY OF WALES (GRADUATES) BILL.
  "To extend the privileges of the Graduates of the University of Wales," presented, and read the first time; to be read a, second time upon Wednesday 26th April, and to be printed. (Bill 160.)
QUESTIONS.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS IN POPULOUS DISTRICTS.
  SIR J. MACLURE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the issue of orders for the construction of light railways along main thoroughfares in populous districts; and whether, in view of what has already been done in this respect, he will consider the propriety of suspending any further orders until the opinion of the law officers of the Crown as to the legality of the action of the Board and of the Light Railway Commissioners in this matter can be ascertained?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): No, Sir; the Board of Trade were advised at the outset upon the legality of the course which has been adopted —a course which has now become well settled practice.

  POSTAL WORKERS AND CHEAP TRAINS.
  MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has received a petition, signed by nearly 600 bona fide workers, in compliance with the provisions of the Cheap Trains Act, 1883, from the postal and other employees resident in Lewisham and surrounding district, asking for a service of workmen's trains from 3 a.m. to 8 a.m. on the South Eastern Railway; and, if he can say what course he intends taking in reference to the request made in the petition?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: The Board of Trade are in communication with the company with reference to this petition, and are awaiting a reply. If the answer is unsatisfactory it will, of course, be open to the Department to use its powers under the Cheap Trains Act.

  MADRAS LAW COLLEGE.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS (Denbighshire, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the unsatisfactory position of the Madras Law College; whether he is aware that the present principal of that institution was appointed at a salary of Rs.1,200 per month, on the understanding that the whole of his time should be devoted to the work of the College, but that this condition has been waived by the Government, and that the principal has been granted permission to practise at the bar; whether he is aware that numerous complaints have been made to the Madras Government as to the failure of the principal and his assistants, owing to their private practice, to adequately perform their duties at the College; whether his attention has been directed to paragraph 75 (page 113) in the Third Quinquennial Review of Education in India, recently issued, in which it is stated that, during the period 1892–97, the profit to the Government, arising from the excess of fees, etc., over expenditure at the Madras Law College, amounted to nearly a lakh of rupees; and whether, in view of these facts and the low percentage of students obtaining their law degree at that College during the period in question, he will consider the desirability of recommending that the teaching staff should in future give their whole time to their duties, as is the case in the other Arts, Engineering, and Agricultural Colleges in the Presidency?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): I have no information on the subject of the honourable Member's Question, a copy of which will be transmitted to the Government of Madras for its consideration. With reference, how-

  1445
  ever, to the statement quoted from the Third Quinquennial Review of Education in India to the effect that during the period of five years from 1892 to 1897 the profit to the Government from the College amounted to nearly a lakh of rupees, the honourable Member has doubtless observed that the same paragraph states that a separate building has recently been constructed for the use of the College at a cost of about four lakhs of rupees, which must have more than absorbed any surplus income.

  RUSSIAN RAILWAYS IN PERSIA.
  MR. DRAGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Russian Government has acquired an exclusive concession for the making of railways in Eastern Persia, together with the right of protecting such railways with Russian troops when they are made; whether surveys have been completed by Russian officers for a railway from Askabad on the Transcaspian Railway via Birjand and Kirman to Beuder Abbas on the Persian Gulf, with a branch from Birjand to Nasirabad in Seistan; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have made any representation on the subject in the interests of British trade, and in view of the agreement as to the independence and integrity of Persia at present existing between the British and Russian Governments?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): We are not aware that the Russian Government has acquired such a concession as that mentioned in the first paragraph of the Question, nor have we heard of the completion of railway surveys by Russian officers, as described in the second paragraph.

  SHIPS' BOATS.
  COLONEL SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, having regard to the large number of recent disasters at sea involving the immediate transfer of the passengers and crew to the boats,
  1446
  whether the Board of Trade has any power to insist upon boats being hung for immediate flotation, and being kept duly stocked with oars, sails, life belts, fresh water, and provisions and, with a view to avoiding panic, and to the preservation of life, whether a, notice could be placed in passengers' berths, near the life belt notice, showing the boat station of such passenger in the event of collision or fire, and arrangements being made for the conspicuous indication of the number of each boat station?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: Yes, Sir. The Board of Trade possess and exercise full powers under the Merchant Shipping Act to insist on all boats placed under davits being so carried as to be capable of being at once swung outboard and put into the water. The boat-lowering appliances are also frequently tested, and the boats are required to be fitted with all necessary equipments, including a supply of fresh water. But the Board of Trade have no power to insist upon provisions, nor to require the posting of notices in passengers' berths showing the boat station for each passenger.
  In answer to a further question by Colonel Sir HOWARD VINCENT,
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADEsaid: I have no doubt that the attention of those interested will be drawn to the Question of the honourable Gentleman, and that the matter will be considered, but it would be impossible for us to communicate with individual shipowners with regard to matters of this kind.

  LIFE-SAVING APPLIANCES IN THE ROYAL NAVY.
  COLONEL SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if the exemption from the provisions of the Merchant Shipping (Life-Saving Appliances) Act, 1887, as to carrying life-saving gear for all on board, of vessels of the Royal Navy is confined to ships of war, in order that their utility for fighting may not be lessened by even humane considerations, and if it applies

  1447
  in any way to transports hired for carrying troops, reliefs, or any purpose; and if he will take care that this is impressed upon the owners of such transports and upon the Admiralty?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: The Board of Trade have been in communication with the Admiralty with regard to' the matter to which my honourable and gallant Friend refers, and I am assured that all hired transports are required to comply with regulations at least equivalent to the Life-Saving Appliance Rules made under the Merchant Shipping Act, not only with respect to boats, but also with regard to life-saving gear for all on board. In these circumstances, I do not think it is necessary for me to take any further steps in the matter.

  H.M.S. "VICTORIOUS."
  MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the bottom of H.M.S. "Victorious" is in such a condition that her speed is reduced by 2½ knots; whether, in consequence of the above circumstances, the "Victorious" is about to be recalled because there is no dry dock under British control in the China Seas capable of safely docking her; and whether the Government will take steps to provide efficient dock accommodation?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN, St. George's, Hanover Square): No report has been received as to the speed of the "Victorious" having been reduced by 2½ knots. The answer to the second question is in the negative. Besides the dock at Kowloon, there is no other dock under British control in the China Seas where she could be docked. In the reply to a question by the right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, I stated that the Admiralty have now under consideration a proposal to construct a dock of their own as part of the dockyard extension provided for in the Naval Works Acts.

  PACIFIC CABLE.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government has now arrived at an understanding or agreement with the Governments of Canada and Australasia in reference to the construction of a Pacific Cable, as recent proceedings in the Parliament of the Dominion of Canada would seem to suggest?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): No, the matter is still under consideration.

  TONGA.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of conflicting cable messages, he can state what are now the precise relations existing between this country and the native kingdom of Tonga; and whether any fresh responsibilities in this connection have recently been assumed by Her Majesty's Government?
  MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's Government have received no confirmation of the cable messages which have appeared in the daily Press. They have authorised no action of the kind referred to.

  BOAT ACCOMMODATION ON HIRED TRANSPORTS.
  MR. PIRIE (Aberdeen, N.): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the number of persons for whom boat accommodation and life-saving gear is provided on the hired transports "Simla" and "Nubia" respectively; and what is the number required to be provided for on those hired transports by the Board of Trade Regulations under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping (Life-Saving Appliances) Act, 1888, and what is the largest number of passengers and crew carried by each of these vessels on one voyage either during the last or the present trooping season, specifying the number of invalids, women, and children?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: In both the "Nubia" and the "Simla" a life belt is provided for every person on board, and boat accommodation equal to carrying 910 persons. The maximum boat requirements of the Board of Trade, under the Merchant Shipping (Life-Saving Appliances) Act, 1888, for emigrant ships of the same tonnage, would be boats equal to carrying about 700 persons, and from this an abatement might be made in the case of vessels, like the "Nubia" and "Simla," which are divided into efficient water-tight compartments. The largest numbers carried by the ships on one voyage (home) during the past and present trooping seasons are as follows, including the crew—namely: "Nubia," 1,673, including 54 women, 87 children, 79 invalids; "Simla," 1,643, including 35 women, 95 children, 23 invalids.

  SIERRA LEONE RISING.
  MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial Office have received the Report of Sir David Chalmers upon the rising in Sierra Leone; and, if so, when it will be presented to Parliament?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: I must refer the honourable Member to the answer on the subject which I gave to a similar Question addressed to me by the honourable Member for Wick on the 6th of March.

  THE KOWLOON RISING.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can inform the House if the Chinese soldiers who took part in the affray at Kowloon were Chinese rebels, or troops in the pay of the Viceroy; and, in view of this occurrence, and of the strong feeling entertained by the colonists of Hong Kong on sanitary and other grounds, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take advantage of the clause in the Agreement with China which permits of the abolition of Chinese administration over the city of
  1450
  Kowloon (within British territory) if military considerations require it?
  The following Questions on the same subject also appeared on the Paper —
  GENERAL RUSSELL: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether British troops and police when occupying the newly-acquired territory near Hong Kong, on the 14th instant, were attacked by a large force of Chinese troops in uniform and armed with guns and rifles; whether there is reason to believe that the Viceroy of Canton and the local Chinese officials were cognisant of the action of their troops; and whether Her Majesty's Government intend to exact summary satisfaction and reparation for such an. insult to the British flag?
  GENERAL RUSSELL: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether strong representations have been made to Her Majesty' s Government by residents in Hong Kong, and others best acquainted with the state of matters in that section of China, regarding the danger of leaving the town of Kau-lung under Chinese jurisdiction; and whether, in view of what has recently occurred, there is any prospect of the Kau-lung agreement being materially revised?
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information as to the recent disturbances near Kowloon?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: I think it would be well if Questions on this subject were in future addressed to the Colonial Office, as the Colonial Government have now taken possession of the extension. Telegrams received from the Governor state that the opposition was probably connected with the Triad Secret Society, which is understood to be strong in the neighbouring district, but the flags captured show that the attack included companies of Chinese militia, who were in uniform and armed with guns and rifles. There was a further attack yesterday, when two guns were Captured. There was no loss of life on the British side. The

  1451
  hostility shown and the doubtful attitude of the Chinese authorities, will necessitate careful reconsideration of the position.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Were the two guns captured by the Chinese from the British?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: No, Sir.

  INDIAN SUGAR DUTY.
  MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the notification in the "Gazette of India," announcing that new duties have been imposed from 20th March on all sugar from bounty-giving countries whether the same is imported directly from the country of production or otherwise; and whether it is imported in the same condition as when exported from the country of production or has been changed in condition by manufacturer or otherwise; and whether, under the terms of this notification, the Government of India proposes to levy the duties on all confectionery imported into India from the United Kingdom, in the manufacture or preparation of which bounty-fed beet sugar has been used?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: My answer to the first part of this Question is in the affirmative. In reply to the second part, I can only say that, under the terms of the notification, the Government of India will no doubt have the power to tax bounty-fed sugar when forming a portion of the confectionery imported into India from this country; but, having regard to the difficulty of estimating the amount of sugar so used, I do not know whether they will think it worth while to exercise that power, especially as the amount of confectionery imported into India from Great Britain is very small. The whole amount of sugar exported from this country to India is only 900 tons, and in this confectionery is included.

  CRETE.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, upon the appointment of Prince George of Greece as High Commissioner of the four Powers in Crete, a petition to Her Majesty the Queen was signed on 15th December 1898 by nearly 10,000 Cretan Mussulmans, praying that the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, the greatest Islamic State in the world, may deign to take under its aegis and direct protection the Mussulmans of Crete, as the Catholics of the Levant are under the protection of France, and that a sufficient garrison of British troops may remain permanently at Crete as the only guarantee which can be really efficacious for safety; whether, on this petition being presented by the Mussulman chiefs to Consul Biliotti, he refused to receive it, upon which the Mussulman chiefs stated that they would send it direct by post; whether he is aware if the petition in question has been received; and whether it has been referred to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; if so, whether any reply has been given thereto, and, if so, what reply?
  MR. BRODRICK: The facts are as stated in the first two paragraphs. Her Majesty's Consul-General declined to receive the petition, as it is contrary to established usage for consular officers to receive deputations and petitions from the subjects of the Power on whose territory they reside. The petition was duly received, and referred to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but under the circumstances it was not considered advisable to send a reply to the petitioners.

  SAMOA.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the reports of the statement made by Herr von Bulow in the German Reichstag on Friday 14th April relative to Samoa, to the effect that a special Commission of three members has been appointed by Great Britain, the United States, and Germany to assume provisional powers of government over the

  1453
  Samoa Islands; that HO measure adopted by the Commission is to have legal effect unless all three Commissioners agree to it; that this principle of necessary unanimity set up by Germany has been accepted first by America and ultimately by England also; and that the English Government, through its Ambassador in Berlin, has officially intimated its acceptance of the proposals of the German Government with regard to the procedure and functions of the special Commission; whether these reports are correct; whether any provision has been made for the possible case of all three Commissioners failing unanimously to agree on the measures with which they have to deal: and, if so, what that provision is; and when he proposes to lay upon the Table of this House the Papers embodying the negotiations which have thus been brought to a conclusion?
  MR. BRODRICK: The arrangement made by the three Governments is to the following effect: —In view of the recent troubles in Samoa, and for the purposes of restoring tranquillity and order therein, the three Powers parties to the Conference of Berlin have appointed a Commission to undertake the provisional government of the islands. For this purpose they are to exercise supreme authority in the islands, and all persons exercising authority therein, whether acting under the provisions of the final Act of Berlin, or otherwise, are to be under their orders. No action taken by the Commissioners in pursuance of the above authority is to be considered as valid unless it is assented to by all three Commissioners. If on any point they are unable to come to an agreement, they will refer to their Governments for instructions. They are to furnish separate reports on the recent events, and to make recommendations either unanimously or separately as to the future government of the islands. Papers will be laid as soon as circumstances admit, but in view of the conflicting and incomplete nature of the information received, it is impossible at present to state when this can be done without public inconvenience.

  SPRING ASSIZES IN IRELAND.
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that certain grand juries omitted to nominate representatives for the county councils at the recent Spring Assizes in Ireland; and whether, in view of clause 113 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, which specifies that such nominations must be made at the first Spring Assizes following the passing of that Measure, members of the grand jury class have been selected, since the assizes in question were held, without the terms of clause 113 having been complied with; and, in the event of such having been the case, whether such persons so nominated are legally qualified to fulfil the duties of county councillor?
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): My attention has not been called, officially, to the omission mentioned. The intention of the Government was that these representatives should be nominated either by the grand jury itself at the Spring Assizes, or be nominated then or at any time before the first meeting of the council by a committee appointed by the grand jury at the Spring Assizes for that purpose, and we believed that this had been adequately provided for in the section referred to. Some doubts, have, I believe, been expressed as to whether the language of the Statute carries out the object of the framers of the Act, but I am not aware that the point has been made the subject of judicial decision.

  AUSTRIA-HUNGARY AND THE INDIAN SUGAR DUTY.
  MR. MARKS (Tower Hamlets, St. George's): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any communications have passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Austro-Hungarian Government with reference to the imposition of countervailing duties upon foreign bounty-fed sugar imported into India; and, if so, what has been the result of such communications?
  MR. BRODRICK: Communications on this subject are passing between the two Governments, but they are not as yet sufficiently advanced to enable me to make any statement with regard to them.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK.
  MR. MARKS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he can state what, if any, part of the increase in the cost of the postal services in 1898–9 was incurred in connection with the administration of the Post Office Savings Bank?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (for Mr. HANBURY): No part of the cost of the Postal Services is incurred in connection with the administration of the Post Office Savings Bank. The whole cost of the Post Office Savings Bank is defrayed by the National Debt Commissioners.

  WOOLWICH ROYAL LABORATORY.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, having regard to the fact that in 1897–8 a loss of £3,127 15s, 8d. resulted from the manufacture in the Royal Laboratory of mixed metal turnings into ingots, will he state whether it has now been found possible to effect a saving; and, if so, to what extent whether he will state under what circumstances two tons of ferro-molybde-num were purchased for stock at Woolwich in 1896 at a cost of £770, seeing that up to October last no issues of this expensive material had been made?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL- WILLIAMS,): The matters to which this Question relates have been noticed by the Controller and Auditor-General, and are now before the Public Accounts Committee, who will make a Report upon them to the House, if they deem it necessary.

  SCOTCH HERRING TRADE IN RUSSIA.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the export of herrings from the United Kingdom to Russia, is rapidly increasing, the figures for 1897 being 180,770 barrels, value £195,016, and for 1898, 310,585 barrels, value £360,080; and that, although the wharfage accommodation at St. Petersburg has been improved, Stornoway export merchants complain that the arrangements are still most unsatisfactory; and, will he consider the expediency of again representing to the Russian Government the necessity for a still further improvement in the facilities for the discharge and storage of herrings at St. Petersburg?
  MR. BRODRICK: Instructions were sent a few days ago to Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg to make renewed representations with the view to obtain further improvement in the facilities for the discharge and storage of herrings at St. Petersburg.

  SEA FISHERIES CONFERENCE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to state the names of the Powers which will be represented at the proposed Hydrographical Conference in connection with fisheries to be held in June next; and, can he state where the conference will be held?
  MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's Government understand that replies have not yet been received from all the Powers invited to the Conference, nor of the exact date at which it will meet.

  CANDIAN MUSSULMANS.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Mussulman exodus from Crete still continues; whether the Russian Government have offered £50,000 to help in the repatriation of the Mussulmans;

  1457
  and, what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to ensure the restoration of the starving and ruined Mussulmans of Crete to their lands?
  MR. BRODRICK: The exodus of Mussulmans from Candia still continues, though not in the same numbers. The Powers have now under consideration a request from the High Commissioner for an advance of funds for the re-establishment in their homes of the peasantry, both Mussulman and Christian. We are not aware of any such offer as is suggested having been made by the Russian Government. Mer Majesty's Government have expressed their readiness to contribute their share, if other Powers will agree to do so.

  MOHMUND EXPEDITION.
  MR. C. MURRAY:: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the British troops engaged in the Mohmund Expedition, who in August 1897 earned the Frontier Service Medal which was sanctioned in April 1898, are now in April 1899 still awaiting further news of their medal?
  MB. POWELL WILLIAMS: Medals for the North West Frontier campaigns of 1897 and 1898 are in course of being sent home from India to the depots of the regiments engaged in the operations for issue to those entitled to them.

  TELEGRAPHISTS' CHRISTMAS DUTY PAY.
  MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, will he explain why a number of telegraphists in the metropolitan districts who performed duties on Christmas Day have now been called upon to refund an extra rate of overtime which they received for this duty, it being stated that telegraph clerks are not eligible to receive the increased allowance?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (for Mr. HANBURY): The extra rate referred to was authorised solely
  1458
  for the special sorting force who came on duty voluntarily to perform the heavy Christmas work on Sunday, 25th December, and was not applicable in any way to the counter and telegraph staff, who were performing their regular Sunday duty on (hat day. It appears, however, that through an oversight the latter staff were included in the extra payment at some offices, and as they were not in any way entitled to it they are, of course, required to refund the amount overpaid.
  MR. LOUGH: Does not the right honourable Gentleman think it very hard that these men should be called upon to refund the money?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I should be very sorry to express any opinion on the action of the Post Office.

  TELEGRAPHISTS' CONTINUOUS DUTIES.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the Parliamentary Return relating to the wages of sorting clerks and telegraphists, issued in 1898, shows that telegraph clerks are allowed half-hour's relief on a continuous duty of eight hours; and whether in future the right can be extended to counter men and telegraphists in the metropolitan districts who are on duty from 2 p.m. to 10 p.m. or 3 p.m. to 11 p.m.?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (for Mr. HANBURY): The answer to the first paragraph of the honourable Member's Question is in the affirmative. As to the second part, speaking generally, the counter clerks and telegraphists in the metropolitan districts who are on duty from 2 p.m. to 10 p.m. or 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. also enjoy the privilege of half an hour's relief; but in some cases where there are frequent intervals of the duty during which the staff is unemployed, no fixed time has been arranged, for it was found that the relief obtainable was adequate.

  COVENT GARDEN THEATRE FUND.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General at what stage have the legal proceedings in connection with the Covent Garden Theatre Fund now arrived, and whether there is an early prospect of the fund being released and de-voted to the charitable objects for which it was originally founded?
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): The matter has been somewhat delayed by my having to obtain information as to the existing societies and communicate with several leading members of the theatrical profession. I have, however, lately been able to give directions for the appropriation of the fund now in court, subject to a scheme to be approved by the court. The scheme will be published in the course of a few days.

  SCOTTISH MAILS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that certain steamer charges for the conveyance of Her Majesty's mails to various districts in the north and west of Scotland are charged to the Scottish Office Vote; and will he state whether there is any reason why the whole of the steamer charges for the conveyance of Her Majesty's mails to the various parts of the United Kingdom should not be charged to the Post Office Vote?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): No, Sir. The honourable Gentleman is mistaken; all these charges, I am informed, are placed on the Post Office Vote.
  MR. WEIR: In consequence of that answer I shall call attention to the matter on an early date.

  MILITARY MESSING ALLOWANCES.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state the percentage of men to the total who have been granted the messing allowance after fulfilling the
  1460
  conditions of military efficiency, and the average length of their service on the date of their obtaining that grant, distinguishing between those who had joined the Army before the new regulations came into force, and those who entered the Army subsequent to that date?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: It would be impossible to give the honourable Member the information he requires without calling for Returns from the whole Army, which would throw a large amount of labour upon commanding officers. The allowance has generally been accepted.

  LANCASHIRE AND CHESHIRE MINERS' PERMANENT RELIEF SOCIETY.
  MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Lancashire and Cheshire Miners' Permanent Relief Society have made an application to the Registrar General of Friendly Societies to have the funds standing to the credit of the said society allocated to those who were dependents upon the funds of the society previous to the 1st of July 1898; that the Registrar has informed this society that before this application can be accepted the society must be dissolved, and has promised the officials of the society that he is prepared to consider the registering of a new rule which will prevent the dissolution of the society; whether he is aware that the funds of the society at the end of the year 1897 showed upon valuation a deficit of £34,000: and that the expenditure of the year 1898 has exceeded the income by over £8,500; and whether he will state what steps he intends to take in order to safeguard the widows, children, and disabled members who were on the funds previous to 1st July 1898.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (for Mr. HANBURY): The answer to the first three Questions is in the negative. The answer to the first part of the fouhth Question is in the affirmative and to the second part in the negative. The answer to the fifth Question is that the Registrar has no power to take any steps.

  ARMY VETERINARY DEPARTMENT.
  CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of placing the Army Veterinary Department on the same footing with the Royal Army Medical Corps as regards Military titles?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: This question has been fully considered, and the Secretary of State for War is not prepared to make the alteration of titles suggested.

  SURGEON-GENERAL W. TAYLOR.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the provisions of section 71 of the Army Act, he will explain the appointment of Surgeon-General W. Taylor as P.M.O. Her Majesty's Forces, India, this officer being junior in rank to the Director-General Indian Medical Service at Headquarters, Simla, and also to the Surgeon-General P.M.O. of the Madras Command, whose hospitals and districts the P.M.O. Her Majesty's Forces can inspect as a superior and senior officer; and whether, in order to prevent the weakening of discipline which this might lead to, it is proposed to confer a step of local rank on Surgeon-General Taylor?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: Section 71 of the Army Act does not apply to officers on the Staff, who exercise authority, not in virtue of their own rank, but of that of the officer on whose staff they are. Surgeon-General Taylor is on the Staff of the Commander-in Chief in India, and in that position exercises authority over all medical officers in military employment in India, irrespective of their individual rank.

  COMPASSIONATE PENSIONS.
  SIR J. LENG: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state what number of Compassionate Pensions to soldiers who served in
  1462
  the Crimean and Indian Mutiny campaigns have ceased during the last three years in consequence of the deaths of the recipients; and what number of old soldiers are still in receipt of such pensions?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: During the three last financial years 422 deaths hare occurred among the special campaign pensioners. 2,667 men are still in receipt of these pnsions.

  COOLIE IMMIGRATION.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of Trinidad and British Guiana bear part of the cost of importing coolies into these Colonies; and whether such artificial lowering of one of the elements in the cost of production of sugar constitutes a bounty within the meaning of the new Indian Act?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: The answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. The contribution referred to has never been considered as a bounty on the production of sugar. It is rather in the nature of a part payment of the extra cost imposed on immigration by conditions insisted upon by the Government for humanitarian reasons in the interest of the labourers.

  COURSE OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. W. F. SMITH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government to take the London Government Bill in Committee on Monday next?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes, Sir; it is our intention to propose it. I should add that, in Supply on Friday, I propose to take the Army Votes, beginning with Vote 10, the Ordnance Factories, and other Army Votes. I shall also put down Civil Service Votes, beginning with Class 8.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES BILL).
  Question proposed —
  "That the proceedings on the Metropolitan Water Companies (Government) Bill have precedence this day of the Notices of Motions and the other Orders of the Day."—(The First Lord of the Treasury.)
  THE FIRST LOUD OF THE TREASURY: I justify this Motion by stating that if the Measure was to have its full utility it ought to pass immediately in order that the works which it authorises should be at once put in hand and carried out before the possibility of any want of water should be felt in any part of the Metropolis. Remembering that this Bill has already passed the ordeal of the First and Second Reading, as well as through the Select Committee and a Committee of the whole House, I think that whatever differences of opinion there may be must necessarily now refer more to the details of the Measure than to the principle of the Bill itself. Therefore I hope that the amount of time that will be withdrawn from Private Members "Motions by the discussion will be of a trifling character.
  MR. LOUGH: I think one word must be said on the statement which the right honourable Gentleman has just made,
  and which he made to the House last night. Now, this Bill has never passed through any ordeal, and there was not a word of discussion on the Second Reading, for it was hustled through the Committee, and the Report of the Committee was published in such a way during the holidays that we had no opportunity afforded us of putting down any Amendments. We find that, contrary to arrangement, that contentious business would not be taken immediately after the holidays, that on the very first day after the Easter holidays this contentious Bill is put first on the Paper. The result was that the Report stage was taken in about two minutes after the dinner hour on the first night after the recess, and consequently the House had no opportunity of examining it. I think it is rather unfortunate that the right honourable Gentleman should make this Motion, for. I think the Measure should be dealt with in Government time.
  Question put —
  "That the proceedings on the Metropolitan Water Companies (Government) Bill have precedence this day of the Notices of Motions and the other Orders of the Day."—(The First Lord of the Treasury.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 170; Noes 102.—(Division List No. 84.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

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

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Brassey, Albert

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Arrol, Sir William

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J (Manc'r)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Baillie, Jas. E. B. (Inverness)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J.(Birm.)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Balcarres, Lord

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Fison, Fredk. William

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

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

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

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

  Flower, Ernest

  Banbury, Fredk. George

  Coddington, Sir William

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Garfit, William

  Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Cornwallis, F. Stanley W.

  Golds Worthy, Major-General

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

  Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.

  Goschen, Rt. Hn G J (S. George's)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Goschen, Geo. J. (Sussex)

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Dalbiac, Col. Philip Hugh

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Bill, Charles

  Denny, Colonel

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs).

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. D.

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Bolitho, Thos. Bedford

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Gunter, Colonel

  Bonsor, Hy. Cosmo Orme

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Halsey, Thos. Frederick

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G,.

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Hardy, Laurence

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Milward, Col. Victor

  Sharpe, William Edwd. T.

  Heath, James

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Monk, Charles James

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

  More, Robt. J. (Shropshire)

  Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)

  Howard, Joseph

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Smith, J. Parker (Lanarksh.)

  Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

  Mount, William George

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

  Hozier, Hon. J. Henry Cecil

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Stanley, Hy. M. (Lambeth)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

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

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taagart

  Jeffreys, Arthur Fredk.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Myers, William Henry

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Newdigate, Francis Alex.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Lafone, Alfred

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Thorburn, Walter

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Northcote, Hn. Sir H. Stafford

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

  Lea, Sir Thos. (Londonderry)

  Pease, Herbt. P. (Darlington)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Leighton, Stanley

  Percy, Earl

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

  Loder, Gerald W. Erskine

  Pilkington, Richard

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

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Webster, Sir R.E.D. of Wight)

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Livrpool)

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

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

  Lopes, Hy. Yarde Buller

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edwd.

  Whitmore, Chas. Algernon

  Lowe, Francis William

  Purvis, Robert

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Rasch, Major F. Came

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Richardson. Sir T. (Hartlepool

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Ritchie, Rt.Hn.C.Thomson

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  M'Killop, James

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Younger William

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Mellor, Col. (Lancashire)

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  TELLERS, FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

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

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

  Mersey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  NOES.

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

  Gold, Charles

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Gourley, Sir Edward T.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Allen, W. (Newc. under Lyme)

  Harwood, George

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. C. Seale-

  Richardson, J. (Durham)

  Bainbridge, Emerson

  Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Baker, Sir John

  Hogan, James Francis

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighsh.)

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

  Holland, W. H. (York, W.R.)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees)

  Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire)

  Humphreys-Owen, A. C.

  Shaw, Chas. E. (Stafford)

  Billson, Alfred

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Blake, Edward

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Souttar, Robinson

  Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson

  Kinloch, Sir John George S.

  Spicer, Albert

  Buchanan, Thos. Ryburn

  Labouchere, Henry

  Steadman, William Charles

  Burns, John

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Burt, Thomas

  Leng, Sir John

  Strachey, Edward

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

  Caldwell, James

  Logan, John William

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent)

  Thomas, Alf. (Glamorgan, E)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  M'Arthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Cawley, Frederick

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Curran, Thos. (Sligo, S.)

  M'Laren, Charles Benj.

  Warner, Thomas C. T.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  M'Leod, John

  Weir, James Galloway

  Davitt, Michael

  Maddison, Fred.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Maden, John Henry

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

  Dillon, John

  Moore, A. (Londonderry)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil Wm.

  Wilson, John (Goran)

  Ellis, John Edwd. (Notts.)

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

  Woods, Samuel

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Yoxall, James-Heury

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbt. J.

  Pease, Jos. A. (Northumb.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOESߞMr. Lough and Mr. Pirie.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Pease, Sir J. W. (Durham)

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

ORDERS OF THE DAT.

  METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES (GOVERNMENT) BILL.
  Order for the Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed —
  "That the Bill be now read a third time."—(The President of the Local Government Board.)
  Amendment proposed —
  "To leave out the words' now read the third time,' in order to add the word' re-committed.'"—{Mr. J. Stuart.)
  MR. STUART: I do not rise to oppose the Third Reading of this Bill, as at no part of the procedure of this Bill have I opposed the object which it endeavours to carry out, and I will give very briefly the reasons why I make that Motion. I cannot imagine that the right honourable Gentleman who is in charge of this. Bill can for a moment plead that the time necessary for the recommittal of this Bill is in any way vital to the situation, but there are faults of a very serious character in the Bill which I will endeavour to show the House call for consideration by a Committee of this House on the grounds that I shall briefly endeavour to indicate. In the first place, there is a great departure from all precedent in this Bill, because it gives unlimited powers of borrowing to the Metropolitan Water Companies without the sanction of Parliament, and it gives those unlimited powers for an unlimited period without placing their case before Parliament. Every one knows that the occasion of borrowing, or of asking for money for a given purpose, is the very occasion in which a public company can have its circumstances criticised or revised, and here we have in this Bill an unlimited power to that extent without the companies coming to Parliament at all. It is true that the Bill has for its object, as stated by those honourable Gentlemen who have brought it forward in the House, the dealing with cases of emergency, but the terms of the Bill do not limit it to any such case. The companies have been required by the Local Government Board to submit schemes for works enabling them to supply each other from any source of supply which
  1468
  any company for the time being are empowered to use, and to construct such works as may in the opinion of the Board be necessary for that purpose. Now, whatever may be the argument used in its support, there is no limit to the power which may be here exercised of borrowing for these purposes. I would like the House to see how that may work. Any water company which has access to a large supply of water —and undoubtedly some of them have —will here have it in their power to supply the other companies without the other companies going to their own source of supply, and without the intervention of the House of Commons. That is the point I complain of, and what I should desire to see this Bill recommitted for would be, in the first place, that we should have some intervention of the House of Commons in the future with regard to these borrowing powers, and some limitation of these borrowing powers, which would come to the same thing, and also some limitation of the period over which the powers of this Act extend. There is no ground just now for giving an unlimited power to the Local Government Board to sanction laws with regard to borrowing, because if it be done for the next five years, as was the case in several Bills of the right honourable Gentleman which have been passed, that would meet all that is urgent in the situation. But here this power is perpetual and is not limited by any time, nor is it limited by any amount. I should be content if it were limited in either of those ways, either in time or in amount, or if some other plan were devised, if the right honourable Gentleman prefers it, of bringing this question before the House of Commons and before a Select Committee. So much for that part of the Bill. And now let me ask why is it that this extraordinary departure from previous precedents is made by giving unlimited borrowing powers for an unlimited time I What is the amount which might be expected to be required by connecting their works in this way. The Royal Commission mention £64,000 as a probable and reasonable amount that might be used by the companies in connecting their works. But we know perfectly well that the companies have brought forward a scheme which involves the expenditure of over £500,000. I

  1469
  should like, therefore, this House to fix what is the sum at which these powers were to be bound to. I think we might very well have been content without putting any new borrowing powers in this Bill, and we might very well have made the companies concerned—which have already very considerable borrowing powers—deal with the question in this Bill within the sums already sanctioned to be borrowed by Parliament. Let us by all means in this Bill give them new borrowing powers, but let them be limited. I do most strongly warn the House against this new departure from precedent and against the evil of introducing a Bill which gives to any public companies supplying water in this way unlimited borrowing powers without coming to this House. Put in your limit and I shall be satisfied, and that is why I am asking for the recommittal of this Bill for this very purpose. It is surely a most reasonable and businesslike proposal. Let us fix a limit to the period over which this money will be capable of being raised against us. You will see that this Bill will go on year after year, and perhaps for century after century, the consequence of which will be that, as long as one water company can get access to what water it requires then all the water companies are allowed to do as they please without coming to this House, but simply by going only to the Local Government Board, and necessarily going to them under all circumstances. I now come to another point in the Bill which I think necessitates its recommittal. The point which I allude to is with respect to the sinking fund. Now, I was prevented, from reasons which I regret, taking part in the discussion in this House, when it came before Parliament, and my honourable Friend opposite who was on the Committee is aware of the reason why I was unable to be present. I extremely regret it, but still I am all the more free to comment upon the action that has been taken, and I say that there never was an adequate consideration given to this point, nor was this question adequately discussed as to the relation of this sinking fund before the Royal Commission. And yet the Committee which sat upon this Measure upstairs which was attended by a very small number of Mem-
  1470
  bers who were elected to sit upon it, really founded its opposition upon the recommendation of the Royal Commission. Now, what are the grounds for omitting the sinking fund from this Bill? Remember that ever since the year 1886 there has not been one single water Bill for allowing companies to borrow money which has passed through this House, which has not, by the sanction of this House, had a sinking fund introduced in it, the sinking fund being an arrangement whereby the ratepayers and the water consumers of London would share in the profits of the new capital. I read the Report of the Committee, and I read some statements which appeared in the Press in which it has been said that this capital is not to be remunerative, and therefore the sinking fund should not be applied to it. That might be a reasonable enough ground for this course which has been taken, but how can it be predicted that this capital is not remunerative? What is the object of the expenditure of this capital? Why, it is to enable the East London Water Company to supply its consumers, and to fulfil its obligations to them. What is the object of any other expenditure of money by the East London Water Company, or any other company, but to enable it to fulfil its obligations and supply the wants of its consumers? If the East London Water Company were not able to make good its deficiencies in this way it would have to do so by some other method, and could any honourable Member in this House be so bold as to say that under the borrowing powers introduced into an ordinary Bill, or existing in the Bill of the East London Water Company or any other company is insufficient to meet the difficulty. This has been a historical feature of the water legislation of this House for the last 15 years. I feel that the question of the relation of the sinking fund to the general finance of this Bill, and of the water companies, has not been fully viewed either by the Committee or by the Royal Commission, which did not give any serious attention to this particular point. How can you, when borrowing money in this way, differentiate between the different capitals that you raise for enabling the water companies in question to supply water to their consumers to' fulfil their

  1471
  obligations? To fulfil their obligations it may be said that the East London Water Company can raise this money from the ratepayers without fulfilling the obligation of dealing with the supply, and so it can. But can you suppose that that would be allowed to go on without the intervention of this House for any length of time? This House would, I think, soon put a stop to that state of things, and it would be put a stop to by the company rising to the height of its obligations and providing its consumers with the means of supply. Now, here the means of supply are provided, and the capital so made use of should be used in the same way as any other capital raised with the sanction of this House and the other House of Parliament. The third point upon which I wish to recommit this Bill is the point which I believe my honourable Friend opposite is very familiar with, and on this question I should be glad to hear his answer to the points I have raised, because many a time when I have sat on one side and the honourable Member has sat on the other and pleaded most eloquently and ably on behalf of his clients, I do not feel surprised, looking back upon these reminiscences, that he should have so readily allowed an opposing council to escape from the points which I have brought before him. At any rate, there is one point of view that I am astonished at the right honourable Gentleman, when he had migrated to the other side of the Table, being content with, and that is in the second sub-section of the first clause. Let me ask the right honourable Gentleman, or any Member of the House, to read that clause, and it will be at once seen that it does not apply to the Metropolitan water companies alone or to the area of these companies. The words of sub-section 2 are —
  "For the construction of works required for the purposes of this Act each of the water companies may exercise without their district the same powers as they may exercise within their district."
  There is no definition given in these words, although it clearly ought to be "the metropolitan water companies."
  1472
  But there is a more substantial difficulty down below. Line 21 says—
  "Nothing in any Act, whether general or local, shall prevent any such company from supplying water from another company, or for mother district."
  Now the meaning of these words is complete, and the consequence is that you are going to give power by this Bill —I do not know whether you mean to do so or not—to the metropolitan water companies to supply water in the district of any other company and in any other district. Now, if that be an error of drafting, all the more am I justified in saying that this Bill ought to be recommitted. I am astonished that the honourable Gentleman, who was present on the Committee, and who took such a leading part in its proceedings, should have so dealt with that matter, and I am all the more astonished because, according to what we are told, those who cross from one side of the Table to the other change their position, and not their habits of thinking. I am astonished that the honourable Gentleman has left behind him his accurate methods of thinking and his careful methods of expression. Instead of the words, "another company," or, "for another district," it clearly ought to be "another metropolitan water company," for that is the object of the Bill. The object of the Bill is not to go outside the metropolitan districts, and so let it be clearly expressed in the clause. There is only one more point, and I am sure that the points I am dealing with, at any rate, are worthy of consideration, and I am not detaining the House unnecessarily. I wish to remind honourable Gentlemen on the other side that I am not engaged in opposing the Third Reading of this Bill, but I am simply asking for certain Amendments to be made, which do not destroy the effect of the Bill in all that is required, as a matter of urgency. That is the point I want to impress upon the House. That is the last point I wish to call attention to in respect to what is required in the way of the Amendment of this Bill. It is a point in which the Bill actually goes beyond what was proposed by the Royal Commission's interim Report, although the Bill is entirely founded upon that Report. In the 42nd

  1473
  clause of this Report, the Royal Commission say —
  "We regard the suggestions and recommendations in this Report as entirely independent of the other matters referred to us, and as in no way prejudicing the question of purchase of the companies' undertakings by one or more authorities, or the question of control to be exercised by local or other authorities, upon both which questions we are prosecuting our inquiry."
  Now, so far as the question of the difficulty arising under this Bill in case of purchase is concerned, that has been endeavoured to be met by the third clause of this Bill, where it says that—
  "If the undertaking of any of the metropolitan water companies is purchased within seven years from the passing of this Act, otherwise than by agreement, by any public body or trustees, nothing in this Act shall authorise the company to bring into account or to make any claim in respect of any advantages conferred on them by or resulting from the passing of this Act."
  By the way, in passing, may I ask why, if there be no advantages in this Act accruing to a company by the expenditure of this money, why is that clause introduced; and, if that be so, how can it be argued if you are providing against the advantage of this not being turned into capital cash, that there should be no sinking fund placed upon this Act. The House will observe that whilst the Bill makes provision in case of purchase, there is no provision made in case of purchase not taking place, and in case of control. The words of the Royal Commission are that the suggestions are in no way to prejudice —
  "The question of purchase of the companies' undertakings by one or more authorities or the question of control to be exercised by local or other authorities."
  I feel that, in order to bring up this Bill to the standard which is adopted in those words, that there should be a clause introduced, not only operating with regard to the advantages accruing in case of purchase, but setting out that —
  "Nothing in this Act shall prejudice any application for the transfer of the undertakings from their regulation or control by any of these companies."
  Now, there can be no doubt whatever that, dangerous and difficult as this Act
  1474
  may be as it stands just now in the case of purchase, and I do not think it affects very much that side not the matter, it is extremely dangerous in the case of non-purchase. It is in that instance, more than any other of all the questions I have raised, which is of the most importance —that of an unlimited right to raise money without the control of Parliament. I do most ardently plead that there ought to be put into this clause some words that will what I may call sterilize its power of increasing the capital value in case of non-purchase1, as well as in the case of purchase. Now, I think I have made out, as briefly as I can, very reasonable grounds for dealing with this Bill by recommittal. I think I have put the points wholly from a business point of view, and if they are decided in the way I have pleaded, they do not in any way impede the operation of this Act to meet the state of urgency which it declares to exist. I have not entered into the major question, which was discussed on the First and Second Reading, as to whether that urgency exists, or whether it is necessary to be dealt with. I have not entered into the questions of what I would suggest to meet the future difficulties of the London water companies to supply other than themselves. I have kept my arguments wholly within the four corners of this Bill, and subsidiary to the expedients of the general principles of this Bill, and I say that it would be an unfortunate thing, unworthy of the business attitude of the House of Commons, if this Bill goes through without being modified in the directions which I have endeavoured to indicate.
  SIR J. LEESE: I beg leave to second the honourable Member's Motion.
  MR. CRIPPS: In reply to the criticisms of the honourable Member opposite, I desire to say that the points he has raised do not arise in the sense he has indicated in his speech. In order to elucidate these points, I may say, in the first instance, that the whole purport of the Bill is to put a duty and obligation upon the water companies, and that duty and obligation is to make intercommunication for the purpose of preventing an in-

  1475
  sufficiency of supply. This obligation is to be carried out under certain circumstances, if called upon by the Local Government Board. As the honourable Member does not seem to have appreciated the whole object of the Bill, I will just read from section 1, sub-section 1, which says —
  "It shall be the duty of the several metropolitan water companies, and they are hereby respectively authorized——"
  Now, what is that duty? It is to make arrangements for preventing an insufficiency of supply. That is the duty thrown upon them, which involves a new obligation, and, consequently, a new expenditure. In sub-section 5 of section 1 it is provided that —
  "The Local Government Board may make such orders as they may deem necessary."
  In addition to that, you have got an obligation which may be enforced by the direct action of the Local Government Board itself. Everyone, I think, as well as the honourable Member opposite, regrets what happened within the last two or three summers, during the time of a very short water supply in the East End of London, and it was felt that an obligation of this kind should be put upon the water companies, more particularly upon the East London Water Company, in order to prevent a recurrence of the grave misfortune in the East End of a summer or two before, owing to a very short supply. Now, let me point out what appears to me to be a complete answer to the honourable Member opposite. I hope he will believe that what I am saying now is only the same subject matter as we discussed in the Committee itself. I only wish we could have discussed it together there instead of at the present moment. He says, an unlimited power has been given, extending over an unlimited term, and he says, if I could point out that his objection in this respect was wrong, his difficulty would be removed. Now, I think it is very easy to point out that in this regard he is under a misapprehension. As far as regards money, it is dealt with in section 2, and the only purpose for which they can raise money, which can only be done with the consent of the Local Government Board, is —
  "For the construction of works required for the purposes of this Act."
  1476
  Now, is that an unlimited power? I think it is a very carefully limited power, and strictly in accordance with precedent. In the Act itself you define the powers in reference to which money is expended, and you have done it in this Act. Then, again, the only way in which this money can be expended from time to time is to be with the consent of the Local Government Board, and the works have to be carried out under the direction of the Local Government Board itself.
  MR. STUART: But there is no limitation to the period under which that may arise.
  MR. CRIPPS: It is only unlimited in a sense, because, as I have stated, on the face of the Act the purpose—and the only purpose —for which the money can be expended, constitutes the limit, and, therefore, how can the honourable Member say that it is unlimited.
  MR. STUART: There is no sum stated.
  MR. CRIPPS: No; but the purpose for which the money can be expended is stated. As the honourable Member has appealed to me, I assure him that in this Bill that power is limited in an effective way, for you can only raise the money for certain specified purposes. That is where these powers are always limited, and, therefore, it is strictly in accordance with precedent. The next point which the honourable Member raised was the question of the sinking fund. That matter was very carefully considered by the Committee, as the honourable Member well knows who seconded the Motion for recommittal. Now, the rule is this, so far as the sinking fund in this particular case is concerned. The recommendation of the Royal Commission was that there should be no sinking fund as regards the expenditure for the purpose indicated in this particular Act. That was the recommendation of the Royal Commission itself. And why did they recommend that? They pointed out that you are not giving a money-earning privilege to the company, but you are imposing an obligation and expenditure upon the company, and, under those circumstances, the Royal Commission pointed out that, in their opinion, it was

  1477
  not a case in which the sinking fund should be enforced. There may be certain differences of opinion, and some may think that the sinking fund ought to be imposed, and others will come to the contrary conclusion. But all I can say is, that the whole point was most fully considered by the Committee, both in discussion and in private, and the terms embodied in the Bill were only adopted after most careful inquiry. I am appealed to for precedent, but I would ask whether, after a Committee has carefully considered this matter, in which there is room for a difference of opinion, is it in accordance with precedent to recommit the Bill, and on what grounds? Here is a Committee, carefully chosen —a hybrid Committee—and it has most carefully inquired into and carefully weighed every argument, and has come to a certain conclusion. Now, I ask, is it in accordance with precedent to ask the House to recommit the Bill under such circumstances? The next point he raises is on sub-section 2 of clause I. Now, really I cannot understand why I am called upon to reply to the hypercritical attitude taken up by the honourable Member in this matter. If he asks me for my opinion as to this section, I say that, as regards the whole of the Act, it is limited to the metropolitan water companies.
  MR. STUART: It does not say so.
  MR. CRIPPS: I think it is absurd hypercriticism for the honourable Member to select one particular word in one particular clause and place upon it such a construction. It does not require a lawyer to understand this point, for anyone can read it as a whole, without seeing the particular limitation for which the honourable Member seeks to argue, which is not included in the Act, which must be taken as a whole. It is not an oversight, and it is a very hypercritical suggestion, if I may say so without offending the honourable Member opposite; it looks like a criticism made in the absence of a better argument, and it is a construction in which I say that the honourable Member is inaccurate. Now, the last point is on this question of control in which he says the Committee have gone beyond the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Now, we have not gone beyond those recom-
  1478
  mendations, for we have neither gone beyond them nor outside of them. The Bill in its present form does not deal with the question of control from beginning to end. That is absolutely outside this question altogether, and I would ask the honourable Member, who has considered this matter carefully, on what point this question of control is raised in this Bill. Speaking perfectly frankly, I cannot see that the question of control is raised in this Bill in any single clause. If that is so, my honourable Friend will admit, I think, that merely to introduce a provision with reference to the question of control when that subject is not dealt with in the subject matter, would not only be very bad drafting, but would be a very bad way of dealing with an Act of Parliment. Now I think I have dealt with all the points raised by the honourable Member opposite. We very much regret, as I said at the outset, that he was not present at the Committee, and I hope he is satisfied, although there may be differences of opinion upon various points, that all the technical points he has raised have no weight, and that on those other points, although he may not agree with the determination we came to, they certainly do not constitute a case in which the decision of the Committee ought to be put aside, or upon which there ought to be a recommittal of the Bill.
  MR. BUXTON: I think my honourable Friend was quite justified in moving this Motion apart from the Committee itself, for the House ought to remember the position in which it has been put in regard to this Bill by the Government. We have really had no opportunity of discussing this Bill. It was introduced under the 10-minutes' Rule, and only one speech was allowed. We took the Second Reading about a quarter past eleven, and there was no possibility of properly discussing it then. It was then referred to a Committee, and that Committee reported. The Government, however, instead of giving proper notice, as I think they ought to have done, to the metropolitan Members, got this Bill through —I will not say unknown, but unobserved —on the first day after the Recess, which day is always devoted to more or less non-contentious matters of

  1479
  Supply and other subjects. Not only was it put down on the first day, but it was put down without affording my honourable Friend an opportunity of putting down any Amendments at all. Practically, the Bill only came back to the House on the Monday before the Recess, when, I believe, some Scotch Bill comes on, and the majority of Members had not observed that this Bill had been recirculated again. Not only was the Bill put down for the first day after the Recess, but the Report of the Committee was not even in the hands of the Members of the House. Therefore, I say that we have had no adequate opportunity of considering this Measure or of putting down Amendments. I think my honourable Friend behind me, on those grounds alone, was justified in moving the recommittal of this Bill. The honourable Gentleman who has just spoken has, I think, missed very largely the points made by my honourable Friend. With regard to the Committee itself, I make no accusation against it, but I think it was rather unprecedented for the Chairman of that Committee to be proposer and promoter of the Bill which that Committee had to consider. He was, at the same time, both judge and jury. I am quite sure he was absolutely impartial in the chair, but I say that it is a position in which neither the House of Commons or the Committee ought to be placed. I have, since this Bill passed through the Committee stage, had an opportunity of looking at the evidence given before that Committee, and it is perfectly obvious to anybody who reads that evidence —and I think the honourable Member for Stroud will not deny this —that there was not a great deal of evidence given before the Committee in favour of the Bill. The result was that those representing the London County Council who wish to bring these points before the Committee were placed at a very great disadvantage, for they were called upon all of a sudden to put their witness (Mr. Dickinson) in the box, and they were unable to support his evidence with proper care through the rapidity of the action of the Committee with evidence by further witnesses. That, I think, is, on the face of it, a reason why we ought to recommit this Bill, in order that, the House may consider these matters to which my honourable Friend has referred
  1480
  in Committee of the whole House. I wish very clearly to define my own position in regard to this matter. I entirely agree with the general principle of this Bill, for I believe it is necessary in order to avoid any danger of a further water famine in the East End of London. I do not, however, think that there is any urgency in regard to the actual passing of this Bill, because, on the showing of the evidence of the Royal Commission itself, it is obvious that what has already been done by the East London Water Company is quite sufficient, in their opinion, to carry them over for some considerable time in advance. Therefore, I think it is essential that this Bill should not be rushed through with bad clauses in it, because there is no matter of urgency for a few weeks or a few months, because all that has to be done has practically been done, and all that this Bill will do is practically to legalise and carry out more effectually what has already been done by the East London Water Company and other companies in combination. With regard to what my honourable Friend behind me has in view, I want to appeal to the right honourable Gentleman in charge of the Bill and ask him if he will give us a definite pledge —which, I understand, the right honourable Gentleman did give on the Second Reading —that this shall be distinctly a temporary Measure, and that he will take some steps to secure that some amendment shall be introduced in another place which will mark this Bill as a temporary Measure. As a temporary Measure we have no objection to it, but as a permanent Measure I regard it as very dangerous indeed. I will not go into detail upon any of the points which have been raised by my honourable Friend behind me, but the honourable Member who has just spoken has said that my honourable Friend's fears of unlimited expenditure and unlimited powers were not well founded, and that they were strictly limited by the object and purpose of this Bill. Yes, they are strictly limited by the purpose of the Bill, but if the honourable Member has read the Report of the Royal Commission he will see that the work is one which involves an expenditure of£600,000, and what we want —and what we believe is quite necessary —is to lay down that their proposal—which involves an expenditure

  1481
  of something like £60,000 to £70,000—is adequate for all the purposes which we have at present in view, and what we want is to limit the Bill to that expenditure, and not allow it to extend to half a million more. The honourable Member said that the Committee had gone fully into the question of the sinking fund, but the evidence in regard to this matter was, under the circumstances, not in the hands of the Members in time, and they were not able to see the evidence, which should have been placed before them. The honourable Member said that no profit would accrue to the companies under this proposal. I think my honourable Friend pointed out that under the clause dealing with the purchase question there is some anticipation that some profit will be derived. Is it not almost certain that some profit will accrue, because they are going to be allowed to draw from other districts water which they could not draw because their present obligation is confined to certain districts? They will be able to obtain anything between 12,000,000 gallons and 24,000,000 gallons a day without paying anything for it. This they will distribute to the consumer, and upon that they will obtain a very considerable profit. But whether they obtain a profit or not, this question of the sinking fund ought not to be omitted in a Bill of this description. It is intended for a temporary purpose, and the question of the sinking fund ought not to be prejudiced in reference to this matter. When we were discussing the question of purchase in the year before last by the County Council, and considering the question of a new supply, and when proposals had been made for dealing with the water question, the right honourable Gentleman fell back upon the word "remission" as an argument prejudicing any of these questions involved in the question of the water companies. I appeal to him, therefore, and I hope successfully, that he shall do nothing under this Bill which in any possible way, cither in regard to purchase or control, or in regard to the best means of obtaining real inter-communication, that he shall make the provisions of this Bill so that they will prevent, this Measure from being in any sense of the term permanent, I think we are entitled to expect from him, as President of the Local
  1482
  Government Board, and as having previously assented to the idea, a promise that this Bill is to be a temporary one. We want not only his own word in regard to this matter, but I think we are entitled to expect that he will put words into it, either in this House or in another place, which will mark the Bill as a purely temporary one. What I want is that the Bill should be made a temporary Measure for five years, and no longer. By that time some steps will have been taken to settle this water question, and by that time we shall have the Report of the Water Commission published, and the House will be in a position to deal effectively with the question. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will see his way to meet us in reference to these points. If it is made a temporary Measure I shall support it; but if it is a permanent Measure which is going to prejudice those matters to which my honourable Friend has referred, I shall feel bound to oppose it.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: I share to the full the regret which has been expressed by more than one speaker in this House at the enforced absence of the honourable Member for Hoxton during the preceding stages of this Bill, and I heartily join in welcoming the honourable Member back again to the House. I am glad he is present, because I hope we shall be able to remove from his mind some of the objections which he entertains in regard to this Measure. I cannot altogether agree with some of the observations of my honourable Friend who has just sat down. He says, that there has been no fitting opportunity given to discuss this Bill. In reference to this point he has made a somewhat vague qualification, but all I know is this, that the Notice was put upon the Paper before the adjournment with regard to this Bill by the Minister in charge of it, and I have always treated this Bill at its several stages as a Measure which I regarded as one of great urgency, and with regard to which I have always pointed out that I should take every opportunity of which I could avail myself of forwarding its passage through the House. Under these circumstances I think I am entitled to consider that honourable Members have

  1483
  had sufficient notice of the intentions of the Government to proceed with this Bill on the first day when it could be put down on the Paper, which happened to be the first day after the Recess. With regard to the observation that no opportunity was given of putting down Amendments, I must repeat what I said on a former occasion —namely, that there was the whole of one Parliamentary day of eight or nine hours upon which any honourable Member who desired to do so might have placed Amendments to the Bill upon the Paper. Seeing that this is a Bill of only three or four clauses, which honourable Members opposite say they do not desire to oppose in principle, and to which their objection is limited to only two or three points, I cannot help thinking that if they had desired to do so they could have exercised that vigilance in which honourable Gentlemen opposite are seldom found wanting —especially in regard to any Bill of which I have had charge in this House —their Amendments might have been placed upon the Table and have received adequate time for discussion. It is not accurate to say that these Amendments were not discussed, because when the time arose for taking the Committee stage by this House we devoted four or five hours to its discussion, and honourable Members did take objection to the Bill upon a number of points, and an Amendment was moved on one of the most important points which the honourable Member for Hoxton has raised to-day, and we discussed it for some considerable time. I may say that the logical arguments I used upon that occasion were such that honourable Members declined even to take a Division upon the question. So much, then for the argument that honourable Members had not sufficient opportunities of discussing this question in Committee. The honourable Member took some exception to the conduct of the Committee upstairs, and also to the selection of Chairman. Well, perhaps it was wrong that I should be the Chair man, but I really had no alternative but to accept the position. In regard to this Bill I happen to occupy an unusual position. As a matter of fact this Bill, which is put forward by the Government, is partially of a public and partly of a private nature, and I believe I only followed the usual prece-
  1484
  dent in accepting the chair upon that occasion. Then the honourable Member said that this is not a question of any urgency whatever because the works required are already done. Upon that point I must tell the honourable Member that he has been misinformed, because the works are not already done. As a matter of fact, some of the works, I am advised, which were urgently required, nave been brought to a deadlock because the necessary powers to enable them to continue the works were wanting.
  MR. BUXTON: I quoted from the Report of the Royal Commission.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: There is nothing that can be carried out without the necessary powers contained in this Act, the object of which is to increase the supply of the East London Water Company, a condition which the Royal Commission themselves laid down in order to avert any future probability of danger of short supply, and on that point the honourable Gentleman may take it from me that he has been misinformed, and that the works cannot be proceeded with until this Measure has granted them the necessary powers.
  MR. BUXTON: I do not mean for a moment to suggest that this Bill is not necessary to carry out the works. All I say is, that the East London Water Company have taken steps to guard against a short supply in the future, and, therefore, the House ought to have had a proper opportunity of considering this Bill.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: Of course, everything in regard to the water supply in the East End of London depends on the weather, and I am not prepared to run any risk whatever which I can possibly avoid, so far as I am responsible, for a recurrence of the great calamity of the water famine of last year. Well, now I come to the various questions raised by the honourable Gentleman who moved this Amendment. He asks us to recommit the Bill, on the ground that there are some points which he thinks have never been fully discussed. Well, I cannot agree with

  1485
  the proposal or the arguments by which he has supported it. In the first place, supposing I were to agree to this proposal, when is this Bill going to get through? Honourable Gentlemen from all parts of the House are aware that the weight of Government business is such that if I were to accept this proposal, and agree that this Bill should be recommitted, I do not know when I should be able to have another day on which to bring it forward again, and the prospect of its passing into law this Session would be very doubtful. As I have already told the House, there was ample time on the last occasion when this Bill was discussed for the consideration of any Amendments that anybody desired to move. In addition to that, we know that the Bill has passed through a Committee upstairs, where, with all respect to the honourable Member who has just sat down, who says that, practically, no evidence was given before that Committee, I say it was treated as fully as it ought to have been treated. I am of the contrary opinion, that every argument was put forward in respect of the views which he advocates, for they were urged with great power and ability by the gentleman who represented the body of which the honourable Member opposite is one of the most able representatives in this House. They did deal with the question of the sinking fund which was raised, and there was an Amendment moved upon this very point. I do not think that it is necessary for me to repeat the arguments which I urged upon that occasion. The clause relating to the sinking fund was fully discussed, and evidence was given upon the subject. The honourable Member for Hoxton said that that evidence was very inadequate, and he is entitled to that opinion if he chooses to hold it. But, on the other hand, I am ready and willing to give credit to the Royal Commission for taking evidence which they thought was necessary on the subject. The honourable Member must recollect that these works are of a totally different character from all other works contemplated by the water companies in this respect —that they are works which they may be ordered to make by a Government Department, whether they desire to make them or not, or whether those works will be profitable or not.
  1486
  Under those circumstances, I must say that it does seem to me that to over-ride the views of the Royal Commission, which has taken evidence upon this subject, would have been very harsh treatment indeed with regard to the companies. In reference to the unlimited power of borrowing money in the future, to which he takes so much exception, and for which he says the Bill should be recommitted, my honourable Friend behind me has already pointed out that the whole of these borrowing powers are subject to the approval of the Local Government Board. The honourable Member may think that this is an insufficient limitation, and it may or may not be so. Personally, I think it is ample, and it is not likely, I think, that the Local Government Board will call upon the metropolitan water companies to spend money which, in their opinion, is not absolutely necessary. The honourable Member asks why is this power to be given at all? There is a scheme before the Royal Commission for the expenditure of £61,000, and he contends that that is all that is wanted. But I must point out to him, what has been pointed out already to the honourable Member opposite, that there are other schemes before the Royal Commission. There is one which contemplates an expenditure of something like£500,000 or£600,000. Now, the honourable Member on the Front Bench opposite asks me to limit this sum, and he wishes I would give them a pledge that until the Report of the Royal Commission is received I will not sanction any more schemes upon this subject than those which are absolutely necessary, and which cannot be accomplished by the expenditure of a smaller sum of money. Well, Sir, after all that occurred last summer, a great deal of which was entirely unexpected, as far as I am concerned, I am very anxious indeed to avoid committing myself by any pledges upon this subject. The House must remember that this Bill, when it becomes law, will cast a very considerable responsibility indeed upon the Local Government Board, and I do not wish to give pledges which might unfortunately hamper, embarrass, and fetter my hands, for I should have the responsibility if any unforeseen con-

  1487
  tingency should arise in the future. What I am quite right in saying, however, is that the request which the honourable Member makes is entirely in accordance with my intentions, and with the views of the Department, so far as I am able to forecast them. We do not contemplate in the immediate future anything more than that kind of expenditure which the honourable Member has suggested to-night, and it is, as far as I can judge, sufficient for the immediate future, and it is probably all that is likely to be required at present. It seems to me that even this statement to-night is unnecessary, because I do not think, from the very nature of the case, that anything more than what has been provided for would be possible before the Report of the Royal Commission has been made. I am sure he would not desire me to pledge myself under these circumstances, because the whole question will then come before Parliament again. There is another reason given by the honourable Member himself why I should not give a pledge of this nature. In the course of his observations with regard to the water question in London, he said that this question has been so often postponed that there was no reason in the world why it should not go dragging on unsettled for century after century, and he could see no time when it would be completely settled. For this very reason I think it is unnecessary to recommit this Bill. The last question raised by the honourable Member was this: he asks why is clause 3 in the Bill at all? Now, clause 3 provides that the companies shall derive no advantage, in the event of purchase, from having made these communications. Th argument was that if there was no profit and no necessity for a, sinking fund, upon what possible grounds is clause 3 introduced? Well, that clause has been inserted certainly rather against the interests of the companies, for it has been inserted in order to remove all possibility of any doubt whatever on the question. Now, I think, to the best of my ability, I have answered the various criticisms which have been made upon the Bill, and I have endeavoured to give reasons which, I hope, will be sufficient why we cannot agree to recommittal of the Bill. That being
  1488
  so, I hope honourable Gentlemen opposite —all of whom say that they are agreed that they are not opposed to the Bill in principle, and that they do not wish to arrest its progress —will allow this Bill now to be read a third time.
  ME. LOUGH: I share with all the previous speakers the satisfaction which has been expressed that my honourable Friend is now present. I may say that we were placed at the greatest possible disadvantage when this Measure came up in Committee on account of his absence. I think he has stated very lucidly most of our objections to the Bill, but there is one remark which he made with which to some extent I disagree, and that is the remark that we did not oppose the Bill on principle. That remark leads us to the very centre of the policy which we are discussing here this afternoon. The suggestion which the right honourable Gentleman who has just sat down has made is that this is a most urgent question, because it is necessary to deal with the emergencies arising in the East End of London. Now, the whole argument has been devoted to the East End of London, but there is nothing in the Bill about the East End of London. I do not think there is anybody who would object to the Bill if it were limited to the district of the East End of London, or if any other limit were imposed. The Bill, however, applies to the eight companies and to the whole of the metropolitan district, and therefore I think it should be looked at from the standpoint of other parts of the metropolis that may be injuriously affected by the Bill. We ought to try and make this clear with regard to the East End of London. I have stated that if the Bill was confined to that single district there would be no objection 'to it. Now, abundant evidence was given both before the Committee and before the Royal Commission that practically the emergency which exists in the East End of London has been fully met. I would like to state to the House one or two facts to support my contention. There was a petition presented from the London County Council

  1489
  to the Select Committee, in which it was stated —
  "Your petitioners …believe that communications between the companies' mains already exist."
  "Communications by means of your petitioners' Blackwall Tunnel are, in fact, now in operation, having been made with a view of relieving the recent deficiency of water in the East End of London."
  Now, that statement, was made before, the Committee, and it was not cross-examined. My point here is, that the London County Council state that this communication between the companies did not relieve the deficiency of water in the East End of London. The single witness examined, before the Commission was Mr. Dickinson, of the London County Council, and so far as his evidence went, he said —
  "It was proved that the means the water companies had now taken were quite sufficient to protect East London against famine."
  Now, this witness was, not cross-examined, and he declared that full provision had been made for the East End of London. I now turn to the Report of the Royal Commission. It is in that Report where the figure mentioned is given. On page 9 of the Report, the number of gallons of extra supply that can be given to the East End of London by the several communications which have now been established are fully set out. Then the Royal Commission report in these words, and this is what they found on the subject—
  "If the existing connection with the Southwark and Vauxhall Company had been established early in the year 1898, and the fullest supply possible had been taken from the New River and the Southwark and Vauxhall Companies from the 20th of June onwards, the usual supply might have been maintained in the district of the East London Company throughout the period of drought."
  That is the finding of the Royal Commission, and those three authorities prove, by the evidence brought before them, that the difficulties in the East End of London have been fully met. It has been suggested that the difficulty complained of is not a, real one, but that it, has been made a pretext for thrusting this Bill upon the House. What is the origin of this Bill? We are told that it is a Government Bill, but, strictly speaking, it is not a Government Bill
  1490
  at all. The Bill is a water companies Bill, which has been taken up by the Government for the purpose of carrying out the policy of the water companies. I think that fact puts, a, very different complexion upon what we are doing this afternoon, and I substantiate that charge by the very paragraph which I have quoted from the Report of the Royal Commission. It is necessary to remember what the Royal Commission was appointed to decide. There were two questions put to them, and I will mention them. One was the desirability of purchasing the eight companies, and that was the question which, the London County Council desired should be decided. The second question was that, if purchase is not desirable, what control of the inter-communication between the companies may be desirable. That is the question which the companies wanted discussed. They thought they would dispose of the principle of purchase, and then would arise this question of inter-communication. To prove that the proposals of the Bill emanated from the water companies I will quote from the first clause of the Report, which says—
  "The companies had come to the conclusion that inter-communication would be convenient, and that they were prepared to promote a Bill in Parliament during the ensuing Session."
  It was, I believe, in the summer of 1897 when this plan of the companies was brought forward, and there is a subclause in which every proposition now embodied in this Bill was set forth by the companies, and the companies asked that legislation in this direction might be undertaken on their behalf. Therefore, that is the real object of this Bill. It is not to deal with an emergency, which is only made a pretext for the passing of this Bill, which is simply drawn up in the interests, of the water companies. I do not wish to go into the evils of the Bill, but if the House will consider the question from the standpoint I have established, honourable Members will see that it is a matter which deserves a, great deal more consideration than it has yet received. Just look at the large powers which we are putting into the hands of these companies? They are to raise money by going to the Local Government Board instead, as hitherto, of coming to the

  1491
  House of Commons when they want money, and all the defence that has been made is that they may be required to make the provision before they are allowed to raise the money, just as if that gave any security. I think the right honourable Gentleman will admit that I am not out of order, for this is the very principle of the Bill. Now, what is the Local Government Board? Is it a body that, gives any protection to the public or to the ratepayers of London in this matter at all? I say it is not, because the ratepayers of London look to the London County Council to protect them, and they look to this House also to protect them. It is a very poor protection indeed to say that the raising of this money will require the sanction of the Local Government Board, for how will that Department act? One would think, to read this Bill, that the Local Government Board is a philanthropic body, going about trying to do something for the benefit of humanity, or for the benefit of the London ratepayer, but it is nothing of the kind. Now, what is there to stimulate the Local Government Board into action if this Bill is passed into law? Can this House expect that the London County Council has got anything more to say to it? No, it is the water companies who are to stimulate the Local Government Board into action. The companies will go to the Local Government Board, and say, "Look here; if you do not call upon us to do this there will be an emergency, and the responsibility for it will be thrown upon you." No doubt the right honourable Gentleman will be afraid to take the responsibility, and will consent. Therefore, I think the House should be afforded an opportunity of looking into this question more carefully. Hitherto this House has been the protector of the ratepayers in such matters, and no money could be raised for any purpose unless this House approved of it. In this Measure, however, the companies are practically taking the matter completely out of the hands of the House of Commons. I say it is a very large Bill, and if the three quotations which I have given from the evidence before the Select Committee and the petition of the London County Council are true, and if it is true that the emergency in
  1492
  the East End of London has been dealt with, we ought to think twice before we pass a Bill without any limitation such as that which is now before the House. I am glad to have had the assistance this afternoon of my honourable Friend who has moved that the Bill be recommitted, for he in his wisdom thought that the best course to adopt, and I shall, therefore, support his Motion.
  MR. H. S. SAMUEL: I do appeal to the House not to sanction the recommittal of this Bill, but to give it a Third Beading this day. I cannot understand the position which has been taken up by honourable Members opposite, especially the honourable Member for Poplar, who asserts that he is in favour of the principle of this Bill, and yet does everything he can to delay its passing into law. He contends that a delay of a week or of a month or two will have no effect whatever, but that is exactly the same argument which was adduced by honourable Members, on that side of the House in the year 1893 and again in 1894, when, by their refusal to sanction works which were necessary for the construction of reservoirs, they forced East London to go through a serious famine. Surely by this time we have arrived at a just conclusion in regard to the whole matter. Over and over again we find honourable Members so anxious to support their own propaganda, and so anxious for the honour of the London County Council, that they would again force my constituents to suffer the pangs of a water famine rather than sanction anything that might help the water companies, and in any way detract from the fetish which they have set up. I desire to protest emphatically against this course of conduct. Does the House imagine for an instant that if this Bill was promoted by the water companies that they would be anxious to spend large sums of money for no purpose whatever? They are convinced that the only way to provide for the absolute necessities of East Londoners is to have these mains joined to those of other companies, and for that particular purpose the Government have now introduced this Bill. I sent copies of the Bill to all the authorities of Greater London, and almost in every case their answers approve of the prin-

  1493
  ciple of the Bill. I thank the Government cordially for at last having arrived at the conclusion that East London is entitled to have a, proper water supply, and I would ask the House to recognise the fact that its action in, years gone by has caused serious trouble and inconvenience to East London. I do ask them now, even at the eleventh hour, not to further delay the passing of this Bill.
  MR. STEADMAN: I do not desire to detain the House very many moments in what I have to say. The honourable Member for Limehouse has accused the Party on this side of the House of opposing this Bill in order to advocate their own political propaganda. Well, I represent an East End constituency as well as the honourable Member for Limehouse. I do not only represent that constituency, but I live in it and was practically born in it. [Laughter.] I do not see much to laugh at in that remark. I was born in the adjoining constituency, therefore I am not like the honourable Member for Limehouse, who comes down from the West End to the East End and represents an East End constituency in this House, and does not share the poverty and misery of his constituency, by the fact that he is living in. the West End of London. That being so, I am more anxious than he is himself to see some solution to this most difficult problem. Now there is only one practical solution, in my opinion, and in the opinion of the working men in the East End of London, and that has been proved over and over again, and demonstrated a thousand times by resolutions carried at public meetings —not at ticket meetings, for any person could attend them. The only practical solution is the one that has been advocated, not for the purpose of putting forward our own political views, but in the interests of the ratepayers of London, so far as this water question itself is concerned. During the last five years we have had no less than three water famines in the East End of London, and I have had to take my share of those famines with the rest of the residents in the East End of London. Now, who caused those famines? In 1894 the East London Water Company blamed the London
  1494
  County Council, and again in 1896 and in 1898 they had the same excuse, that it was the London County Council which was responsible. In 1898, as on previous occasions, they came forward with a paltry excuse, and | placed ail the responsibility of the famine upon the London County Council. Well, what happened on the occasion of the last famine only last summer? The inhabitants of the East End of London were given a four hours' supply —a sup- ply of two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon —for sanitary purposes: and if it had not been for the energy displayed by the medical officers of health in the East End of London, what would have happened in the slums where from 10 to 20 human beings are huddled together in the same house, with only a four hours' supply and no storage accommodation? I wrote myself to the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, and in his reply he told me that he had no power to deal with the matter. In 1898, when the reservoirs were all empty, and the famine had been in existence for some few weeks, they started to make connections with other companies. I notice that until the Bill becomes law these connections are of a voluntary character. Now, I disagree with my honourable Friend the Member for Islington with reference to the connections under the Blackwall Tunnel. I say that as far as the connection with Kent companies and the East London Water Company under the Blackwall Tunnel is concerned, the matter is not worth talking about. But is it proposed to do under this Bill what happened last summer? Is the Local Government Board going to allow the East London Water Company to have empty reservoirs before they make their connections with the other companies? Is the right honourable Gentleman going to compel the East London Water Company, the moment they find that there is likely to be a drought, to put these connections into operation with the various companies named in this Bill, and by that means secure for us in the East End of London a constant supply? I do not agree with the course adopted by the Local Government Board on this occasion; at the same time it is a remedy for the time being. From the action of the present Government in throwing out

  1495
  the London County Council's Wales scheme, I know that we cannot expect any proposal from them for the purchase of water companies' undertakings at a fair and reasonable price, vesting control of the supply in the London County Council. But rather than there should be a repetition next summer, or the summer after, of the sufferings of the working classes in the East End of London, I intend, after the assurance given by the President of the Local Government Board that this Bill will enable him to force the companies to give a constant supply, to vote for the Bill.
  MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.): I do not rise to refer to the general aspects of the Debate, but merely to what fell only a few moments ago from the President of the Local Government Board. The right honourable Gentleman did not find himself able to accept the whole of the suggestions made to him, but his assurances tended very considerably in the direction of the suggestions made on this side of the House. Under these circumstances, and accepting the assurances of the right honourable Gentleman, I would suggest to my honourable Friend the Member for Shoreditch that he should not press his Motion to a division.
  MR. STUART: After the assurances of the right honourable Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw this Amendment, because I have ascertained that the order of procedure in the House of Lords will admit of this Bill being petitioned against, and when it goes before a Select Committee, the points I have urged can be dealt with. I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
  Question put —
  "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Agreed to.

  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed —
  "That in the opinion of this House the national expenditure is excessive, and is capable of reduction without compromising the safety or legitimate influence of the country abroad, or the efficiency of its home administration." —(Mr. Buchanan.)
  MR. BUCHANAN (Aberdeenshire, E.): Mr. Speaker, the Motion which appears in my name on the Paper has been reached at a somewhat unexpected time. The opportunity for this Motion being presented shortly after the Budget statement is, however, in some respects, an advantage. It enables me to spare the House a good many figures which I should otherwise give, because I am enabled to adopt the figures given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer while they are fresh in the recollection of the House. Now, who is responsible for the enormous increase of national expenditure? Who is to blame for it? Is the present scale of expenditure to be looked upon as a permanent one? Can nothing be done to decrease it? These are some of the questions which I desire to offer to the House for consideration. On Thursday last the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that in the course of the last four years the expenditure of the country had increased by £19,000,000, an average increase of more than £4,000,000 per annum. He told us that the increase this year over last year was £6,000,000; that the year before there was an increase of £5,000,000; and that the year before that there was an increase of £4,000,000 so that not only have we this enormous increase in the expenditure during the past year, but a continuous rate of increase during the last four years. The right honourable Gentleman also gave us, in round figures, the aggregate expenditure for the year, namely, £120,000,000, which figure I, of course, adopt. I may take it that in the four years to which I desire to limit my remarks, the expenditure has increased from £100,000,000 to £120,000,000. Now, the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot be blamed for being reticent or silent with regard to the great increase of expenditure either this year or preceding years;

  1497
  for I think there is no Budget he has brought forward, from his first four years ago, in which he has not laid emphasis on the fact that the expenditure, or a very large part of the expenditure, was rapidly increasing, arriving, as I have said, at this result, that for every£500 that we were spending four years ago we are now spending£G00, the total aggregate expenditure for the year being no less than£120,000,000. I do not think it is possible to exaggerate these astounding figures, and I shall leave them to the consideration of the House, as they were given in the remarkable speech delivered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week. Now, Sir, what are the main branches of expenditure? If honourable Members look at the Statistical Abstract, they will find that the great branches of expenditure are divided as follows: —Service of the National Debt, naval and military expenditure, Civil Service Expenditure, Expenditure out of the Local Taxation revenue, and another item which I shall mention presently, namely naval and other loans. Well, I shall not, of course, on this occasion say much about the expenditure for the service of the Debt; that will be discussed on another occasion. But that is the only large branch of public expenditure in which there has not been an increase, but in which, as we know from last Thursday's speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there is to be a decrease. Like many other honourable Members who spoke last Thursday, I regretted very much to hear the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is not, I think, a fact which will redound to the credit of the Government that the only matter in which they have attempted retrenchment during the four very prosperous years they have been in office, when surpluses' have been rolling in one after the other, has been in the redemption of the Debt. Now, Sir, I should like, in speaking of the subject of debt, to allude just for a moment to the last item of expenditure, namely the expenditure from loans, that is to say, from loans which are defrayed out of terminable annuities. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made an interesting statement upon the figures of the past and current years; but if honourable Members look, as no doubt many of them have, at the Statistical Abstract, they will find that down
  1498
  to 1889 the expenditure under this head is an absolute blank. It was in 1889, when the Imperial Defence Act came into operation, that we first find an expenditure under this particular head. It was a comparatively small sum for the first few years, but in recent years, and particularly in the last three years, it has gone up in an astounding degree. In the year ending March, 1898, the total amount spent under this head was £2,750,000, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that the amount for the year just ended will be about£3,750,000. With regard to the future we have had a statement from the First Lord of the Admiralty that there will be an expenditure of £1,500,000 under the Naval Works Act, and there will probably be a further sum of £500,000 for military works. We have been told by the Secretary for War that there is to be a new Loan Bill introduced by the Government for barracks and other military works for a sum of£5,000,000. With regard to the other large branches of expenditure I wish, first, very briefly to give the figures under the various heads, and then make a few observations on each. As to the Navy, we have had an increased expenditure during the last four years of at least£7,000,000. The increase on the Army is£2,500,000; on the Civil Service about£2,750,000, and the increase in the same period in the payments out of the Local Taxation Fund amounts to about£3,000,000. On this subject I should like to go a little farther back than the four years to which I have hitherto confined myself. Of course, the House is well aware that payments into that account do not embrace the whole of the Imperial payments for local purposes. There are sums amounting to about£3,250,000 contained in the Estimates which are also grants from Imperial sources in aid of local expenditure. So far as I have observed that has been a constant quantity, at any rate, during the last four years, and, in fact, since the Local Taxation Fund was established. This fund was established some nine years ago by the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty. In 1890 the amount paid to the fund was just£5,000,000; it now amounts to over£10,000,000; that is to say in that period

  1499
  of ten years it has exactly doubled. The£5,000,000 increased when the Party opposite were in power between 1889 and 1892 to£7,250,000; it remained stationary when the late Government was in office, and then, when the present Government came into office, the£7,250,000 increased until, in the course of four years, it reaches over£10,000,000. Our Army expenditure has increased by£2,500,000, our Civil Service expenditure by£2,750,000, and our Local Taxation Fund by£3,000,000. Now, Sir, there is no doubt that for the bulk of the large increase in the expenditure on the Navy the Government can fairly claim that they have obtained a very large amount of support both in this House and in the country. If blame is to be attached to anybody it must be shared by most of the Members of this House, as the credit must be shared generally by the people at large. With regard to Naval expenditure there is this to be said in its favour, that, speaking generally, we have obtained value for our money. We have obtained value for our money in the sense that we have the consciousness of greater security at home and in the belief entertained among our possible rivals abroad of our preponderating naval power in the world. Now, Sir, these are undoubtedly substantial advantages, and I wish to fully recognise the fact that in taking the course the Government have they have undoubtedly obtained very general public support. It is, however, a remarkable fact that not only is the increase in naval expenditure by far the largest item that we have to consider, but the rate of increase has been the most rapid. The danger appears to be that the more we increase our Navy the larger the additions that seem to be needed. I remember three years ago in the Budget Speech of 1896 the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking of the Navy Estimates, said that he was sanguine that the next year would show a decrease. Well, the hope has undoubtedly been disappointed. Only last year the First Lord of the Admiralty made a statement to the effect that he hoped that another year it would not be necessary to increase the Navy. That hope has also been disappointed. There are, of course, individuals inside and outside this House who are constantly clamouring, and will continue constantly
  1500
  to clamour, for indefinitely increasing our naval expenditure. Surely, however, we are now in such a position as regards our rivals that we can afford to take our own line in regard to naval defence and future naval construction. We have shown what ships we can build, and how much faster we can build them than anyone else. We have shown that we have no difficulty compared with other nations in getting men; that our standard of efficiency is much higher than other countries; that our fleet is much better and readier for immediate use than those of other countries; and, having got this start, surely it is within our power to keep it. I must demur to the practice of the First Lord of the Admiralty of coming down late in the Session and saying that the Department hear that a certain Power is going to build so many more cruisers or battleships, and that, therefore, he must have more money for a like purpose. Such a line is not a true basis for naval defence. It is certain to be an irritating policy, and it often proceeds upon uncertain information. Now, it has often been quoted in discussions in this House and outside that Mr. Cobden expressed himself willing to spend£100,000,000 in order to secure our supremacy at sea, and in that I entirely agree with him; but it is generally forgotten that Cobden I think in the very same year in which he made that statement, strongly opposed the constant rivalry by which, if France, for instance, added three new ships to her fleet, we must add four to ours. Surely, in view of the present condition of Europe, and the fact that we are going to enter into the International Peace Conference at the Hague, which we all look forward to produce some satisfactory results, it is eminently desirable that we should not in increasing our Navy proclaim that we do so in competition with any single Power, or any pair of Powers. Now, the right honourable Baronet has an Amendment on the Paper with regard to the Navy, and therefore I do not propose to go further into that question, but I venture to think that the views which I have endeavoured, to give utterance to this evening are those which are very widely held in this House, namely, that whilst we are prepared in the future, as well as in the past, to maintain our naval supremacy, we believe that it should be

  1501
  maintained not in a system of competitive building with other powers, but on general consideration of what is from year by year necessary for our defence. Now, Sir, whilst public opinion is, I believe, substantially in favour of maintaining our naval strength as our great source of national defence, I do not think there is the same unanimity with regard to the increased expenditure on our Army. The honourable and gallant Gentleman the Member for Shropshire has put an Amendment on the subject of the Army, and he was kind enough to tell me of it last night. Well, I suppose we are all in favour of maintaining the Army in adequate strength and efficiency, but the point is as to what interpretation to put upon the word "adequate." Well, Sir, I shall endeavour to say a few words upon this increase of £2,500,000 which has occurred in the course of the past few years in the expenditure upon the Army. Of course, part of it is due to the increased pay and other advantages to our soldiers, of which we, I suppose, generally approve, and part of it is also due to the ever-increasing cost of armaments; but there is a considerable amount of expenditure which is not due to either of these causes. I do not profess to speak with any authority, but there is a pretty general opinion that in Army expenditure we do not get our money's worth. Everyone knows that our total military expenditure stands at a very high figure. But apart from that there are questions connected with the cause of this increase in our Army expenditure to which I should like to allude, and with regard to which, I am sure, there are differences of opinion in this House. I, for one, certainly do not think this great increase has been justified. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, both this year and last year, when he selected the particular items out which have caused the greatest increase of expenditure,. he mentioned the Navy, the Army, Africa, education, and Local Taxation grants. Now, the increased expenditure on Africa is largely, almost exclusively, military expenditure. Africa has been mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as one of his financial troubles, and now we have an expenditure essentially military going on in North, South, East, and West
  1502
  Africa. Opinions will differ, I dare say, as to the policy in connection with the whole of that expenditure. I wish to look at it from a financial point of view, and I will, if the House will allow me, give two or three figures. With regard to South Africa, in the Army Estimates of this year we find that there are in Cape Town and Natal in South Africa, 9,300 men at a cost of £709,000: whilst four years ago we had only 3,600 men there at a cost of £282,000. That is to say that there has been an increase of considerably more than double the number of men, and very nearly three times the amount of the expenditure in this instance within the last four years. It may be said that this increase in our garrison in South Africa is only temporary. Well, I wish it were; but so far as we have evidence to show it goes in the other direction. This is by no means the amount of money which is used for military purposes in South Africa, for we are having there a large and increasing expenditure for the purpose of building permanent barracks and other permanent works. I think that shows that this increase of our Army there is intended to be permanent, and that the increase of our armed forces in Africa is intended to be a reversal of the policy of Lord Cardwell as regards our military relations to our Colonies. I think we should go in the direction of withdrawing Imperial troops as far as possible from these Colonies and making them responsible for their own defence. That is by no means all that the Army Estimates contain with regard to military expenditure in Africa, for we are now raising Native regiments in West and East Africa, In British Central Africa the War Office is raising a regiment, and the Foreign Office also have troops in British East Africa and Uganda. The Colonial Office is also raising an Army of its own in West Africa, for which a large portion of the money is to be provided by the British taxpayers. Then, again, most of our grants in aid are continually increasing from year to year in the Colonies, particularly in West Africa. Some of these are for general purposes, but most of them are for police and military purposes, and in reply to a question by my honourable Friend the Member for Rushcliffe a few weeks ago the Under Secretary of State for Foreign

  1503
  Affairs stated that during the year just past the military expenditure in East Africa alone amounted to a million of money. I will give the House just one other figure illustrating this matter. Most of these charges are contained in Votes which are well known to Members of this House, namely, Votes 2 and 3 of class 5 of the Civil Service Estimates. Now, what has been the history of these Votes during the past four years? When the present Government came into office in the year 1896 the average normal amount of these two Votes came to about £236,000. In 1897–98 they ran up to £637,000, last year to over £1,000,000, and in the present year the total comes to £877,000, with the probability of large Supplementary Estimates. But do not let the House imagine that this will be the total expenditure for the year, because it is more remarkable in these Votes than in any other that invariably there are two sets of Supplementary Estimates, and they are generally much larger than the original Estimates. I think we shall be very fortunate indeed if in the present year these two Votes amount to less than £1,500,000. This is an enormous increase in our expenditure, and forms a considerable portion of the total increase in the Civil Service Estimates. Before I go away from this subject I should like to say that there is a very considerable amount of money being spent upon our West African and West Indian Colonies in order to promote the Colonial Secretary's scheme for the development of our Colonies by "improving our estates." No doubt, that sounds a very attractive proposal on the part of the Colonial Secretary, who is very astute in dealing with the objects he has in view, and he gets this House to commit itself in the month of August, perhaps, to some small Vote, and then he turns round and says, "You have sanctioned this initial expenditure, and you must not be surprised if I ask for more money." It is a very old argument, but it is no substantial argument at all. It may be a good argument that the Members of this House are not vigilant enough upon all occasions to take objection to the introduction of any initial or new expenditure that may be laid before the House; but so far as the Members of this House and the pub-
  1504
  lic outside are concerned it is absurd to allege that if in the early initial stages objections have not been taken to large schemes such as the Colonial Secretary's policy, we are pledged, and that the country is pledged, to proceed with it. For my own part, I think it is a policy which will in all probability not tend to be beneficial to this country, and it is a policy which, I hope, the successors of Her Majesty's Government, when they have the opportunity, will take steps to reverse. The Colonial Secretary has not been a very economical person in his administration, and many of us who were in the last Parliament know that he estimates legislation by its money value. On several occasions he found fault with the late Government and their administration, because he said that nobody by such legislation would be "a penny the better." I may say, however, that by the administration of the Colonial Secretary we are a great many pennies the worse. I should like to point to one or two other items of expenditure —namely, that dealing with aids to local taxation, and to show how we are in this respect very many millions of money the worse owing to the legislation of the present Government. Of course, the three great Measures of the Government which I allude to are the Voluntary Schools Act, the Agricultural Rating Act, and the Irish Local Government Act. Now, what have they cost the country, not merely for the present year, but for all years to come? The Voluntary Schools Act cost £635,000 a year; the Agricultural Rating Act £1,750,000 a year; and the Irish Local Government Act £750,000 a year. Now, what have been the objects of this legislation? Can they really be said to have been a response to a national demand, and have they been legislation for the purpose of general national utility? I do not believe that anyone can say that they have been. The Voluntary Schools grant is a grant given in support, not so much of the improvement of national education as in support of a certain, class of sectarian schools, and that class who are interested in those schools are those who were the main supporters of Her Majesty's Government at the last election. It is not only a sectarian, but an

  1505
  electioneering grant, and I think we find that when the interests of education come into conflict with the interests of the Voluntary schools it is easy to see, from what happened last night, which is likely to go to the wall. This principle prevails in the Voluntary schools grant, and this £635,000 is not a grant for this year alone, but it is to be paid for all years to come. The Agricultural Rating Act provides 1¾ millions a year, which is given to aid a certain class of ratepayers in this country. That money is not given as part of a general scheme of rating or financial reform, but it is given to a class of ratepayers in this country who largely supported Her Majesty's Government at the last election. With regard to the Irish Local Government Act, what are we to say about the £750,000 which is to be paid now and henceforth for the working of that Act, which is a larger sum than was proposed to be given to the Home Rule Parliament of Ireland? This sum was given out of the Imperial taxation undoubtedly to induce the Irish landlord supporters of Her Majesty's Government to accept that Act. I do not know whether, seeing the results of the first election under that Act, the landlords might not think that they ought to have asked for a little more money. That is the object with which this money was given, and I say that all these cases which I have cited show that the objects of this legislation have not been general national objects, but they have been class and sectarian objects and they have been brought forward in discharge, if I may say so, of electoral debts contracted largely by the Government of 1895. It may be said, however, that the country is very rich, and does not feel this heavy expenditure. We have heard quite' recently from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a warning on that subject. For he told us that not merely this year, but in previous years, the expenditure of the country is increasing, not merely at a greater rate than our population, but even at a much greater rate than our revenue and wealth. It only needs common observation to see that with these
  1506
  circumstances before us we are pretty sure to have, as we have had in the past, in our industrial prosperity, ebbs as well as flows. This expenditure will have to be met not merely in times of prosperity, but also in times of adversity. I believe that when the nation in times of trade depression or stagnation has to pay the increased taxes or the new taxes necessary to meet these various kinds of expenditure incurred within the past four years it will by no means bless the conduct of those who were the authors of the legislation that entailed these extra expenses. There is an argument often used by speakers in defending the Government policy, that this increased expenditure after all is mainly for the purposes of defence, and mainly in aid of a strong Navy, and that the majority of the country has supported the Government in that policy, and that there is nothing more to be said. Granting that the present Government had known and were conscious of the large increases of naval expenditure which were coming upon them, surely as prudent financiers it would only have been wise of them not to have saddled the country, if they could have avoided it, with such additional expenditure as I have alluded to, which is also of a permanent character. The Chancellor of the Exchequer warned us of this danger, not merely last Thursday, but also on previous occasions, for in the year 1896, in his Budget speech, after referring to the enormous expenditure which we had patiently borne, he told us:
  "I wish to put before the Committee the present condition of our financial system. I wish to ask them to consider at their leisure what the position may be of a Chancellor of the Exchequer who, in some future year, may have to meet a continuous and enormous increase of expenditure under this system of taxation; and I wish to ask them whether they are quite sure that, in such circumstances, our present financial policy can be maintained? I do not answer that question to-night, but I should have failed in my duty if I had not done my best, in view of the increased expenditure of the present year, even in this time of prosperity, to place before the Committee what I think to be a cause of great anxiety."
  Well, what was true then is still more true now, and the Chancellor of the Ex-

  1507
  chequer has emphasised this fact by the words which he used the other night, with which I shall not detain the House by quoting. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has seen and pointed out the danger, and he has recognised that this danger applies not only to the present but to future years, and yet he has provided no substantial remedy for it beyond the present year. He takes his two millions from the Sinking Fund to satisfy him for the present year, but as for the future he leaves it to take care of itself. I do not think such a policy is quite fair to the financial interests of this country, because, after all, the right honourable Gentleman is in the position of a trustee for our financial prosperity, not merely for the present year, but for the years that are to come, and he cannot fairly throw off the responsibility upon other shoulders. I remember last year he complained, as Chancellors of the Exchequer are apt to do, of the conduct of the House of Commons. Well, I do not think he can, in regard to the items to which I have referred, lay much of the blame of those increases upon any strenuous pressure on the part of the House of Commons. We may, perhaps, not have been vigilant enough in our criticisms and in our opposition to new expenditure, but it is very easy for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to oppose any proposal in the House of Commons for increased expenditure. Now, if he had put the blame, not upon the House of Commons, but upon his colleagues, then I am bound to say he would have had a stronger case. There, again, he is the person who is responsible to us for what his colleagues do as well as himself, and he is the only protection we have inside the Cabinet against their rapacity, and if he is not able to prevent them from picking his pockets he must be the person who is responsible to us. It may be said, "What is the good of a general Resolution such as this?" Well, I know the value of abstract Resolutions that have often been discussed in this House, and the estimate which has been formed of their value is one which depends very largely upon which side of the
  1508
  House you are sitting. I have very little doubt that the First Lord of the Treasury could, and I daresay may have in past times made equally good speeches on one side or the other of that question. During the whole of this century Resolutions have been, from time to time, moved of a similar character to this when expenditure has very largely been on the increase. Even in the early part of the century, before the Reform Bill, very important Resolutions were moved similar to this in 1817 and 1827. There was a similar Motion moved by my right honourable Friend the Member for Monmouthshire in 1873, and there was another in 1883, and that also was brought forward within two or three days after the introduction of the Budget. It may be said that these Resolutions do no good. Sometimes, however, they do result in Committees and Commissions which have led to substantial reductions of expenditure, and sometimes this has been achieved by the action of the Government and the Ministers themselves. Anybody who has been reading, as I have been during the recent weeks, the life of Sir Robert Peel, will have seen how, throughout his political career, he was always taking up this subject and urging it upon the attention of the House and his colleagues. In the year 1828, and in 1835, 1839, 1841, and 1844, he publicly took the matter up and he accomplished great results by his work. In 1841, in a letter he wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which I should like to read to the House, he wrote:
  "Pray consider the following suggestion. Let us employ in downright earnest the services we have a right to command from the British Treasury."
  The bulk of the expenditure to which I have alluded is, no doubt, due to the policy and the legislation with which the Government have identified themselves during the last four years, for which they are responsible, and for which when the election comes round they will have to stand or fall, and which the country will have to declare its opinion upon. The country could easily have borne all the expenses necessary

  1509
  for the purposes of naval defence. It is because of the extra expense that has been put upon the country in this time of exceptional prosperity for African and Colonial speculative enterprises, and for objects which are not objects of general national utility, but are sectarian and class objects; it is because the Government during the past four years have added to the permanent expenditure of the country for these purposes a sum of no less than five millions of money that I think we are justified in making and pressing this Resolution. There is no doubt that these increases in our expenditure are attracting attention in the country more and more, and will do so even to a greater extent as the pressure is felt by the taxpayer. I am very conscious of the imperfect way in which I have raised this subject and the unconscionable amount of time I have taken, but I feel that the discussion of this question in the House of Commons is demanded in the interests of the country and is called for by a large section of the people outside this House. That has led me to make this Motion, and I trust that this discussion will in the end lead to useful results. I beg leave to move my Resolution.
  MR. SOUTTAR: In rising to second the Motion which my honourable Friend has brought forward, I note the Party tone which he imparted into some of his utterances. Of course, I understand his points and arguments in that regard, but, for myself, I feel that the broad question of retrenchment is not altogether a Party question. I should wish that it were a Party question. Before I came into this House I had the impression that if Liberalism meant anything it meant a reduction of expenditure, it meant retrenchment. But I am afraid that my opinion has been somewhat altered, because of my experience here. At the same time, also, I would like to say that I do not altogether blame the Government for the bloated expenditure. I do not know how it may have been with regard to other Governments, but in connection with this one I have seen enough to realise that the Govern-
  1510
  ment would be very often economical if it could be economical, and that expenditure is very largely the result of pushing on the part of Members. And with regard to that also I have to say that our own side of the House is not free from blame. We have, unfortunately, Liberal Jingoes as well as Conservative Jingoes, and wherever there is Jingoism I can see increased expenditure. At the same time the question is a very serious one. The expenditure of this country has risen to a tremendous pitch. Now, this question has been discussed before at various times, when the expenditure was nothing at all compared with what it is to-day. In 1850 Cobden made a speech advocating retrenchment. At that time the expenditure was £55,000,000. In 1873 the right honourable Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth made a speech advocating retrenchment, and at that time the expenditure had risen to £78,000,000. Now, in 1899, the expenditure of the country has risen to £112,000,000 per annum. The worst of it is that nobody seems to care; at least, very few seem to care what the expenditure of the country is. Some honourable Members devote their energies to criticising the Estimates on Friday nights, but they do not make their speeches in the hope of reducing these Estimates. That is a task beyond their powers. They criticise them in order to air their grievances, which is justifiable, and, possibly, to prevent jobbery. That also is justifiable. They do it sometimes, I am afraid, to prevent legislation; and that is not so justifiable. A good many of them do it in order to run up Divisions. I remember one Friday night, I do not know what was the subject of discussion, when there were 19 Divisions. I would not have minded that, but, unfortunately, I was not present to share in those Divisions. There are very cogent reasons why we should care for the expenditure of the country. The revenue is not booming as it used to do. At times, when the revenue is elastic and going up and up we would not mind so much the increase of expenditure. But the last Budget rather showed that the revenue is not so elastic as it was, and the consequence

  1511
  is that taxation has been increased. The very highest authority in this House on financial questions once said that "no Government was worthy of the name unless in times of peace it could remit taxation." In the second place, we have seen a tampering with the Sinking Fund. I do not use the word "tampering" in an offensive sense, but I do not know any other word to employ. The enormous increase in expenditure is specially alarming when we realise the source from which the money is drawn. I have heard many discussions in this House on the incidence of taxation. Taxation on property is generally resisted by many honourable Members, but I wonder if honourable Members realise that there is no taxation that is not levied on the work of the toilers of the country. There is no money that is spent by the Government that is not the result of the sweat of the brow of the working people. There is not any other source of wealth but the work of the working men. The estates of honourable Members would be perfectly valueless if the ground was not tilled: our coal mines would be valueless if we had not the men digging the coal. Of what use would our factories be if we had not spinners and those who worked at the loom. Take any kind of wealth you like, and trace it back to its origin, and you will find it in the toiling multitude. That is the reason why we should be so careful lest we should increase too much the expenditure of the nation. Honourable Members of Parliament forget these things. As a general rule we are pretty well to do, and we do not think much about increased expenditure, because many of our friends are interested in increased expenditure —I do not mean in an offensive way. We have friends in the Army, and in the Navy, and are glad that a million or two more should be spent upon them, forgetting that it is at the expense of the toilers of the country, who have to earn every penny of it. Two or three weeks ago an honourable Member made a remark which went to my heart. He spoke of the great rental of London, which he said was £20,000,000 per annum. "People say," he said, "surely
  1512
  you can put an extra penny on the £ without feeling it. But what if the men who pay these £20,000,000 are the men who also pay the extra penny in the £."That is precisely the case with the expenditure of the country. The men who earn every penny of the expenditure of the country are the working men. It is just so much more sweat wrung out of their brows. My honourable Friend in the course of his speech has spoken widely. I do not intend to speak widely. I shall confine my remarks to two points —the expenditure on the Army and the Navy. I am not anxious about the Civil Service expenditure. Indeed, I think that in many departments of the Civil Service it would be better if there were an increase in expenditure. I like to see plenty of money spent on education, and for law and justice, for I think these are items of productive expenditure. But as regards the Army and the Navy, the expenditure is unproductive in the ordinary sense of the term, for much of the money you spend on the Army and Navy in times of peace, roughly speaking, might as well be thrown into the sea. But the expenditure in a broader sense is unproductive, because the more you spend on the Army and Navy the more they demand should be spent upon them. Some years ago the right honourable Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth said that if you told a Government that it must defend the country for £20,000,000, the Government would find a way to do it. But because we can afford to pay £50,000,000, the Government demands that £50,000,000 should be spent. There is a very striking illustration in connection with that in Cobden's speech in 1855. Cobden at that time made a proposal of a very remarkable character. He said —
  "There are only four ships at present in the French navy that are clad with iron, whilst we have six or seven ironclads fit for war. "Why," said he, "cannot some statesman go across to France and try to make some arrangement by which our fleets should not be increased, seeing that the proportion of four to six was just as good a proportion as 40 to 60."
  Now that, of course, was common sense, but no statesman went across to France,

  1513
  and our fleets have steadily increased until we have, as a consequence of this mad race for naval armaments, the miles of ships which we saw in the Jubilee year. This mad rush for naval armaments has ended in the practical bankruptcy of various European nations, yet the race is apparently no nearer its end. "But," it will be said, "what can you do?" Well, I would like to propose something practical before I sit down. What are the Army and Navy for? Some will say, "Oh, to defend the island." I do not believe that any military man, would get up and say that any large proportion of the Navy was needed for the defence of the island. The island can in a great measure defend itself. It is a very long time since anyone tried to invade our island, and when they did try, although they were in proportion very much more powerful than we were, they were not so successful that they were likely to try it again. It is ridiculous to talk of our inflated Navy being necessary for the defence of our island. If anyone takes the trouble to read the Debates they will see how Chancellor of the Exchequer after Chancellor of the Exchequer has come down and sat on these benches and spoken with bated breath about some danger from France. For the last fifty years that has been the song of the Chancellors of the Exchequer and the leaders of the Government, and in the name of danger from France vast sums have been demanded from the House and the country. Why, I heard "danger from France." spoken of from that bench opposite a few days ago. In the name of danger from France the great bulk of the expenditure has been heaped upon the nation. It is 800 years since the Normans tried to invade this country. Well, honourable Gentlemen may laugh, but perhaps those who laugh do not remember the date of the Norman Conquest. It is 800 years since the Norman Conquest, and it was a conquest not by Frenchmen after all, but by our cousins, and we would not, even then, have been beaten but for our forces being drunk the night before the battle. Some honourable Gentlemen say, "Oh, we need £50,000,000 for the Army and Navy for the sake of defend-
  1514
  ing our trade." That is just as ridiculous as to say that we need £50,000,000 for the defence of the island. If our trade was confined to one or two countries perhaps it might be attacked. But as a matter of fact our trade is so diffused all over the world that no country could really attack our trade and no fleet could defend it. The fact is, that trade is its own defence. Three-fourths of our trade is with foreign countries, and each one of these foreign countries is interested in its own particular branch of trade not being interfered with. We know that no merchant wants to quarrel with his best customer, and England is the best customer the world has. If we live peaceably and beware of aggression our trade is the most gigantic bulwark we can possibly have. Then it is said. "Oh, our Army and Navy and the expenditure on them are needed to defend the Empire." That is the great argument in these latter days. I do not hesitate to say that nine out of every ten statesmen who get up on the floor of the House would say that this enormous expenditure is for the defence of the Empire. It is time that there was a clear understanding as to what the defence of the Empire implies. I do not mean to say that India should not be defended, or that the Crown Colonies should not be defended, or that those other parts of the Empire from which we have taken the means of self-defence should not be defended. Perhaps we may look upon it as our bounden duty to make the provision absolutely necessary for the defence of the shores of these countries. But, beyond these, there is the defence of our Colonies. We defend Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the Cape. If you look into the subject you will find —and military experts will agree with me —it is because we have to defend Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the Cape, and not for anything in connection with the defence of our island, that our Army and Navy are inflated, and that we incur this great expenditure. It is for these that our working men are bearing their enormous burdens. I do not think that the working men of this

  1515
  country should be any longer called upon to bear the defence of the working men in Canada, in Australia, in New Zealand, and the Cape. Is there any moral obligation upon us which demands that we should defend our free Colonies for ever and ever? There is a moral obligation on a parent to look after his children until they are big enough to look after themselves. But our Colonies have been long ago big enough to defend themselves. Well, is there any material reason why we should defend these Colonies? Not at all. Our Colonies do not show a single spark of gratitude for what we have done for them. They protect against us as severely as any foreign country. They keep out our own workmen. I have known men go to Canada and be told that Canada was kept for the Canadians, and be forced to return to this country. It is the same in Australia. Canada and Australia will take our farm servants and our domestic servants, but, as to artisans, there is not a Colony that does not shut the door against them, not because they do not need artisans, but because the working men there have formed a clique, and want to keep the work in their own hands and to maintain a high rate of wages. I have travelled in America, and I am convinced that an English working man has more chance of getting on in the United States than in Canada or Australia. But it is said that we trade with these great Colonies. But we would trade with them just the same if they were foreign countries. If honourable Gentlemen will look at the statistics of trade they will find that our trade with the United States amounts to £140,000,000, or £20,000,000 more than the trade with all the Colonies put together. We could afford to lose the trade of every one of our Colonies rather than the trade with America. Then our trade with France amounts to £70,000,000, or more than the trade with Australia, New Zealand, and Canada; and our trade with Germany is £62,000,000, or more than our trade with Australia and New Zealand, and three times as important as our trade with Canada. If we defend the Colonies because of our trade with them, why
  1516
  don't we defend the United States, and Germany, and France for the sake of our trade with them? Apart from that altogether I am really convinced, as a matter of principle, that it would be infinitely better for our Colonies that they should defend themselves. Just now these Colonies are being utterly spoiled by the mother country. I read a speech the other day by an Australian Premier, who said that "England cannot spend too much on our great Empire. "What does that mean? It means" she cannot spend too much on us." I saw lately that one of the Colonies was willing to pay the expense of two ships for the Navy as long as we spent the money in the Colony itself! The fact is that the advantage at present existing between the Mother Country and the Colonies is altogether on the side of the Colonies. We no longer monopolise the trade of the Colonies or job their patronage. We get no help from the Colonies to defend our shores, but we are bound to defend them. We get no fair treatment from them for our manufactures or our workmen and there is absolutely no reciprocity between the Mother Country and these Colonies. If our Colonies want to go, I believe there is not a Member of Parliament who would suggest that a sword should be drawn to prevent them. The Colonies have been allowed to drift into an exceedingly humiliating position. A great statesman has said that "no community which is not permanently charged with its own defence is a real community, and the burdens and privileges of freedom are inseparably associated." Our Colonies have the privileges of freedom; why should they not bear the burdens? Whatever else we may say about economy, this at least is clear. The time has come when it is consistent with sound statesmanship that the Colonies should take the duty of their defence upon themselves, and thus relieve the working classes at home of a burden of expenditure which they have borne far too long a time.
  Question put.
  Amendment proposed —
  "To leave out the words' in the opinion of this House,' and insert the words' while this House is anxious to provide for the maintenance of the Navy in its existing relative strength, it is of opinion that,' instead there of." —(Sir C. Dilke.)
  SIR C. DILKE: I will not follow the Seconder of the Resolution into the researches he has made in the history of naval warfare in this county. I believe there is a plate in a famous comic history of this country which represents Julius Caesar disembarking on our shores from a penny steamer —a plate with some figures which give some colour to the view which the honourable Member has put, that on that occasion the British Army was not in a condition through a want of self-control to repulse an invasion. Possibly the honourable Gentleman may have confused the landing of the Norman forces with the landing of Julius Caesar. I will not describe the unsuccessful attempt at invasion, which the honourable Gentleman has passed over without the slightest allusion —I mean that of Napoleon Bonaparte, which some few of us at any rate believe was prevented by the existence of the British Navy. I think the honourable Member the Mover of the Resolution made a very serious contribution indeed to the history of this finance question as it has been from time to time brought before the House of Commons. If I say something by way of criticism as to want of clearness in the main portion of his speech that does not prevent me expressing my profound admiration for the last part of his speech, with much of which I concur. The honourable Member used somewhat confused language, which I vainly tried to take down, with regard to what ought to be the position of this House and the country towards the expenditure on the Fleet. He appeared to try to meet the views of those in the House who are in favour of the maintenance of what he himself called the preponderating naval power. He said that there is this to be said in favour of naval expenditure, that we get value —a statement which is, generally speaking, true
  1518
  of naval expenditure, and more true in regard to our naval expenditure than it is in regard to the naval expenditure of most foreign powers —but he appears to object to the standard on which that expenditure has been made. Now, that standard is not the standard of any one Government; it is the standard adopted deliberately by two Liberal Governments and by two Conservative Governments. It has therefore a backing of very high authority in its favour. I submit that if the honourable Member for East Aberdeen, while accepting the general argument of the necessity of a, preponderating naval power on our part, is going to reject the standard which successive Governments of each Party have set up, he ought to have explained what he wants to substitute for that standard. I would also point out that while the honourable Member for East Aberdeen is clear in his record on this subject. and consistent in regard to the views he has expressed here to-night as to the preponderating naval power on our part, he is not in the same position as the honourable Member for Dumfries-shire, who seconded his resolution, no doubt at his wish. That honourable Gentleman voted in the present Session for a reduction of the number of men in the Fleet —a reduction which, I think, cannot be defended by any argument which the honourable Member for Dumfriesshire addressed to the House, and which is wholly inconsistent with the speech and the opinion of the honourable Member for East Aberdeen. The honourable Member for Dumfriesshire would defend his vote because he seems to think that the British Navy exists for the benefit of the officers of the Navy, and this House votes an increased expenditure on the Navy in order to please our friends. Even his trip in Jubilee Year to see miles of ships does not seem to have changed his views on the Navy, and therefore he voted in favour of a reduction of men for the Fleet. The honourable Member for Aberdeen has told the House that he has largely based his Motion on the Resolution which was moved by Mr. Stansfeld in 1862. The terms of the two

  1519
  Resolutions are very nearly the same, but the honourable Member attaches no importance, apparently, to the fact that the situation in Europe, so far as naval matters are concerned, has greatly changed since 1862. We have had, for example, that reign of iron in Europe which has led to an enormous increase, not only of armaments, but in the rapidity of the preparation of armies for war which did not exist at all in 1862. The latter period was almost like Napoleonic times so far as slowness of preparation is concerned. We must remember, also, when considering the necessities of our position as a naval power, the spirit in which foreign armaments have been used, at all events in warning to this country —the Bismarckian spirit in foreign affairs. We must remember Bismarck's celebrated phrase, "In the modern European fishpond there are pike and carp, and pike eat carp." Carp means nations that are not actively prepared for a defensive war, for a tight from that point of view must be regarded as defensive. Our Fleet is not necessitated by the Colonies, but necessitated by our position and trade apart from the question of whether we possess these Colonies or not. I entirely concur that it would be immensely advantageous to this country if these Colonies should make some sacrifice for naval defence. We all agree with that, and if anything prevents our speaking out very strongly on this matter it is from fear that that would do more harm than good. When some of the Colonies are already moving in that direction, to press the matter too rapidly might retard rather than advance the cause we all have at heart. But the vast bulk of the naval preparations here is for ourselves, and for our own trade, and would be required whether we possess these Colonies or not. Another consideration which cannot be left out of sight is the extraordinary rapidity of Russian naval preparation during last year. Every slip in France on which war ships can be built, in private yards, is at this moment occupied by the Russian Government, and the ships being built there are to be complete
  1520
  next year. The First Lord of the Admiralty has said publicly to Russia, "You cease this rapidity of construction, and we will at once respond to your concession." I do not see how we can make a positive reduction in advance, or go beyond that declaration. May we not lay it down as a maxim on which the great bulk of the House and the country are ready to take their stand, that we are to have what the late Leader of the Opposition, the right honourable Member for West Monmouth, in defending the Spencer programme, called the predominant fleet; and what an honourable Member for East Aberdeen called the preponderating naval power. No doubt the Seconder of the Resolution would not agree to that, but if the Mover were to form an administration he would not think it would be possible for him to reduce the standard of preparation which had been agreed on by the two sides of the House of Commons. When I say "standard," I mean the relative strength that we desire the country should possess in our Fleet; that is, a Fleet in material strength equal to the Fleets of the next two Great Powers. The honourable Member for East Aberdeen, while admitting this general maxim, says we are not to clamour for indefinite increases, but that we must keep the start we have obtained. No one wants to do more, and that is the whole object of the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper and which seems to me justified by the terms of the speech of the honourable Member, and also by the want of clearness in his own mind as to what is the standard of preparation. The question before the House in the Resolution of the honourable Member for Aberdeen is this: it, has been generally felt that the expenditure of this country is now extremely great, and it has been largely admitted that in some respects it is too great for the return we obtain from it. But where can we either save or get more value for our money? Now, what are the greatest increases which have been pointed at by the honourable Member. One is the new expenditure. But another of the greatest increases is on

  1521
  education, on which most honourable Members will agree we do not wish to save, and on which the democracy of the country desire that more rather than less should be expended. The democracy are much more favourable to getting value for their money than to cutting down expenditure. There is some education on which some of us may think that our money is not so well spent as it might be, and if the right honourable Member for Cambridge University sat for a different constituency we might have it better spent than at the present time. Then there are the grants towards local expenditure which many of us think are extravagant grants. The money spent under the Agricultural Rating Act is, as regards some of the constituencies, positive robbery, because it has increased the charges, on the collieries and the tin-works and the properties of small freeholders and decreased those on persons who in the West of England are better off. Then we come to Africa, which my honourable Friend puts forward as being the main new expenditure. And so it is; but my honourable Friend has not been quite consistent with himself. He voted in favour of the chief Votes for that expenditure. There are some of us who have voted from the first on every Division against it, but my honourable Friend supported that expenditure on occasion after occasion. The honourable Member for Dumfriesshire was no more consistent, for he voted in favour of the £600,000 which is now being spent annually on the Uganda railway. Honourable Members are often told that they ought not to advocate expenditure unless they are prepared to pay the bill and to share the unpopularity of that expenditure when the bill comes to be paid. These are the main new expenditures, apart from the military and naval expenditure. As the honourable Member for East Aberdeen has pointed out, our war expenditure is not now only on the Army and Navy Votes; it is very largely an increasing expenditure on Africa and in the Civil Service Estimates, or an expenditure of loan money. One of the severest remarks that has been made in regard to the finance of the
  1522
  country at the present time is the confusion which is being produced in the public mind and belief that the expenditure is less than it is, because it is muddled up in this way between the Army and Navy Votes and the loan account. We have had an attack on the African expenditure by the Treasury itself. In the last general statement issued by the Treasury upon that expenditure it is stated —
  "My Lords note a great increase in military expenditure in the Colonies and abroad,"
  and they point to Egypt and South Africa as being the cause of that increase. But we have also in the Civil Service Estimates Uganda, British East Africa, West Africa, and Central Africa; and in regard to all this African expenditure, many of us entirely deny the possibility of showing that it gives any return to this country for the cost that is now going on. We do not believe that the opportunities of trade offered to this country by this gigantic expenditure will ever give any adequate return for it. The Government themselves are now hesitating with regard to this African expenditure. Probably, in the long run, the least unfertile and unproductive portion of Africa towards which their attention has been directed in recent years is the district of the Bahr-el-Ghazel; but at the present time they have not been able to make up their minds not to hand over that territory to the Congo State. Well, the Government have also reduced the payments by the Colonies for military expenditure. The repayment by the Straits Settlement was recently reduced. That, to my mind, is a step in the wrong direction. Why should we tax India for all the money spent in its military defence, and yet the rich Colonies like the Straits and Ceylon, which are Crown Colonies in the immediate neighbourhood of India, are not charged at the same rate as we charge India? I think that cannot be defended. But, on the whole, we are to consider what the cost of this enormous naval and military expenditure is, and whether there is some chance of making a saving upon it. I have a suggestion to make to the House. It is that it is

  1523
  far more possible that we may be able to make that saving on the Army than upon the naval expenditure. It is impossible to discuss this matter at length and be in order under this Resolution; because it would not be in order to discuss the military expenditure in India. And yet it is impossible to separate between the military expenditure at home and that in India, for it is the same Army as far as the white troops are concerned. The total expenditure for the naval and military services at home, in the Colonies, and in India in the present financial year will be, if you take the rupee at the ordinary rate of exchange, £72,000,000 sterling; or £76,000,000 sterling, taking the rupee at what the Treasury says that it is really worth when spent in India. Now, of this enormous figure we spend on the Navy £29,000,000 sterling (and if we take the whole of the expenditure for naval bases and coaling stations, we spend £31,000,000 on the Navy), as compared with £43,000,000 at one rate of exchange and £47,000,000 if we take the other rate of exchange, which we spend on the land forces and fixed defences. The answer is always made that our Army is enormously costly because we have not conscription. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the Colston Banquet, speaking with the fullest authority and knowledge on this point, answered that argument. The right honourable Gentleman said —
  "Conscription enters into the account, but does not at all fully account, or even mainly account, for the cost of our Army as compared with foreign armies."
  And that is true. As regards the Fleet, in spite of the fact that conscription enters into the question, our Fleet is cheap as compared with the fleets of foreign countries, and very cheap as compared with the fleet of France. In Russia the charge for the personnel of the fleet is difficult to get at, but as regards material, our Fleet is very cheap compared with that of Russia; and as regards both personnel and material our Fleet is very cheap as compared with that of France, and that in spite of conscription entering into the
  1524
  account. While I should not be in order in dealing with the Army Service of the country, I would once again suggest to the House that it is on the Army that the House must fix its eye if it wishes to make any great saving in the national expenditure. We have enormously increased the Army expenditure in the last few years, but we have not increased the striking strength of the Army in those years —in fact, we have actually reduced it. The actual numbers of our Regular Army in war must be drawn from our Regular Army, Militia, and Reserve, and the total strength of these bodies has not increased between the 1st of January 1895 and the 1st of January 1899, with all the increased expenditure. The total force at home has, indeed, been greatly diminished since 1895, and yet it is from that force at home that the Army would have to be drawn in order to be sent abroad. My belief is that the safety of the country will lie on the lines of a different system for the Home Service and the Indian Service. The change might be one which would give us a shorter service, which would give us an Army at home reminding us both of the Line and Militia and of the Volunteers, but not exactly one of these —a single short-service Army instead of one based on these three complicated systems. Having discussed this matter in full detail, I am persuaded, and I know that many military officers of very high authority are persuaded also, that if this country were to tackle this problem of army reform, instead of merely moving Resolutions of reduction, there is a possibility of a very great saving of money with no loss of efficiency, as contrasted with our present system. Well, can this be done with the Navy? Can there be a reduction of the expenditure on the Navy apart from any consideration of the standard of the strength of our Navy compared with any other Powers? When the present Government came into office we were promised that there would be a joint consideration of our whole scheme of defence, and that a Committee of the Cabinet would be appointed to consider what the combined system should be. The Cabinet Committee has never really

  1525
  exercised the authority which we hoped it would exercise as regards watching the total defence of the country, Army and Navy together; and there has still been in the Estimates a tendency that when the Navy gets an increase of expenditure, the Army wants an increase on the old lines. The increase as regards the Navy has been very different to that on the Army; and in regard to that you can put your finger on tangible results, such as the enormous advantage of having men with longer training. The increase of expenditure has been steady and not spasmodic, since the time of the Spencer programme; it has been consistent, and, whether we like it or not, we can point to tangible results. But the increase of expenditure on the Army has been to some extent spasmodic, and not automatic; it has not been necessitated by what has been done before; there have been increases in the dark without a definite strengthening of the tangible forces of the country. And it is clear the Mover, rather than the Seconder of this Motion, must be followed by the great bulk of honourable Members in regard to the view enunciated as to the Navy. It would be a most dishonest practice if we issue pamphlets recommending candidates to the constituencies on the ground that they supported the Spencer programme and then refuse to pay the bill, and go back from the necessary result of the Policy we then approved. As regards the Army we are in a wholly different position. There we have never seen definite tangible results of the increase of expenditure; we were not parties to that increase; we never accepted it except in a most unwilling way. We were always asking for definite measures of reform, and have suggested what those measures should be. I therefore submit the Amendment which stands in my name.
  MR. ALLAN: In seconding this Amendment I should like to say a few words upon some of the expressions which have fallen from the honourable Member for Dumfries-shire. It came upon me as a surprise to hear a Scotchman, of all men, say that the
  1526
  money spent on the Navy is as money flung into the sea. Such an expression as that, coming from a countryman of my own, savours somewhat of an absurdity. The honourable Gentleman places no value whatever upon our mercantile marine. Ships and trade, according to him, may take care of themselves. It is all very well to say that, but surely we have some duty devolving on us in regard to the matter. The honourable Member said he would like to see the money spent on education, law and justice. That is a very strange expression again, for if money is spent ran anything at all, surely it should be first applied to the defences of the country. The honourable Member also urged that we should do nothing for our Colonies. Now, Australia and New Zealand are largely peopled by my own countrymen. I believe they defend themselves. Unless I am mistaken, we have not a single red-coat in either Australia or New Zealand. They have their own volunteers, they are paying their way, and they are showing a substantial balance of revenue over expenditure almost every year. That, I think, is highly creditable for Colonies hardly 50 years old. To talk about letting them stand or fall as they like is ridiculous. They have no enemies at all, and our duty is certainly to support them until they grow stronger. There is another point I should like to dwell upon. The House must be aware that warships, nowadays, are very costly things indeed. We must keep steadily before us the fact, that at this moment we cannot build a battleship with her iron plates, engines, boilers (of a kind), and her armaments, for less than a million of money. We must also remember that these ships get obsolete, and, going down to Portsmouth, Plymouth, Devonport, and Chatham, one may see ships built 10 or 20 years ago lying in dozens, totally different in type and design, as well as in arrangement, from the vessels of to-day. This country must naturally move in line with scientific progress. It is very possible that, within the next five years, the ships built to-day will have become obsolete, and, therefore, if you intend to keep abreast of the times, it is impossible to reduce

  1527
  the naval expenditure. I am proud of the honourable Member for Aberdeenshire. He spoke like a grand Scotchman. He said we must have a preponderating Navy in order to ensure security at home and abroad. I remember, too, a remarkable expression at Manchester, by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Montrose, to the effect that we must not only have a powerful Navy, but an all-powerful one. I agree with that. I was pleased to hear the proposer of this Resolution speaking about our ships in such a healthy manner, and I was very sorry indeed to hear the honourable Member for Dumfriesshire giving utterance to the ideas he did. He spoke also about a drunken Army. Well, the only instance I know of in which a drunken army won a victory was at the battle of Bannock burn. The night previous to the battle the Highlanders were served with a pretty good dose of what is commonly called whisky, and the next day they did their work well, and were not defeated. As a supporter of a strong Navy, and as one who believes that the security and the strength of this Empire rest upon the Navy, I heartily second the Amendment moved by the right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Nobody can deny that the question of the expenditure of this country is one of transcendent importance for this country and for Parliament, and therefore I should be the last to say that the Resolution is not one which, so far as the subject-matter is concerned, deserves our most earnest attention. But the very importance of the subject really militates against the utility of this discussion. In view of the enormous number of topics it embraces, the enormous number of interests it touches, the enormous number of controversies it inevitably suggests, it is perfectly impossible within the compass of an evening, or even of a dozen evenings, adequately to discuss the Motion. Even waiving such garnishments of debate as the battles of Bannockburn and Hastings, and the historical controversies arising between two honourable countrymen of
  1528
  my own as to the condition in which soldiers ought to be in order to safely repel the invasion of their country, consider the number of subjects which have already been raised by the four speakers who have already addressed us, all from the other side of the House. The right honourable Baronet has adumbrated his solution of the expenditure difficulty by raising not in detail, but in general outline, an enormous scheme of Army reform which would' entirely alter the mode in which the Home Army should be raised, and so radically change the mode in which the Indian Army is raised. That alone is a topic of enormous importance and complexity; and when an honourable Gentleman gets up in the House and says that the problem of expenditure, and problem of economy, is to be solved by carrying out this particular scheme of Army reform, when that scheme is of so complicated and drastic a character as the right honourable Baronet's, surely it renders the adequate discussion of that topic almost impossible within the range of an ordinary Debate. The honourable Member for Dumfriesshire started theories of taxation which alone might occupy —I will not say profitably —a considerable time, because he laid down broadly the proposition that all taxation, of whatever kind, however imposed, and whoever the nominal payer might be, fell directly upon the working classes. That is a new view.
  MR. SOUTTAR: Ultimately.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Well, Sir, I never heard that even that view was accepted by any recognised economist. But in any case an ardent supporter of the Finance Act of the late Government ought not, I think, to destroy the great scheme put forward by the framers of that financial Measure, and ought not to explain to the country that, although nominally the taxes are put upon the rich, in reality there is only one class who pay them, and that is the class who are engaged in manual labour. The honourable. Gentleman also gave us a general view of our Policy which certainly must have been a sur-

  1529
  prise to the House. He told us these islands could defend themselves. Whether he meant the geological structure of the islands or the undisciplined, unpaid inhabitants of these islands, I do not know. Not content with that proposition —sufficiently startling from the military point of view —he said our commerce could defend itself. That is surely a new and startling proposition. It is perfectly true he developed that theory by saying our commerce was so useful, not only to ourselves, but to the nations with whom that commerce was carried on, that they would have every intention and desire to maintain it unimpaired. But the honourable Gentleman, however, is of opinion that it floats the seas in perfect safety. Not that he supposes aggression impossible; not that he takes the view that human nature has reached such a, pitch of perfection that no nation will attempt to prey upon any other. He does not hold that view. He thinks that every nation in the world is pacific and unaggressive except one, and that is ourselves. If we abstain from aggression, he says that no other nation will attack us. He therefore thinks aggression possible; indeed, I hold he imagines that we ourselves are the aggressors, that it is only the immoral inhabitants of this country who are capable of making any assaults on our neighbours' property and territory, and if they abstain from these illicit acts they need not have any fear that other nations will imitate their example, or that the manifold temptations offered by defenceless shores or a rich commerce will ever prove too much for the virtue of our neighbours in other lands. I have nearly come to the end of the topics raised in this Debate. Of course, it is manifest, and, indeed, it is not denied by the Mover of the Motion, that in order to consider the question of national expenditure, you must go through the items of that national expenditure. He accordingly went through them —the naval and the military expenditure, the loan expenditure, the expenditure upon Voluntary schools, the expenditure upon the Irish Local Govern-
  1530
  ment Act, and the expenditure upon the Agricultural Hating Bill. Is it possible that the most famished House of Commons should not be gorged by a bill of fare of that kind? Is it possible we could with advantage attempt to deal with an array of subjects such as the honourable Gentleman put before us? And if we only touch upon them as he did, just upon the surface of the subject, what advantage is gained, what lessons are learned, what profit comes to us in our future Debates? With regard to two or three of the topics, such as the Voluntary school expenditure, the Irish local government expenditure, and the agricultural rates expenditure, the honourable Gentleman repeated to us all the ordinary, commonplace platform platitudes of his Party to be found in all the leaflets which are circulated by his Friends. Of course, I could give replies to all these comments which we think satisfactory. They have often been given before, although the honourable Gentleman and his Friends have not been convinced by them. But is there any gain to this House or the country to be obtained by saying that the Irish expenditure was a dole to the landlords for their acquiescence in Irish local government, that the Voluntary schools Measure was entered into for sectarian purposes, and that the agricultural rates expenditure went as doles to the landlords? These are the current calumnies upon these three topics. I could refute them, I think, with the brevity with which I have stated them. But is it worth while, in a Debate like this, going into the relations of the Voluntary schools and our system of education, and the immense loss to that system of education and to the ratepayer which would in inevitably follow, as we think, upon the destruction of the Voluntary schools? Is it worth while pointing out to the honourable Gentleman with regard to the expenditure upon the Agricultural Rating Bill that in our view, right or wrong, the old incidence of rates upon agricultural property was very unjust, and that if that injustice was to redressed it must be redressed without

  1531
  cost to the other ratepayers, and we thought, taking all the circumstances of the case into account, that it was far better that that injustice should be redressed at the cost of the general exchequer? That is our view. Is it worth repeating in this Debate? And yet, if these facts are not repeated, how can we make an adequate survey of the subjects raised? Again, is it worth while reminding the honourable Gentleman with regard to the Irish expenditure that that expenditure was an integral part of the plan of giving local government to Ireland? When that plan was first sketched by me in this House, a year before it was carried into effect, with a full statement, or, at any rate, an adequate statement of the financial conditions by which it was to be accompanied, honourable Gentlemen opposite —perhaps in a momentary enthusiasm of which they have repented since —regarded it as a statesmanlike proposal.
  SIR W. LAWSON: No.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I beg pardon; the Leaders of all sections of opinion in this House hailed the sketch of the plan with a chorus of general approval. I daresay the honourable Baronet the Member for the Cockermouth Division of Cumberland, who I think was the dissentient who interrupted me just now, objected to the plan.
  SIR W. LAWSON: I spoke against it.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I thought so. He always does object to these transactions. I say the Leaders of opinion, the Irish and English Opposition, as well as those Gentlemen who usually support the Government, were all agreed that the proposal was a good one. These are three items of Civil Service expenditure which are not of an automatic character, and having defended these briefly, what more is there to be said? There is only one thing more, and that is, perhaps, a relevant observation. If the honourable Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen and
  1532
  his Friends, if the Party opposite, speaking generally, object to the expenditure, it is in their power, when they next have to give as a Party their programme of the future Policy, of the country, to lay down as one of the first things they mean to do the fact that they mean to deprive the Voluntary schools of the grants, to deprive Ireland of the £700,000 a year that is given to her, and not to renew the Agricultural Rating Act. We can test the earnestness and sincerity of the Party opposite with regard to these three items of Civil Service expenditure by seeing what line they mean to pursue when it comes to their turn either to direct the affairs of the country, or, at all events, when they challenge the constituencies with a view to obtaining the direction of affairs. I think I may defer to that time any further arguments upon these subjects. There only remain the Army and the Navy. As regards the Army, all that has been said is that there has been an increase, and that we have not got a sufficient amount of national advantage out of the increase we have had to pay. I do not agree with that. I am not going into details of the Army expenditure, but I think the increase of that expenditure was absolutely necessary. I do not see how in the present state of our affairs we could go on permanently maintaining the immense disparity between the regiments at home and abroad, and I entirely deny that our action in South Africa is in any sense a reversal of what the honourable Gentleman described as Lord Cardwell's policy. I leave the Army and go to the Navy. The honourable Gentleman himself gives up the case against the Fleet. He admitted, at all events, that the House and the country were agreed that the country were right in their expenditure on the Fleet, and the only criticism which I could collect from him was that in determining the number of ships which we ought to build we ought not to have regard to the principle now so often laid down and so long acted upon of main taining our Fleet on a level with any two other Powers; but we ought, as he said, to look round to see what combina-

  1533
  tion might be possible against us, and frame the strength of our Fleet upon such a survey. I do not see how the standard set up by the honourable Gentleman differs from the standard which we have maintained, except for the worse. Our standard is a plain and simple one, and can always be maintained by making ourselves acquainted with the building programmes of other nations. But, Sir, the possible alliances with us or against us are necessarily fluctuating, and it is absolutely impossible for any Government to put them up as a, fixed standard. If we were to settle what combinations we might conceivably have to fear we should have to arrange from year to year an annual Budget which would enable us to deal effectually with the matter. Under these circumstances, I do not think any advantage can be gained by discussing the Army. The increases in the Civil Service expenditure are either automatic, or come under the three heads I have discussed. That being so, I confess I do not see that any great advantage will be attained by the House passing either any Resolution in favour of economy or an abstract Resolution confirming the Votes which they themselves have given in past years or this year in Committee of Supply. It would be extraordinary for the House to condemn in the gross that which it has granted in detail. Every shilling of expenditure has been submitted to it. This House has every shilling of expenditure shown to it, to which it assents before that expenditure takes place, and
  it is really absurd when it has sanctioned that expenditure item by item to come down here and say it objects to the total thus obtained. I hope, therefore, the House will not think it necessary to prolong this discussion. We, of course, cannot assent either to the Resolution in its original form or in its amended form. The right honourable Baronet proposes to exclude the Navy; my honourable and gallant Friend behind me has an Amendment on the Paper to exclude the Army from the proposal. In my opinion the comedy would be complete if some honourable Gentleman would get up and propose to exclude the Civil Service. Then I think we might very properly conclude that the total expenditure of the country was, indeed, too great, but that we were not spending too much on the Army, the Navy, or the Civil Service. That would be a happy commentary on the discussion, and really I do not think any more useful result is likely to be attained.
  Question put —
  "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Agreed to.
  Main Question put —
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the national expenditure is excessive, and is capable of reduction without compromising the safety or legitimate influence of the country abroad, or the efficency of its home administration." —(Mr. Buchanan.)
  The House divided: —Ayes 69; Noes 133. —(Division List No. 85.)

  AYES.

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Davitt, Michael

  Lambert, George

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Dillon, John

  Langley, Batty

  Baker, Sir John

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

  Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire)

  Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

  Leng, Sir John

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Ellis, John Edwd. (Notts.)

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Burns, John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry

  Lloyd-George, David

  Caldwell, James

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbt. J.

  Lough, Thomas

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Gourley, Sir Edward T.

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. C. Seale-

  McArthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Holden, Sir Angus

  McDermott, Patrick

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Holland, W. H. (York, W.R.)

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Curran, Thos. (Sligo, S.)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Maddison, Fred.

  Curran, Thos. B. (Donegal)

  Kinloch, Sir John George S.

  Maden, John Henry

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Richardson, J. (Durham)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Moss, Samuel

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hud'rsf'd)

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Shaw, Chas. E. (Stafford)

  Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Souttar.

  Pease, Jos. A. (Northumb.)

  Steadman, William Charles

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  NOES.

  Arnold, Alfred

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Arrol, Sir William

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edwd.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Pym, C. Guy

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

  Goschen, Rt Hn G J (S. George's)

  Rasch, Major F. Carne

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Bethell, Commander

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Robertson, Herbt. (Hackney)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Heath, James

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Rutherford, John

  Bolitho, Thos. Bedford

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

  Sharpe, William Edwd. T.

  Brassey, Albert

  Houston, R. P.

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Howell, William Tudor

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

  Cavendish, R. E. (N. Lanes.)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (D'rbyshire

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Keswick, William

  Smith, J. Parker (Lanarksh.)

  Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

  Kimber, Henry

  Stanley, Edwd. J. (Somerset)

  Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

  Lafone, Alfred

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Chamberlain, Rt. HnJ. (Birm.)

  Lawrence, Sir E.D. (Cornwall)

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M' Taggart

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Lawrence, W. P. (Liverpool)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles H.

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

  Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Livrpool)

  Thorburn, Walter

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lowe, Francis William

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Usborne, Thomas

  Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Mc Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  McKillop, James

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Marks, Harry H.

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

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Whiteley, Geo. (Stockport)

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton-under-L)

  Doughty, George

  Milward, Col. Victor

  William's, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Doxford, William Theodore

  More, Robt. J. (Shropshire)

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

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Mount, William George

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J (Manc'r)

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

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Finch, George H.

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Forster, Henry William

  Percy, Earl

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Pierpoint, Robert

  On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval,

  Attention having been called to the fact that there were not 40 Members present, the House was counted, and 40 Members not being present—

  The House was adjourned at forty-five minutes after Eight of the clock.

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLORtook his seat upon the Woolsack at Four of the clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—
Education Department Provisional Order Confirmation (Aberavon, etc.) [H.L.]
And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—
Buenos Ayres and Pacific Railway Company [H.L.]
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

WORKINGTON CORPORATION WATER BILL [H.L.]
(Petition for additional Provision.)
Examiner's Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Monday next.

LOWESTOFT PROMENADE PIER BILL.
Examiner's Certificates on non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Monday next.
MID-KENT GAS BILL [H.L.]
Committee (which stands appointed for Thursday next) put off to Friday next.
WICK AND PULTENEY HARBOURS BILL [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The order made on the 27th of February last discharged; and Bill committed.
LOWESTOFT WATER AND GAS BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, that the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 2nd and 24th of March last discharged; and Bill committed.
BOGNOR URBAN DISTRICT WATER BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
ST. ALBAN'S GAS BILL [H.L.]
Reported with Amendments.
GLASGOW CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS, ETC.) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
CROWBOROUGH DISTRICT WATER BILL
Read a second time, and committed.
FISHGUARD WATER AND GAS BILL.
Read a second time, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
BUENOS AYRES AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
Read a second time (according to order).

WATERMEN'S AND LIGHTERMEN'S ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
Motion made, and Question proposed —
"That this Bill be read a second time,"—(The Chairman of Committees.)
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I have been asked to present a petition against this Bill at this stage on behalf of the Shipping Federation of the United Kingdom. They have asked me to oppose the Second Reading, but I do not think that advisable, inasmuch as their objection can be urged before the Committee to which the Bill will be sent. The Bill is a very important one, for it practically changes the whole power and management of the Thames watermen and lightermen, and puts the power and management in the hands of the lightermen themselves. The Shipping Federation say they oppose the Bill on the ground that its proposals are contrary to public policy, and would interfere materially with the interests of the petitioners, who also deny that any public necessity exists for the granting of the powers sought, and that any public advantage will result therefrom. I desire to present petitions against the Bill from a number of other bodies —namely, the Association of Master Lightermen and Bargeowners, the BargeownerB' Protection Society, the Amalgamated Society of Foremen and Lightermen, the Conservators of the River Thames, the Corporation of West Ham, and the Master Wardens and Commonalty of the Watermen's Company, who object to the Bill variously on the ground that it would place all the powers of the Watermen's Company practically in the hands of the working lightermen, and that this might tend to the relaxation of discipline and to the disregard of the public interests for the supposed benefit of the Lightermen's Trade Union. I beg leave, my Lords, to present these petitions.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Earl of DUDLEY): My Lords, I hope this Bill will be read a second time.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I do not oppose the Second Reading.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE: I am glad to hear that my noble Friend does not intend to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, because really the question of the preamble of this Bill is merely the future construction of the court which governs the affairs of the lightermen and watermen upon the Thames. I do not agree altogether with my noble Friend that the effect will be to throw the whole management into the hands of the working lightermen themselves. That is primarily a question to be best decided by the Committee to which it will be referred; but there are one or two clauses which I think will require consideration, and care will have to be taken to see that there it, no undue overlapping of authority between the court and the bodies which have jurisdiction now in matters such as the manning and sanitary condition of ships that ply upon the Thames.

IMPERIAL MARKETS AND STORES BILL [H.L.]
Second Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Monday next.
DUMBARTON BURGH BILL [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ARBROATH CORPORATION GAS BILL [H.L.]
Read a third time and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BURLEY-IN-WHARFEDALE URBAN DISTRICT WATER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time; and referred to The Examiners.
CLAY CROSS WATER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time; and referred to the Examiners.
ILFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (RATES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time; and referred to the Examiners.
WOODHOUSE AND CONISBOROUGH RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time; and referred to the Examiners.
CATHCART'S DIVORCE BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons; agreed to.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Rules made for Scotland under the Elementary Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1898.
  WAR OFFICE
  Memorandum showing the duties of the principal officers and Departments of the War Office, and details of office procedure under the Order in Council dated 7th March 1899

  INDIA (FAMINE)
  Appendices to the Report of the Indian Famine Commission, 1898, being minutes of evidence, etc.

  Vol. I. Bengal;

  Vol. II. Madras Presidency;

  Vol. III. Bombay Presidency;

  Vol. IV. The Central Provinces and Berar;

  Vol. V. The North Western Provinces and Oudh;

  Vol. VI. The Punjab;

  Vol. VII. Miscellaneous.

  SIGHT TESTS.
  Reports on the sight-tests used in the Mercantile Marine for 1898 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper [C.-8865]).

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Returns of accidents and casualities as reported to the Board of Trade by the several railway companies in the United Kingdom during the year ending 31st December 1898: in pursuance of the Regulation of Railways Act (1871), 34th and 35th Victoria, chap 78; together with reports of the inspecting officers of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain accidents which were inquired into.
  Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.

  INDIA (LOANS RAISED IN ENGLAND).
  Return of all loans raised in England under the provisions of any Acts of Parliament chargeable on the revenues of India outstanding at the commencement of the half-year ended on the 31st March 1899, with the rates and interest and total amount payable thereon, etc. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
PETITIONS.
  WATERMEN'S AND LIGHTERMEN'S ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  Petition against; of the Shipping Federation; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
  Petition against the sale of, to children under the age of 13; of Corporation of Nelson; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDS) ACT, 1872.
  Petition for the Amendment of; of the Corporation of Nelson; read, and ordered to lie upon the Table.
NEW BILLS.
  COPYRIGHT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend and consolidate the law relating to literary copyright. (No. 44.) Was presented by the Lord Monkswell; read a first time; to be printed; and to be read a second time on Monday next.
  COPYRIGHT (ARTISTIC) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to simplify and amend the law relating to copyright in artistic works. (No. 45.) Was presented by the Lord Monkswell; read a first time; to be printed; and to be read a second time on Monday next.
  ST. ANDREW'S BURGH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  House to be in Committee on Thursday next.
PUBLIC BUSINESS.

  TROUT FISHING ANNUAL CLOSE TIME (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Motion made, and Question put —
  "That this Bill be read a second time."-(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, the object of the Bill which I rise to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading is to establish a close time for trout in Scotland, during which time it will not be legal to fish for, or take trout in any river, lake, or loch in Scotland by net, rod, or line, or to have possession of such trout, or expose them for sale. The period which we propose is to begin on the 15th of October, and to end on the 28th February. It is, of course, in such a matter as this, difficult to suit the circumstances of every locality, or to be sure that one is in accord with the opinion of everyone who is interested in the matter. Some would, no doubt, prefer a longer close time, and
  1432
  some few possibly desire that the close time should be for a shorter period. The period which we propose in this Bill has been arrived at and decided after a good deal of consultation and conference with many of those who are interested, and, upon the whole, I believe it is a period which will suit most districts and be in accord with the great majority of opinion of those concerned. I do not think that anyone will seriously take exception to the date at which the close time is proposed to end, because I cannot conceive of anyone desiring to fish for, or catch trout before the 1st of March. It is, of course, impossible that the close time for trout can be made to accord with that for salmon, because, owing to the migratory habits of the latter fish, it would not be possible to have a similar time for all the rivers or districts in Scotland. As to the date on which we propose that the close time should commence, I am quite aware that many interested in the subject would like, to see it fixed for an earlier period, but I suggest 15th October from a desire to go upon the principle of not asking too much in the hope that what I believe to be a very much needed change in the law will pass without opposition. I believe there is a great need for such a close time in Scotland, and there is a general desire for it among all who are interested. There is, I think, no doubt whatever that trout are diminishing in number in all the accessible parts of Scotland on account of the great amount of fishing which goes on. Trout are undoubtedly of some value as food, but it is in the other aspect that I think they are even more valuable —namely, as a fish which gives an immense amount of sport and innocent recreation to a very large number of the population. In Scotland pike and other coarse fish are hardly worth considering, because they scarcely exist in such numbers as to provide sport. But I think it will be within the knowledge of those of your Lordships who are familiar with Scotland, that trout fishing is perhaps the most popular recreation of a sporting kind in? Scotland, and it appeals without exception to all classes. I maintain that taking trout during the period which I have named is a wasteful, foolish, and senseless proceeding. During that time they are absolutely useless for food, and practically give little or no amusement to

  1433
  those who catch them. But in the case of those rivers and streams which are accessible, large numbers of people take advantage of their remaining open, and thus selfish persons, though few in proportion to the total number of anglers, do a great deal of harm to the sport of those who only fish for trout during the proper time. There is no sort of intention by this Bill to limit the proper facilities which those who like the sport can have for enjoying it. It is introduced rather for the purpose of protecting trout for the greater number, and it would thus give greater enjoyment. In England there is, in almost every fishing district, a close time for trout, and the only wonder that I have is that more persistent efforts have not been made to secure this reform in Scotland; it has been agitated for several years; a great majority of the county councils have pronounced in favour of the proposals; the angling associations are practically unanimous in support of the Bill, and I believe that all my predecessors in office have expressed themselves in favour of such a change, which has also the support of the Fishery Board of Scotland. I place this Bill before your Lordships with every confidence that it will be read a second time.
  THE EARL OF MORAY: My Lords, I welcome the Bill now before the House as a move in the right direction. I should, however, have preferred that the close time should commence on 1st October rather than on the l5th, but this may be taken as a tentative Measure which can be amended if it is found not to work well. I beg to support the Second Reading of the Bill.

  LUNACY BILL.
  Motion made, and Question proposed —
  "That this Bill be read a second time."—{The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): It is with confidence I ask your Lordships to read this Bill a second time, as it has been twice before your Lordships' House. The only subject of controversy had reference to the question of the salaries of assistants and attendants in asylums of a public charac-
  1434
  ter, and in the event of opposition being again raised to these clauses I propose to strike them out, as the other matters with which the Bill deals are of a serious nature, and require urgent amendment.
  Question put.
  Bill read a second time.

  SUPREME COURT (APPEALS) BILL.
  Bill passed through Committee without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed —
  "That the Standing Committee be negatived."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thought it would be better that the Bill should go through in the regular form, because I propose to move that the Standing Committee be negatived, and if there was any objection to be raised to any part of the Bill I thought an opportunity ought to be given. This Bill alters, as I think your Lordships are aware, one section in the Judicature Act whereby there requires to be in the Court of Appeal three judges sitting in order to hear an appeal. It has been brought to my attention that on a number of occasions parties would have been very glad, when there was some difficulty in forming the full Court of Appeal by the sitting of three judges, to have agreed to a hearing before two judges, but were not prepared to do so, as it would be forfeiting their right to appeal to your Lordships' House, as that court would have been a court by agreement and not a court established by law. The result would have been bound by the decision of the Court of Appeal with no right whatever to appeal here. This Bill is designed to preserve the right of further appeal to the House of Lords in cases where two judges have by consent of the parties heard the case in the Appeal Court.

  LAND CHARGES BILL [H.L.]
  To be read a second time on Thursday next.

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  Read a first time; to be printed; and to be read a second time on Thursday next; and Standing Orders NOS. XXXIX. and XLV. to be considered in order to their being dispensed with. (No. 46.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That this House do now adjourn."—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)

  ST. PAUL'S CATHEDRAL.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Before the House adjourns, I should like to say that on Friday I propose putting two questions to the Government with reference to what is called the decoration of St. Paul's. I do not know who will answer on behalf of the Government, but I only hope that before the noble Lord does so, he will go to St. Paul's and see for himself what is going on —a course which I would also recommend other members of your Lordships' House to pursue.
  House adjourned at forty-five minutes after Four of the clock.