Sitting of 14 February 1899

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Three of the clock.
APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEES.

  STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
  Ordered, That the Select Committe on Standing Orders to consist of Thirteen Members:
  Mr. Buchanan, Sir William Coddington, Mr. John Edward Ellis, Sir Thomas Esmonde, Sir Edward Gourley, Mr. Halsey, Mr. Humphreys-Owen, Mr. James Lowther, Sir John Lubbock, Sir John Mowbray, Mr. William Redmond, Sir Mark Stewart, and Mr. Whitmore were accordingly nominated Members of the Committee. (Mr. Halsey.)

  SELECTION.
  Ordered, That the Committee of Selection do consist of Eleven Members:
  Mr. Sydney Buxton, Sir John Dorington, Sir William Hart Dyke, Dr. Farquharson, Mr. Halsey, Mr. Justin M'Carthy, Mr. Albert Spicer, Mr. Philip Stanhope, Mr. Wharton, Mr. Wodehouse, and the Chairman of the Select Committee on Standing Orders were accordingly nominated Members of the Committee. (Mr. Halsey)

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION BILL.
  "To make further provisions with reference to, and to confer further powers on the Undertakers of the Navigation of the Rivers of Aire and Calder, in the West Riding of the County of York, to amend the Acts relating to their undertaking; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  AYR BURGH BILL.
  "To authorise the Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council of the burgh of Ayr to construct and work tramways, and for making further and better provision in regard to the water supply, the common good, the cemetery, the markets, and slaughter houses of the burgh; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  BAKER STREET AND WATERLOO RALWAY BILL.
  "To enable the Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Company to make new Railways and works; to confer further powers upon the Company; to alter the name of the Company; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  BARKING TOWN IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  "To empower the Urban District Council of the Urban District of Barking Town to supply Gas and to purchase the Undertaking of the Barking Gas Company, to construct street and other works, to make provision for the transfer to the Council of the jurisdiction within the district of the Commissioners of Sewers for Havering, Dagenham, and other levels, and to make further and better provision for the good government of the district; and for other purposes, read the first time; to be read a second time.
  BARRY RAILWAY BILL.
  "To confer further powers upon the Barry Railway Company," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  BELFAST AND NORTHERN COUNTIES RAILWAY BILL.
  "To empower the Belfast and Northern Counties Railway Company to widen their Carrickfergus and Larne Branch Railway; to construct a pier and embankment or sea road at Whitehead;

  823
  to confirm the purchase by the Company of the Portstewart Tramway; to confer further powers upon the Company in connection with their Undertaking; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  BELFAST WATER BILL.
  "To confer further powers on the Belfast City and District Water Commissioners," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  BEXHILL AND ROTHERFIELD RAIL- WAY BILL.
  "For incorporating the Bexhill and Rotherfield Railway Company; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
  "To authorise the transfer of the undertaking of the Birmingham Electric Supply Company (Limited) to the Corporation of Birmingham; to make further provision as to the Birmingham School of Art and as to the Rubery Hill Lunatic Asylum Loans; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  BLACKPOOL IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  "To enable the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Blackpool to construct further parade works and additional Tramways; and to make further provisions for the improvement and good government of the said borough; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  BOOTLE CORPORATION BILL.
  "To increase the number of the members of the Council of Bootle; to increase the number of the wards of the borough; and to make further provision for the health, local government, and improvement of the borough; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  BRADFORD TRAMWAYS AND IM- PROVEMENT BILL.
  "To authorise the Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the City of Bradford, in the county of York, to construct additional Tramways in and near the city; to acquire portions of the undertakings of certain gas companies; to purchase Baildon Moor and other lands; to make further provision for the improvement of the city; and for other purposes;" read the first time; to be read a second time.
  BRIGG URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL.
  "To empower the Urban District Council of Brigg to supply gas, and to provide for the transfer of the undertaking of the Brigg Gas Company, Limited, to the Council; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  BROMPTON AND PICCADILLY CIRCUS RAILWAY BILL.
  "To confer further powers on the Brompton and Piccadilly Circus Railway Company for the construction of extension railways and works in the county of London; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  BRYNMAWR AND WESTERN VALLEYS RAILWAY BILL.
  "For incorporating the Brynmawr and Western Valleys Railway Company, and authorising them to construct a railway in the county of Monmouth; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  BURLEY-IN-WHARFEDALE URBAN DISTRICT WATER BILL.
  "To empower the Urban District Council of Burley-in-Wharfedale, in the township of Burley, in the parish of Otley, in the West Binding of the county of York, to construct and maintain additional waterworks; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  CARDIFF RAILWAY BILL.
  "For empowering the Cardiff Railway Company to construct new railways and to abandon the construction of portions of railways already authorised for extending the time for the purchase of lands for and for the completion of certain railways; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  CENTRAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL.
  "To confer upon the Central Electric Supply Company (Limited) powers to construct works and supply electrical energy; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
  "To extend the time for the completion of the Central London Railway; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  CHARING CROSS, EUSTON, AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY BILL.
  "To confer further powers on the Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Company, for authorising agreements with the Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Company, and with the Midland, South Eastern, and London and North Western Railway Companies; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  CITY AND BRIXTON RAILWAY BILL.
  "To confer further powers on the City and Brixton Railway Company for the construction of an extension Railway and works in the county of London; an for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  CLAY CROSS WATER BILL.
  "For transferring to the Clay Cross Urban District Council the Undertaking of the Clay Cross Waterworks Company, and for empowering the Clay Cross urban district council to supply water within their district; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  CORK CORPORATION (FINANCE) BILL.
  "To enable the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of the city of Cork to raise additional money, to regulate the finances of the Corporation; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  COUNTY OF LONDON AND BRUSH PROVINCIAL ELECTRIC LIGHTING COMPANY BILL.
  To authorise the County of London and Brush Provincial Electric Lighting Company (Limited) to purchase lands and construct generating stations; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  CROWBOROUGH DISTRICT GAS BILL.
  "For supplying with gas the district of Crowborough, in the county of Sussex, and adjacent places," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  CROWBOROUGH DISTRICT WATER BILL.
  "To enable the Crowborough District Water Company to extend their limits of supply, construct additional water works; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  DARWEN CORPORATION BILL.
  To confer powers upon the Corporation of the Borough of Danven with respect to the working and construction of tramways in the borough; to confer

  827
  further powers on the said corporation with respect to their waterworks undertaking and in regard to streets, buildings, sewers, and drains, and for the health, local government, and improvement of the borough; to make further provisions for the collection and recovery of rates; for the borrowing of money; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.

  DERBY CORPORATION TRAMWAYS, ETC., BILL.
  "To empower the Corporation of Derby to acquire and work the undertaking of the Derby Tramways Company (Limited); to confer further powers on the Corporation with reference to the government of the borough; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  DERBY CORPORATION WATER BILL.
  "To empower the Corporation of Derby to obtain a supply of water from the rivers Derwent, Ashop, and Noe, and the Burbage Brook, to construct additional waterworks, and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
  "To extend the City of Dublin; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  DUBLIN CORPORATION (MARKETS) BILL.
  "To amend the enactments relating to markets in the City of Dublin, and to the borrowing powers of the Corporation of Dublin; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.

  DUBLIN IMPROVEMENT (BULL ALLEY AREA) BILL.
  "To authorise the improvement of the area bounded by Patrick Street, Bride's Alley, Bride Street, and Bull Alley, in the City of Dublin, and the erection
  828
  thereon of workmen's dwellings and other buildings, to vest the same and the control thereof in a body of Trustees, to empower the Corporation of Dublin to carry out certain street widenings; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.

  EAST LONDON WATER BILL.
  "To authorise the East London Waterworks Company to construct additional storage reservoirs and other works; and to raise further money; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  EAST LONDON WATER (TEMPORARY SUPPLY) BILL.
  "To enable the East London Waterworks Company, with the sanction of the Local Government Board, to take further water from the River Thames in cases of exceptional drought and other emergency; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  EDINBURGH CORPORATION BILL.
  "To authorise the Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Council of the City of Edinburgh to provide, erect, and maintain a municipal hall; to provide increased facilities in connection with their electric lighting undertaking; to construct works and tramways; to acquire lands; to amend Acts; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  FISHGUARD AND ROSSLARE RAIL- WAYS AND HARBOURS BILL.
  "To empower the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Company to construct additional harbour works at Fishguard and a new railway in lieu of their authorised Cork and Fermoy railway, and to authorise the Great Western and Great Southern and Western Railway Companies to subscribe to and guarantee the capital of the said Company; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  FISHGUARD WATER AND GAS BILL.
  For supplying with water and gas the parishes of Fishguard, Manorowen, and Llanwnda, in the county of Pembroke," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
  "To enable the Gateshead and Dis-Company to raise additional moneys, and to purchase, take, and hold lands; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  GATESHEAD AND DISTRICT TRAM- WAYS BILL.
  "To enable the Gateshead and District Tramways Company to lay down and maintain additional Tramways and works; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  GLASGOW CORPORATION TELE- PHONES BILL.
  "To enable the Corporation of the City of Glasgow to establish telephones; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  GODALMING CORPORATION WATER BILL.
  "To authorise the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of the borough of Godalming to purchase the undertaking of the Frith Hill, Godalming, and Farncombe Water Company, Limited, and to supply water throughout the borough and adjoining places," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  GOOLE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  "To authorise the Urban District Council of Goole, in the West Riding of the county of York, to construct additional waterworks; to borrow money for the purposes thereof and of their gas and water undertakings; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL.
  "To enable the Great Central Railway Company to make new works; to acquire additional lands; to stop up certain roads or footpaths; to extend the time for the compulsory purchase of certain lands, for the completion of certain railways, and for the sale of superfluous lands by the Cheshire Lines Committee and the Sheffield and Midland Railway Companies Committee; to raise additional capital; to confer further powers on the Great Central Railway Company and the North Staffordshire Railway Company; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  GREAT SOUTHERN AND STRAND RAILWAY BILL.
  "For incorporating the Great Northern and Strand Railway Company, and for empowering them to construct an underground railway from the parish of Wood Green, in the county of Middlesex, to the parish of Saint Clement Danes, in the administrative county of London; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be a read a second time.
  GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN, AND WATEREORD, LIMERICK, AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANIES AMALGAMATION BILL.
  "For amalgamating the Waterford, Limerick, and Western Railway Company with the Great Southern and Western Railway Company; and for other purposes," read for the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  "For conferring further powers upon the Great Southern and Western Railway Company, and for amalgamating with the undertaking of that Company the undertaking of the Waterford and Central Ireland Railway Company; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  GREAT WESTERN AND GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
  "For incorporating and conferring powers upon a Joint Committee of the Great Western and Great Central Railway Companies and for vesting in them certain existing and authorised Railways of the Great Western Railway Company, and authorising them to construct a new railway and other works; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  "For conferring further powers upon the Great Western Railway Company in respect of their own undertaking, and upon that Company and the London and North Western Railway Company in respect of undertakings in which they are jointly interested, for vesting the undertaking of the Golden Valley Railway Company in the Great Western Railway Company; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  HARROW AND UXBRIDGE RAILWAY BILL.
  "To empower the Harrow and Uxbridge Railway Company to make certain extensions to connect their authorised Railway with the Metropolitan Railway; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  HIGHLAND WATER POWER BILL.
  "For incorporating and conferring powers on the Highland Water Power Company, read the first time; to be read a second time.
  HORSEORTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (WATER) BILL.
  "To enable the Urban District Council of the Horsforth Urban District, in the West Riding of the County of York, to acquire the undertaking of the Horsforth Waterworks Company, and to supply water to the said district and adjacent places; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  HORSFORTH WATER BILL.
  "For authorising the Horsforth Waterworks Company to construct a new reservoir and other works, and to raise additional capital; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  ILFORD GAS BILL.
  "For incorporating and conferring powers on the Ilford Gas Company," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  ILFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL GAS BILL.
  "To empower the Urban District Council of the Urban District of Ilford to supply gas and to purchase the undertaking of the Ilford Gas Light and Coke Company, Limited, and the portion of the undertaking of the Barking Gas Company within the district of the Council; and to make further provision in regard to the future collection of the local rates; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  IONIAN BANK BILL.
  "To make further provision with respect to the transfer and transmission of shares of the Ionian Bank, Limited, held by the shareholders being subjects of the Kingdom of Greece," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  KENSINGTON AND NOTTING HILL ELECTRIC LIGHTING BILL.
  "For conferring powers on the Kensington and Knightsbridge Electric Lighting Company, Limited, and the Notting Hill Electric Lighting Company, Limited, jointly and severally to acquire lands and to erect and work generating stations; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  KINGSCOURT, KEADY, AND ARMAGH RAILWAY BILL.
  "To incorporate the Kingscourt, Keady, and Armagh Railway Company, and to empower them to construct railways in the counties of Cavan, Monaghan, and Armagh; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAIL- WAY (NEW RAILWAYS) BILL.
  "For conferring further powers on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company with respect to the construction of railways in the county of Lancaster; and for other purpose," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAIL- WAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
  "For conferring further powers on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company with relation to their own undertaking, and upon that Company and the London and North Western Railway Company with relation to the Preston and Wyre Railway; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  LEEDS CORPORATION BILL.
  "To empower the Corporation of Leeds to extend their Kirkgate Market; to erect a hall; to construct street works and a tramway; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  LEICESTER CORPORATION WATER BILL.
  "To extend the powers of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Leicester with respect to their supply of water; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  LEICESTER, GROBY, AND BRADGATE PARK RAILWAY BILL.
  "For incorporating the Leicester, Groby, and Bradgate Park Railway Company, and authorising them to construct a railway in the county of Leicester connecting with the Great Central Railway; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCKS BILL.
  "To amend the Leith Harbour and Dock Acts, 1875 and 1892; to authorise the feuing of ground, the construction of additional works, and redemption of annuity to the Corporation of Leith; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  LINCOLN AND EAST COAST RAILWAY AND DOCKS BILL.
  "To authorise the Lincoln and East Coast Railway and Dock Company to alter the line and levels of portions of their authorised railways, and to construct certain new and substituted railways in connection with their undertaking; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  LISBURN TOWN COMMISSIONERS BILL.
  "To extend the borrowing powers of the Commissioners or Urban District Council of the Urban District or Town of Lisburn to enable them to consolidate their debts, to create and issue new stock, to confer further powers upon them for the better management of the town; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAIL- WAY (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL.
  "For conferring further powers upon the London and North-Western Railway Company in relation to their own Undertaking, and upon that Company and the Great Western Railway Company in relation to their joint undertaking; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAIL- WAY (NEW RAILWAYS) BILL.
  "For empowering the London and North-Western Railway Company to construct new Railways in the counties of Warwick, Stafford, Chester, Lancaster, and Anglesey; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY (PENSIONS) BILL.
  "To provide for the establishment and regulation of a pension fund for officers and servants of the 'London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Company," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
  "To empower the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company to construct new railways, to widen their existing railways; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVE RAILWAY BILL.
  "To enable the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company to raise further capital; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  "To alter the constitution of the Lee Conservancy Board, to enable the London County Council to construct railway sidings at Horton Asylum, Surrey, and to purchase lands for various purposes, to extend the time limited for the purchase of certain lands and the completion of certain works; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  LONDONDERRY AND LOUGH SWILLY RAILWAY BILL.
  "For conferring further powers on the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Company; and for other purposes," read the first time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  LONDON IMPROVEMENTS BILL.
  "To empower the London County Council to make a new street from Holborn to the Strand, and a widening of Southampton Row, to widen High Street, Kensington, and to make other street improvements and works in the administrative county of London; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
  "For empowering the London United Tramways, Limited, to widen a certain road at Brentford, to use mechanical power on their tramways in London; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  LONDON, WALTHAMSTOW, AND EPPING FOREST RAILWAY BILL.
  "For the repeal of the Agreement between the London, Walthamstow, and Epping Forest Railway Company and the Great Eastern Railway Company, and to make other agreements in lieu thereof; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  LONDON WATER (FINANCE) BILL.
  "To authorise the London County Council to expend money on capital account for and in connection with the acquisition and construction of Waterworks; and to raise such money by the creation and issue of stock and annuities," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  LONDON WATER (PURCHASE) BILL.
  "To empower the London County Council to acquire the undertakings of the London Water Companies; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENE- RAL POWERS) BILL.
  "To confer further powers upon the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the city of Manchester for the construction of works and the acquisition of lands, and with respect to the regulation of street trading, street cries, sale of ice creams, and with reference to milk and other matters affecting the health and good government of the city, and to enlarge their powers in connection with the supply of electricity; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  MENSTONE WATER BILL.
  "For incorporating and conferring powers on the Menstone Waterworks Company," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES BILL.
  "For improving and facilitating intercommunication between the mains and works of the Metropolitan Water Companies," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  MIDLAND AND SOUTH-WESTERN JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
  "To confer further powers on the Midland and South-Western Junction Railway Company; to authorise them to acquire the undertaking of the Marlborough and Grafton Railway Company; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  MIDLAND AND SOUTH-WESTERN JUNCTION RAILWAY (NORTHERN SECTION) BILL.
  "To authorise the Midland and South-Western Junction Railway Company to extend their railway from Andoversford to the Midland Railway at Ashchurch; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL.
  "To confer additional powers upon the Midland Railway Company, and upon that Company and the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, and upon the Midland and North-Eastern Railway Companies Committee, and upon the Northern Railways Joint Committee for mittee, and upon the Midland and Great Northern Railways Joint Committee for the construction of works and the acquisition of lands; to authorise agreements between the Midland, Lancashire, and Yorkshire, and Great Northern Railway Companies, and between the Midland and Midland and South-Western Junction Railway Companies; to provide for the vesting of the undertakng of the Barnoldswick Railway Company in the Midland Railway Company; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  MILTON CREEK CONSERVANCY BILL.
  "For constituting, incorporating, and conferring powers upon the Conservators of Milton Creek; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  "To enable the mayor, aldermen, and citizens of the city and county of Newcastle-upon Tyne to construct additional tramways, street improvements, and other works, and to make further provision for the good government of the city; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  NEW MILLS URBAN DISTRICT COUN- CIL (WATER) BILL.
  "To enable the urban district council of New Mills to purchase the existing waterworks in their district belong to Francis John Sumner; to authorise them to construct other waterworks and to supply water; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  NORTH PEMBROKESHIRE AND FISH- GUARD RAILWAY BILL.
  "To provide for the abandonment of certain authorised railways of the North Pembrokeshire and Fishguard Railway Company; and for the vesting of the Undertaking of that Company in the Great Western Railway Company; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  NORTH-WEST LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
  "For incorporating the North-West London Railway Company, and for empowering them to construct Underground Railways from Marble Arch to Cricklewood; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
  "To empower the Corporation of Nottingham to construct additional tramways, to make new waterworks, and a street improvement; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second ime.
  NUNEATON AND CHILVERS COTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL.
  "To authorise the Nuneaton and Chilvers Coton Urban District Council to construct additional waterworks; and for other purposes "; read the first time; to be read a second time.
  OTLEY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL.
  "To enable the Urban District Council of Otley to construct additional waterworks; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  REDDITCH GAS BILL.
  "For incorporating and conferring powers on the Redditch Gas Company," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  RHONDDA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  "To authorise the Rhondda Urban District Council to construct a tramroad and additional waterworks; to extend the periods limited by The Ystradyfodwg Urban District Council (Gas and Water) Act, 1896, for the purchase of lands and construction of works; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  ST. DAVID'S WATER AND GAS BILL.
  "For supplying with water and gas the city of St. David's and adjacent places, read the first time; to be read a second time.
  ST. JAMES'S AND PALL MALL ELECTRIC LIGHT BILL.
  "To empower the St. James's and Pall Mall Electric Light Company, Limited, to acquire lands and erect generating stations; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  SCUNTHORPE URBAN DISTRICT GAS AND WATER BILL.
  "To authorise the Scunthorpe Urban District Council, in the County of Lincoln, to construct and maintain gas works and water works; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be lead a second time.
  SHEFFIELD CORPORATION (DERWENT VALLEY) WATER BILL.
  "To empower the Corporation of Sheffield to extend their water undertaking, and to give additional supplies of water in bulk to other corporations and authorities by constructing works for impounding the waters of the Rivers Derwent and Ashop and their tributaries; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  SHEFFIELD CORPORATION MARKETS BILL.
  "For empowering the Corporation of the City of Sheffield to purchase from the Duke of Norfolk his markets and fairs within the city; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  SHIREBROOK AND DISTRICT GAS BILL.
  "For incorporating and conferring powers on the Shirebrook and District Gas Company," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  SHOTLEY BRIDGE AND CONSETT DISTRICT GAS BILL.
  "To confer further powers upon the Shotley Bridge and Consett District Gas Company," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  SOUTH-EASTERN AND LONDON, CHAT- HAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY COM- PANIES BILL.
  "To provide for the working union of the South-Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Companies; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  SOUTH-EASTERN AND LONDON, CHAT- HAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY COM- PANIES (NEW LINES) BILL.
  "For conferring further powers on the South-Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Companies with reference to the construction of new railways; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  "For conferring further powers on the South-Eastern Railway Company; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE STIPEN- DIARY JUSTICES BILL.
  "To make provision for the more effectual execution of the office of Justice of the Peace in South Staffordshire," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  STOCKPORT CORPORATION BILL.
  "To confer further powers upon the Corporation of the County Borough of Stockport with respect to tramways and to their electric lighting and other undertakings, to make further provision for the improvement and good government of the borough, to amend and extend the provisions of the local Acts relating to the borough; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  STOCKPORT CORPORATION WATER BILL.
  "To authorise the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the County Borough of Stockport to purchase the undertaking of the Stockport District Waterworks Company; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  STOCKPORT DISTRICT WATER BILL.
  "To ratify and confirm certain agreements made by the Corporation of the City of Manchester and the Stockport District Waterworks Company and their predecessors, the Stockport Water Company," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  TAFF VALE RAILWAY BILL.
  "To enlarge the powers of the Taff Vale Railway Company with reference to the construction of works and the acquisition of lands; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  TENTERDEN RAILWAY BILL.
  "For conferring further powers on the Tenterden Railway Company with reference to the construction of new railways, the abandonment of authorised railways; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  THAMES FERRY (GREENWICH TO MILLWALL) BILL.
  "To authorise the construction of a ferry on submerged rails across the River Thames between Greenwich and Millwall, with approaches; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  UXBRIDGE AND RICKMANSWORTH RAILWAY BILL.
  "To authorise the Uxbridge and Rickmansworth Railway Company to abandon portions of their undertaking, and to construct certain new or substituted railways in lieu thereof; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  VALE OF GLAMORGAN RAILWAY BILL.
  "For conferring further powers on the Vale of Glamorgan Railway Company for the raising of capital and otherwise in relation to their undertaking; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  WALKER AND WALLSEND UNION GAS (ELECTRIC LIGHTING) BILL.
  "To empower the Walker and Walls-end Union Gas Company to supply electricity within their limits of gas supply," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  WARRINGTON CORPORATION BILL.
  "To make further provisions in regard to the water supply of the borough, and to improve the local government of that town," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  WATERFORD AND CENTRAL IRELAND RAILWAY BILL.
  "To extend the time for purchasing lands and completing the railways authorised by the Central Ireland Railway Act, 1896," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE WATER BILL.
  "For extending the limits of supply of the West Gloucestershire Water Company, and for authorising the Company to raise further capital; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  WEST METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
  "For incorporating the West Metropolitan Railway Company, and for empowering them to construct railways from the Hammersmith and City Railway, in the county of London, to Acton, in the county of Middlesex; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  WEST MIDDLESEX WATER BILL.
  "To confer further powers upon the Company of Proprietors of the West Middlesex Waterworks with respect to the construction of works, the taking of water from the River Thames, and the raising of capital; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  WETHERBY DISTRICT WATER BILL.
  "For supplying1 with water certain parishes in the rural districts of Wetherby and Tadeaster, in the West Riding of the county of York," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  WOODHOUSE AND CONISBROUGH RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL.
  "For the abandonment of the Wood-house and Conisbrough Railway," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  WORCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
  "To authorise the re-transfer to the Justices of the Peace for the county of Worceter and to the Worcestershire County Council of the Parish of Yardley in the county of Worcester, for police and all other purposes from the Justices of the Peace for the county of Warwick and the Warwickshire County Council: and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
PETITIONS.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUA- TION ACT (1896) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Barton Regis; and Farnham to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW RELIEF (DISFRANCHISE- MENT).
  Petitions for alteration of law:—From Hailsham; Chorley: West Ham; Spalding; and Carlisle; to lie upon tin Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Path mines; and Belfast; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Eastbourne; Birmingham; Framlingham; Kilburn; Askrigg; Yoxford; Spark-brook; Swansea; Bedford; Stoke Newington; North Hackney; Stratford; Forest Gate (three); Newcastle-upon-Tyne; Pangbourne; Aldborough; Longtown; and Saltley; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN.
  Petition from Bridgwater, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION ACT, 1898.
  Petitions for repeal;—From Grant-ham Tiverton; Bridgwater; Ware; South Molton; and Carlisle; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  WAGES AND EFFECTS OF DECEASED SEAMEN.
  Account (presented 7th February) to be printed. (No. 49.)
  BANK OF ENGLAND.
  Paper (presented 13th February) to be printed. (No. 50.)
  INEBRIATE REFORMATORIES (SCOT- LAND) (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
  Copy prsented,—of Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Secretary for Scotland to report as to Rules for Inebriate Reformatories, under the Inebriates Act, 1898 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  INEBRIATE REFORMATORIES (SCOT- LAND) (REGULATIONS).
  Copy presented,—of Regulations for Certified Inebriate Reformatories for Scotland (by Act); to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (ORDNANCE FACTORIES) (SUP- PLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1898ߝ9).
  Copy presented,—of Estimate of the Further Amount required during the year ending 31st March 1899, for the service of the Ordnance Factories [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 51.)
  ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1898ߝ9).
  Estimate presented,—of the Further Amount that will be required during the year ending 31st March 1899, to meet Expenditure not sufficiently provided for in the original Army Estimates for the year [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 52.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRE- LAND) (GENERAL ORDERS).
  Copies presented,—of Five General Orders issued by the Board between the 28th May 1898, and the 17th January lc99 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  METROPOLIS WATER BILL.
  "To amend the Metropolis Water Act, 1871, and to make further provision for the due supply of Water to the Metropolis," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday 28th March, and to be printed. (Bill 65.)
  ALIENS.
  Address for "Return showing the names of all Aliens to whom Certificates of Naturalisation have been issued, and whose oaths of allegiance have, between the 1st day of January 1898 and the 31st day of December 1898, been registered at the Home Office, giving the country and place of residence of the person naturalised, and including information as to any Aliens who have during the same period obtained Acts of Naturalisation from the Legislature (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 139 of Session 1898)."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
  ULSTER CANAL (TRANSFER).
  Copy ordered, "of Agreement between the Board of Works (Ireland) and the Lavan Navigation Company relative to the taking over the Ulster Canal by the Company under the provisions of the Ulster Canal Act, 1888."—(Mr. O'Connor.)
  DISTRAINTS FOR POOR RATES IN IRELAND.
  Return ordered, "showing, so far as it is possible to ascertain from the records, for each Poor Law Union in Ireland the number of cases in which the Poor Rates were levied by distress in the year 1897 and 1898, giving separately the number of cases in which the distraints were made on the authority of Justices' warrants and the number made on the Guardians' warrants."—(Mr. Shee.)

  NATIONAL GALLERY (REPORT).
  Copy ordered, "of Report of the National Gallery for the year 1898, with Appendices."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 53.)

  POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHS.
  Return ordered, "of Account showing the gross amount received and the gross amount expended in respect of the Telegraph Service from the date of the Transfer of the Telegraphs to the State to the 31st day of March 1898 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 84 of Session 1898)."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
  Return presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 54.)

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND).
  Copy ordered, "of Accounts of receipts and payments of the Accountant General of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland in respect of the funds of suitors

  849
  in the said Court, including therein funds to the credit of Lunacy Accounts, in the year to the 30th day of September 1898, together with a Statement of the liabilities and assets, and particulars of securities in Court on the 30th day of September 1898."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 55.)

  CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND, 1897–8.
  Copy ordered, "of Accounts showing—

  1. The Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March 1898;

  2. The Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year;

  together with the Correspondence with the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 56.)

  LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) (No. 2) BILL
  "To enable Leaseholders to become Freeholders," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 17th May, and to be printed. (Bill 66.)
NEW BILLS.
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Public Libraries (Scotland) Acts, ordered to be brought in by Sir Robert Reid, Sir Mark Stewart Mr. Souttar, and Mr. Rutherford.
  SUPER ANNUATON (METROPOLIS).
  Bill to amend the Superannuation (Metropolis) Act, 1866, ordered to be brought in by Colonel Hughes, Mr. W. F. D. Smith, Mr. Lough, Mr. James Bailey, Sir Mancherjee Bhownaggree Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Bousfield, Mr. Holland, and Sir John Blundell Maple.
  METROPOLIS WATER.
  Bill to amend the Metropolis Water Act, 1871, and to make further provision for the due supply of water to the Metropolis, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Samuel, Mr. Holland, Mr. Gray, Mr. Marks, Mr. Flower, Mr. Robertson, and Mr. Louis Sinclair.
  LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) (NO. 2).
  Bill to enable Leaseholders to become Freeholders, ordered to be brought in by General Laurie, Sir John Llewelyn, Sir John 7enkins, Mr. Kenyon, Mr. Lafone, Mr. Cohen, Sir Albert Rollit, and Sir George Fardell.
  SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT (1879) AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bryn 'Roberts, Sir John Dorrington, Mr. Leigh-Bennett, Mr. MacNeill, and Mr. Humphreys Owen.
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Public Libraries (Scotland) Acts," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 22nd February, and to be printed. (Bill 63.)
  SUPERANNUATION (METROPOLIS) BILL.
  "To amend the Superannuation (Metropolis) Act, 1866," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday 21st March, and to be printed. (Bill 64.)
  SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT (1879) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879," presented and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday 2nd March, and to be printed. (Bill 67.)
NEW WRIT.
  NEW WRIT FOR THE COUNTY OF ANTRIM (NORTH).
  In the room of Major-General Hugh M'Calmont, C. B. (Manor of Northstead).
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (QUEEN'S SPEECH, MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS).
  Ordered, that the Proceedings on the Address in answer to Her Majesty's Speech have precedence this day and To-morrow of the Notices of Motion and of the other Orders of the Day.—(Mr. Balfour.)
QUESTIONS.

  KING MWANGA'S ESCAPE.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what were the circumstances under which the ex-King of Uganda escaped from German East Africa and invaded Buddu with a force almost wholly recruited from German territory, at a moment when the Government of the Protectorate had already to face a military mutiny and another native rising; what representations have been made to Germany on the subject; and with what result?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): The circumstances in which ex-King Mwanga escaped from German East Africa are narrated in the letter from Lieutenant Schlobach, which is printed at page 28 of Africa, No. 7, of 1898. The King was fired upon, and his only follower was shot. The same Parliamentary Paper contains (see pages 8, 14 and 22, etc.) all that is known in this Department of his proceedings immediately after his escape. Sir F. Lascelles brought the matter in a Note of April 1st, 1898, printed in the Parliamentary Paper, to the notice of the German Government, who expressed in reply their desire to co-operate for the common welfare, and stated that they had given orders to this effect. (The Note was dated June 11th.)

  COLONELS ON THE STAFF.
  CAPTAIN JESSEL (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will explain why substantive Colonels, occupying the position of Chief Staff Officers of Military Districts in Great Britain, do not draw the pay laid down in the Pay Warrant for Colonels on the Staff?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. G. WTNDHAM,): The title "Colonel on the Staff" is the designation of a definite Staff appointment, carrying with it more responsibility and higher pay than that of Chief Staff Officer. These rates of Staff pay are fixed without reference to the Army rank of the holder.

  CAYALRY ENLISTMENTS.
  CAPTAIN JESSEL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether a draft has been sent to the 4th (Royal Irish) Dragoon Guards from the Scots Greys; and whether, in view of the unpopularity of the present system of enlistment for Cavalry regiments by which men are transferred to different regiments although enlisting under the impression that they would serve in a particular regiment, he will consider the advisability of making a change in the terms of enlistment?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Scots Greys during this season will have supplied 41 men to the 4th Dragoon Guards. Of these 22 have volunteered for the transfer. In pursuance of Army Order 130 of September, 1898, Cavalry recruits are informed on enlistment that they are liable to be posted to other regiments of the same corps, but that every effort will be made to meet their desire for service in a particular regiment. It is not proposed to modify the terms of enlistment; but it is hoped that certain measures which are about to be taken will materially diminish the regretable drain to which some Cavalry regiments have recently been subjected.

  REDUCTIONS OF PRISON SENTENCES.
  MR. M'LAREN (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a male prisoner can by good conduct earn one-third of his sentence while in a convict prison; and whether the same rule has been applied in the case of female prisoners; and, if not, whether he will, in the exercise of the powers he now possesses, give to female prisoners a similar privilege?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. W. RIDLEY,): A man under sentence of penal servitude can, by industry and good conduct, obtain his discharge from prison on licence after he has served three-fourths of his sentence; a woman after she has served two-thirds. Under the proposed rules, a draft of which has been laid before the House, a somewhat analogous privilege will be allowed to prisoners serving a term of more than six months' imprisonment. In this case men and women will be treated alike.

  ADMIRALTY OFFICE CLERKS.
  COLONEL HUGHES (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether extra money is paid to clerks and others in the Admiralty Office (under Navy Vote 12) varying from £30 to £150 a year as a London allowance; and whether the principle can be extended to workmen employed by the Admiralty at Deptford as compared with men at Pembroke?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's,): London allowances are paid in certain circumstances, but there is no analogy between such cases and that suggested in the second part of the honourable and gallant Gentleman's question, the main object of the allowances being to facilitate transfers from the Dockyards to the Admiralty in London, and vice versa, in the interests of the Service, not of the individual. The honourable Gentleman should remember that a Committee of Inquiry sat on the subject of wages to unskilled workmen, and on their report the wages at Deptford were increased by 1s. as compared with the sum paid in other Dockyards.

  PATENT LAWS.
  MR. CAWLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether a patent expiring in any one of the following three countries, viz., France, Germany, and the United States, must simultaneously expire in the other two countries, whilst in the United Kingdom the same patent may afterwards run on to the end of its term notwithstanding that it has ceased to exist in the aforesaid countries?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): No, Sir. I think the honourable Member's Question is founded upon some misapprehension of the existing position of this subject. In the United Kingdom the duration of a patent is not affected by the expiry of a patent for the same invention in any other State. There appears, however, to be no difference in respect between the law in this country and the laws which have been in force in Germany for many years past, and in the United States since the 1st January, 1898. According to the old French law, the duration of a patent in France could not exceed that of a patent for the same invention obtained abroad, but by the Protocol of the International Convention signed at Brussels in December, 1897, the several States of the Union, including France, agreed that patents in those States should be independent of the patents for the same invention obtained in other States.

  THE "CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR."
  MR. BARTLEY (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in dealing with the suppression of the plague in India, the conscientious objector who on conscientious or religious grounds objects to the action of the sanitary authorities in attempting to stamp out the disease is allowed to be exempted in the same way as the conscientious objector to vaccination is in this country?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD GEORGE HAMILTON,): In dealing with the plague in India, all possible respect is shown to the religious or conscientious scruples of

  855
  the natives. My honourable Friend is no doubt aware that inoculation against the plague is not compulsory, though very large and increasing numbers of natives have availed, and are availing, themselves of its benefits.
  MR. BARTLEY: Then I understand the noble Lord to say that the conscientious objector is not recognised in India?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I did not say that. My reply must be gathered from within the four corners of my answer.

  GLEBE LOAN BORROWERS.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has considered the reply of the glebe loan borrowers of Ireland to the answer given by the Treasury to their memorial; and, will he please to act on the suggestions submitted in that reply (Parliamentary Paper, No. 342, of Session 1898), or in any other way afford relief to the borrowers aforesaid.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (MR. GERALD W. BALFOUR,): The reply of the glebe loan borrowers was received, but the Government see no reason to depart from the conclusion already arrived at in the matter.

  LOCAL TAXATION (SCOTLAND) ACCOUNT.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate when the Returns for 1894–5, and subsequent years, showing the allocation and application of the contributions out of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account, will be issued, and what is the cause of the long delay?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I regret the delay which has taken place in completing these returns, which will shortly be circulated. Owing to the passing of
  856
  the Agricultural Rates Act, it has been found necessary to alter the form in which the return has hitherto been presented. Arrangements are being made under which the return will be presented yearly, instead of for periods of two years, and to ensure that no protracted delay shall in future occur.

  CRIMEAN VETERANS.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that a survivor of the Balaclava Light Brigade charge, namely, the late Mr. John Smith, at one time of the 17th Lancers, was recently buried from the St. Pancras Workhouse; and that he would have had a pauper's funeral but for the generosity of the public, through Mr. T. H. Roberts; is he aware that 27 also of his comrades in this charge are being supported solely or partly by voluntary contributions, and so kept out of the workhouse; and, whether their cases could be carefully examined by the authorities, and an adequate money allowance prescribed them out of public funds, in accordance with the promise made in respect to such cases by the then Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) in a Debate in Committee of Supply on War Office Estimates in this House on 25th June 1891?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (MR. J. POWELL WILLIAMS,): The late John Smith's claims to a special campaign pension were carefully considered, but his service and character on discharge did not justify the grant. With regard to the 27 comrades, it is not possible to make any statement without a reference to each case. If the honourable Member will give the necessary details, their claims, if not already inquired into, will be thoroughly considered. In accordance with the promise made by the late Mr. Stanhope, all cases which were referred to the War Office were very carefully considered, and the men who were properly qualified received pensions.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I should like to ask the honourable Gentleman, is it

  857
  not a fact that a large number of soldiers who served their country in the Crimean War are in the workhouse?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: If the honourable Member will give me their names I will make inquiries. But, answering offhand, I should say the fact is not as alleged.
  MR. BAYLEY (): Has the right honourable Gentleman's attention been called to the Royal Patriotic Fund, which has money that was intended for Balaclava?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Notice must be given of that Question.

  LAND JUDGE'S COURT, IRELAND.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether complaint has been made of the necessity for an increased staff in the office of the Land Judge in Ireland, owing to the great stress of business under the Land Purchase Acts; whether, for the want of a sufficient staff, considerable delays take place in the offices, with the result that the land purchase transactions are sometimes greatly protracted; and whether any increase of staff will be made to cope with the extra work?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I would ask the honourable Member to address this Question to the Treasury. The sufficiency of the staff in the office of the Land Judge is not a matter that would come officially before the Irish Government.

  SALES TO TENANTS; SECTION 40 OF THE LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1896.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state in how many cases included in the returns under the rules made pursuant to Section 40 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, and already considered by the Land Judge, he has refused to issue a report
  858
  under the section or postponed doing so; in how many cases reports have been issued on the application of the parties in cases which have not yet been reached in their regular order on the returns; and whether the supplemental first return has been gone through by the Judge as well as the original first return?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed that, in order to obtain the information desired in the first and second paragraphs, it would be necessary to examine the order made on every application for a request since the passing of the Act, and that, having regard to the pressure of public business, the examination could not be carried out within less than a fortnight. I do not know whether, under the circumstances, the honourable Member will press for the information, but, if he does, it could, no doubt, be supplied. As regards the third paragraph, the Land Judge has gone through the cases comprised in the supplemental as well as the original return.

  LAND COURT OFFICIALS.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what was the greatest number of Assistant Commissioners and Court Valuers ever employed at any one time by the Irish Land Commission since the creation of that body, and at what period, and how many of them were employed at the same time in connection with the fixing of rents?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The greatest number of Lay Assistant Commissioners and Court Valuers employed at one time in the Land Commission is 77. That is the number of the staff as at present employed, and it was also the number employed in the financial year 1883–4. In the latter year they were all engaged on duties in connection with the fixing of fair rents.

  INCOME-TAX.
  MR. COGHILL (): I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether an income-tax of 8d. in the £ is to form a permanent part of the policy of the present Government?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH,): No, Sir, I always live in hope; but I must confess that at the present moment my hope of a reduction of the income-tax is not very sanguine. A high rate of expenditure entails a high income-tax.

  SIERRA LEONE.
  MR. DAVITT (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any report has been supplied from any source to the Colonial Office of the number of natives who have been killed and the number of villages or towns burned by the various expeditions which have been engaged under British officers in Sierra Leone, the hinterland of that Colony, and in other parts of West Africa since July last; whether he can supply any such reports to the House, or say where the information sought for can be obtained; how many executions have been carried out for crimes committed by natives in the hinterland of Sierra Leone during the same period of time; what was the number of such crimes; and in what manner were the criminals tried?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I do not know why the honourable Gentleman fixed on a particular date in July. Since that date very little has taken place, so I thought it would be better if I made my reply more general. I have not been furnished with reports of the numbers of natives killed and of villages destroyed in the recent military operations in the hinterland and colony of Sierra Leone. There were several hundred murders by natives of Europeans and natives, apart from casualties in fighting, and 83 executions on convictions for murder have been reported. The prisoners were tried by a Deputy Judge of the Supreme Court, with Assessors selected from the Special Jury list. I may add that the most serious part of the disturbances and operations occurred before July.

  TRIAL BY JURY IN SIERRA LEONE.
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what grounds were the people of Freetown, Sierra Leone, deprived of the right of trial by jury in civil cases; is it a fact that municipal government has been conferred on the citizens since Ordinance No. 6, of 1866, was promulgated; and whether, in view of the changed condition of things involved in the exercise of the responsibilities of municipal privileges by the inhabitants of Freetown, he will recommend the repeal of the ordinance in question and the restoration of the abrogated right to such citizens?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: Ordinance 4, of 1866, which is no doubt the one referred to by the honourable Member, enacted that civil actions should be tried before a judge without a jury; and the honourable Member will find the reasons which were given for that enactment fully explained in the printed correspondence given to the House, No. 197, April 1867. Municipal government was conferred for the first time on the town of Freetown by an Ordinance of 1893, but no rate has yet been imposed, and the system is therefore only in its infancy. I have received no representation from the Colony in favour of reverting to the system which had proved unsatisfactory up to 1867, and I am not therefore prepared to advise the repeal of the enactment.

  SUGAR BOUNTIES.
  SIR THOMAS SUTHERLAND (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any steps are in contemplation by Her Majesty's Government to secure the removal, or to nullify the effect, of the Continental sugar bounties?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Belgian Government are still pursuing the negotiations committed to them by the mandate of the late Conference at Brussels, through the diplomatic channel, and in the meanwhile it would be premature for the British Government to take further action in the matter.

  DEATH SENTENCES.
  MR. HOGAN (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been attracted to recent cases in which the sentence of death was passed with all the prescribed formalities, although there was obviously no intention of carrying it into effect; and whether he is aware that when such cases occur in the Criminal Courts of the Colonies the presiding judge simply records the capital sentence?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: Yes, Sir, I am, of course, aware of all the recent cases in which the sentence of death has been passed with all the prescribed formalities, although there was obviously no intention of carrying it into effect. The whole subject is one of great importance, and is engaging my anxious attention.
  MR. MACNEILL (): Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that the Attorney-General has admitted that in former days the judges had ample power to simply record the sentence?
  THE HOME SECRETARY: I am not aware that the Attorney-General said anything of the kind, or that judges have the power either here or in the colonies to record the sentence in a case of murder.
  MR. MACNEILL: It has been done in the case of capital convictions.

  BRITISH NEW GUINEA.
  MR. LOWLES (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will cause the immediate publication of correspondence relating to an agreement between the Government of British New Guinea and the British New Guinea Syndicate, in continuation of Blue Book 8935, July 1898; and whether such correspondence will include the full text of the Report, dated 4th October 1898, made by Sir William MacGregor, late Lieutenant Governor of British New Guinea, to the Governor of Queensland?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: The correspondence will be published when it is complete, including Sir William MacGregor's Report.

  RANGOON MEMORIAL.
  MR. LOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has examined the memorial of the Municipal Commissioners of Rangoon, presented to His Excellency the Viceroy of India on the 14th November last; and what steps have been taken to give effect to the prayer of the memorialists?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I have seen no memorial such as is described in the honourable Member's Question. I have seen an account of a deputation from the Rangoon Municipality to the Viceroy in December last on the subject of the Rangoon town lands, and the income therefrom. The Viceroy assured the deputation that their representations would receive full consideration from the Government of India. I have not yet heard how far it has been found possible to meet the views of the deputation.

  PAYMENT OF FINES IN IRELAND.
  MR. O'KEEFFE (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, pending promised prison legislation, he will direct that governors of Irish gaols be authorised to receive portions of fines to which offenders have been adjudged liable on summary conviction, so that on payment thereof their alternative terms of imprisonment shall be proportionately reduced, as is the practice in England under the Prisons Act, 1898?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There is no legal power to adopt the course suggested in the Question, as the Act referred to does not apply to Ireland. I may add, however, that the Lord Lieutenant in the exercise of his prerogative may and frequently does order the release of prisoners on payment of a portion of the fines inflicted.

  TYDD ST. MARY (LINCOLNSHIRE) ALLOTMENTS.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER (): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the award of the Arbitrator appointed by the Local

  863
  Government Board to assess the compensation to be paid by the Parish Council of Tydd St. Mary, Lincolnshire, on taking 14 acres of land for allotments under the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1894, and of the Allotments Act, 1887; whether the award to the tenant amounts to £148, or more than £10 an acre for his five years' lease, while the total amounts which the Parish Council can raise by a rate in any one year amounts to only £54; and whether, under these circumstances, he can assist the Parish Council by allowing the payment of the award to be spread over a number of years, as suggested by the Arbitrator?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. CHAPLIN,): I have received the award of the Arbitrator in the case referred to. The unexpired period of the tenant's lease appears to be seven years, and £148 was awarded to him as compensation for his interest in that term. The Local Government Board have no information to show that the amount which the Parish Council can raise by a rate in any one year amounts to only £54. The Board have received an application from the Parish Council for sanction to enable them to borrow the amount to be paid as compensation to the tenant, and the Board are awaiting further particulars, for which they asked on the 31st ultimo.

  LONG EATON (DERBYSHIRE) ALLOT- MENTS.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to an award made by the Arbitrator in the case of the compulsory hiring of 10½ acres of land for allotments by the District Council of Long Eaton, Derbyshire, in which compensation of £112 was given to the landowner, £32 to the tenants, and the rent of the land, previously rented at 31s. per acre, raised to 55s. over the period of 14 years, whereby the tenant will receive altogether no less than £208 as compensation for the loss of 10½ acres of land, and the total compensation will amount to £320, or more than £30 an acre; and
  864
  whether he can take any steps to prevent the Acts of 1894 and 1887 being rendered nugatory by such awards.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: The Local Government Board have no information as to the award in this case, or as to the figures given in the Question. It appeared, at the inquiry held before the Order for the compulsory hiring was confirmed by the Board, that the land formed part of a farm of 210 acres, the rent of which averaged 32s. an acre. It was stated, however, that the land in question was the best field on the farm, that it would let at £4 an acre as a market garden, and that the tenant asked a reduction of £40 in his rent for the loss of the land. The Arbitrator was not appointed by the Board, but, I presume, by agreement. The amount of the compensation is to be determined by him, and the Local Government Board have no authority to interfere in the matter.

  SWINE FEVER IN CARMARTHEN- SHIRE.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN (): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is in a position to state when he hopes to be able to withdraw the swine fever removal order now in force in the county of Carmarthen.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. H. LONG,): The matter to which the honourable Member refers has not been lost sight of, and I hope that we may be in a position to withdraw the restrictions in question at no distant date.

  SHOP ASSISTANTS' HOURS IN LONDON.
  MR. FIELD (): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in many drapers' establishments in London and elsewhere the assistants are compelled to commence work at nine in the morning

  865
  and remain until eleven at night; and whether any measures can or will be taken to prevent girls from being worked 14 hours in one day?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I am afraid that there is no doubt that in some districts shop assistants are required to work for long hours, but the evidence which has been given before Committees of this House goes to show that a daily period of 14 hours is exceptional. The only restriction on the hours of employment of assistants in shops is contained in the Shop Hours Act of 1892, which limits the hours of young persons under 18 years of age to a period of 74 in the week. The enforcement of this Act lies not with the Home Office, but with the local authorities; that is to say, in London with the County Council.

  SORTERS' PAY.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether in the Sorters' Department of the Post Office the sorters are paid only every fortnight; whether they are obliged to give a stamped receipt for their fortnight's salary; and whether this tax upon their earnings can be discontinued by weekly payments.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): Sorters are borne on the following scales, namely:—18s. a week until 19 years of age and competent, then £52 a year, rising by annual increments of £6 to £160. So long as they are in receipt of the weekly wages of 18s. they are paid weekly, but when placed upon the higher scale of annual salaries they are paid twice a month. On the 1st they receive any salary due for the preceding month, and in the middle of the month they receive a payment on account of the salary for the current month. A stamped receipt is, of course, required for an amount of £2 and upwards, whether the salary is paid weekly or monthly. It is not intended to alter the existing practice.

  CORK POST OFFICE.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, what has caused the delay in preparing the plans for the Cork Post Office; and how long it is since the complete possession of the site was obtained by the Department?
  MR. HANBURY: Possession of the site was obtained in May last, but there is no provision in the Estimates of the current year for the building itself. Provision will, however, be made in those of the coming financial year, and I will instruct the Irish Board of Works to endeavour to have the plans ready for beginning the work accordingly.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN THE LISNASKEA UNION.
  MR. JORDAN (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that on an inquiry held in the Lisnaskea Union, County Fermanagh, in the year 1895, by an inspector of the Local Government Board, it was ordered that 12 labourers' cottages should be erected; can he state why those houses have not yet been built; and, if they are to be erected, when will the building be commenced; and can he also state if requisitions for additional cottages in the Donagh and other districts have been presented to the Guardians of said Union, and if they have been considered by the Guardians; and, if not, why not?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The scheme of the Guardians for the erection of 12 cottages, consequent on the recommendation made by the Inspector of the Local Government Board, was received by the Board in December, 1896. The Provisional Order became absolute in August, 1897, and as the Guardians were unable to obtain the lands for the cottages by agreement, arbitration proceedings followed which were not completed till June, 1898. It is expected that the purchase will be completed in a few days, when it is intended to invite tenders for the erection

  867
  of the cottages. As regards the last paragraph, it appears that eight representations subsequently lodged were considered by the Guardians in April, 1897, when they came to the conclusion that in six of these, for various reasons, no new cottages were required, and the consideration of the two remaining representations was postponed.

  IRISH LETTERS OF PROBATE.
  MR. FLYNN (): I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General, in regard to some of the English Insurance Companies requiring the resealing of Irish letters of probate in connection with claims under policies, whether any steps can be taken to abolish a practice which involves expense and delay?
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I am informed by the authorities at Somerset House that the Insurance Companies do require Irish probates to be resealed in England before payment, and the same rule applies to English and Scotch probates in Ireland—they have to be resealed before they are valid. The matter is determined by statute, and cannot be altered except by legislation. I am told that expense and delay in obtaining resealing is much less than it was formerly in obtaining separate giants in each country.
  MR. FLYNN: I should like to say the expense is very much more than is popularly supposed.

  SUGAR BOUNTIES.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any legislative action in connection with the Continental system of sugar bounties is contemplated by Her Majesty's Government during the current Session?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have no statement to make to the House on this subject, but I may remind the honourable Member that the Belgian Government are still continuing negotiations with a view to abolition of sugar bounties.

  PEERS' PRIVILEGES.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to reports of two meetings held 10th February for the selection of Parliamentary candidates, one in South Bedfordshire alleged to have been presided over by the Duke of Bedford, and the other in South Buckinghamshire, at which the chair is stated to have been taken by Lord Carrington; and whether in view of the Sessional Order passed at his instance upon 7th February, in which it is declared that it is a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of the Commons for any Peer to concern himself in the election of Members to serve for the Commons in Parliament, it is his intention to propose to the House any action in vindication of its privileges?
  The following questions on the same subject also appeared on the Paper:—
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON (): To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the statement that on 10th February two meetings were held for the selection of Parliamentary candidates—one for South Bedfordshire, which meeting was presided over by the Duke of Bedford, and one for South Buckinghamshire, which meeting was presided over by Lord Carrington; and, if this be the case, whether, under the Sessional Order, passed on the 7th February, declaring it to be a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of the Commons for any Peer to concern himself in the election of Members to serve for the Commons in Parliament, he proposes to take any action against the two above-named Peers?
  SIR JOHN WILLIAM MACLURE (): To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that two meetings convened for the purpose of selecting candidates to represent constituencies in the House of Commons were presided over by Peers, one of whom was the proposer of the Address in the House of Lords this Session in reply to Her Majesty's Gracious Speech, while the other was a member of the

  869
  late Government; if so, what course he intends to pursue in view of the Sessional Order declaring it to be a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of this House for a Peer to concern himself in elections?
  MR. E. J. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that on Friday last two Peers, viz., the Duke of Bedford, in the constituency of South Bedfordshire; and Earl Carrington, in the constituency of South Buckinghamshire, respectively, took the chair at a meeting to select candidates for election as Members to serve for the Commons of those constituencies, respectively, in Parliament; and, in view of the Resolution passed by this House at the commencement of this Session, that it is a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of the Commons of the United Kingdom for any Lord of Parliament or other Peer or Prelate, not being a Peer of Ireland at the time elected, and not having declined to serve for any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, to concern himself in the election of Members to serve for the Commons in Parliament, what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: My attention has been called to the reports of these two meetings by the four notices of Questions on the Paper. I understand the usual practice has been for Peers to abstain from any action in connection with an imminent election, at all events after a Writ has issued. I do not think elections are imminent in these instances, and certainly Writs have not issued.
  MR. MACNEILL: Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that the Sessional Order was first passed by the Long Parliament, which he referred to in uncomplimentary language last night?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I was not aware of that fact. My opinion about the Long Parliament depends upon what period of the career of that Parliament is in question.
  MR. MACNEILL: It was its first and best year—1641.

  CAPE TO CAIRO RAILWAY.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government have come to any, and what, decision, either provisional or final, with respect to Mr. Cecil Rhodes' application for a guarantee by the Government of a loan or advance of money in support of Mr. Rhodes' projected railway from the Cape to Egypt; whether, if such a guarantee or partial guarantee is contemplated, Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to entertain similar proposals from other railway speculators; and whether an opportunity will be given to the House to discuss Mr. Rhodes' proposal before any binding step is taken by Her Majesty's Government?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I think I answered a similar Question a few days ago, and I have nothing to add to that answer, which appears to cover the present Question.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: But was not the last answer to the effect simply that a proposal had been made and not yet acceded to? I wish to know if any decision has been arrived at one way or the other, or whether the matter is still under consideration, and whether the House will be given the opportunity of considering the matter before a binding decision is come to?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I think if the honourable Gentleman will be kind enough to refer to the terms of my answer he will be satisfied. At any rate, I have nothing to add on the main question. As to the House being bound, I can give no pledges on the subject in the present state of affairs.

  BRITISH NEW GUINEA SYNDICATE.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Ordinance of the British New Guinea Legislature, conferring a number of concessions upon a London Syndicate, has been disallowed by Her Majesty; and whether a demand for monetary compensation to the Syndicate has been addressed to the Governments of New South Wales, Victoria, and Queensland;

  871
  if so, oh what grounds, and to what amount?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: 1. The Ordinance has been disallowed in consequence of the objections to its provisions entertained by the Governments of New South Wales and Victoria, two of the Colonies which contribute to the expense of the administration of British New Guinea. 2. As the Syndicate had reason to expect from the correspondence which took place before I was aware of the objections of the two Colonies, that the Ordinance would not be disallowed, I have informed them that if they have, in reliance on that correspondence, incurred expenditure in furtherance of the objects of the concession, I should be prepared to submit to the contributing Colonies any reasonable claim for the repayment of the actual out-of-pocket expenses so incurred. I have not yet received any statement of such claim.

  PACIFIC CABLE.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any decision has yet been arrived at by the Imperial Government in co-operation with the Governments of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, in reference to the construction of a Pacific cable, having regard to recent important international developments in that ocean?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: No decision has yet been arrived at.

  IMPERIAL UNIVERSITY.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a scheme for the utilisation of a portion of the Imperial Institute buildings for the purposes of a new Imperial University has been brought under his notice; and whether the scheme will be submitted for the approval of the Colonial Governments concerned before definite action is taken?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: I believe that a Conference of representatives of the Government on the Imperial Institute and
  872
  the London University will shortly take place to consider whether a part of the Institute buildings can, with due regard to all existing interests, be made available for the accommodation of the London University, as reconstituted by the Act of last Session. Until the result of the deliberation of the Conference is known, it would be premature to consider what, if any, further steps should be taken in the matter.

  PAPERS ON CHINA.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a Question, of which I have given him private notice—namely, when will he be able to lay further papers on the Table regarding China, the last instalment having been presented so far back as April of last year?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Sir, I am afraid I cannot promise a date for these papers. They are, I think, rather behindhand, and, as the right honourable Gentleman knows, a further delay is consequent upon the necessity of consulting foreign Governments, which is very apt to make an unduly prolonged period before papers are laid. I hope it will not be longer than a fortnight or three weeks, but I cannot make any pledge.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right honourable Gentleman will observe that it is a very long interval, considering the active nature of the negotiations since April last.

  A QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
  MR. J. LOWTHER (): Mr. Speaker, I desire to submit to the House a matter of privilege arising out of Question 39. That Question was as follows:—
  "To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to reports of two meetings held 10th February for the selection of Parliamentary candidates, one in South Bedfordshire, alleged to have been presided over by the Duke of Bedford, and the other in South Buckinghamshire, at which the chair is stated to have been taken by Lord

  873
  Carrington; and whether, in view of the Sessional Order passed at his instance upon 7th February, in which it is declared that it is a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of the Commons for any Peer to concern himself in the election of Members to serve for the Commons in Parliament, it is his intention to propose to the House any action in vindication of its privileges."
  Now, Sir, I have no desire to trench upon ground which, occupied the attention of the House on Tuesday last, but I desire to draw attention to the answer which has just been given by the First Lord of the Treasury. My right honourable Friend remarked that it had been the practice for Peers to abstain from taking any part in elections when those elections were imminent, and it would seem to be his view that such a course constituted compliance with the Sessional Order in question. Now, Sir, I venture to say that there is no authority whatever for the limitation which the First Lord of the Treasury seeks to impose upon the Sessional Order. I have searched in vain for any authoritative utterance to that effect. On the contrary, I find that a Resolution of the Long Parliament makes special reference, not to any action after the issue of Writs, but to the fact that letters from Lords of Parliament have been received by electors, and there is no limitation whatsoever as to the period when these letters were despatched. I submit that it is clear on the face of it that what the House of Commons at that time had in view was the selection of candidates at the instance of Peers. Whether wise or foolish—on that I make no comment—the Resolution of the Long Parliament was not directed to combat action in relation to imminent elections. The Resolution went on to say that any such letter, if received, should hereafter be sent by the parties receiving the same, who should certify the contents thereof, or by bringing the letters themselves to the Speaker of the House of Commons. Therefore, I think the honourable Gentlemen who have brought this matter before the notice of the House of Commons have simply obeyed the injunction of the Resolution passed hundreds of years ago. Now, Sir, the period my right honourable Friend has suggested as limiting the operations of the Ses-
  874
  sional Order has never been seriously contemplated by the House of Commons. Take the case of the Bishop of Carlisle: I find that in 1710 the Bishop was alleged to have concerned himself in the election of a Member for the City of Carlisle, and a Resolution was then passed by the House of Commons declaring that—
  "William, Lord Bishop of Carlisle, by dispersing several copies of a letter, has highly infringed the privileges of the Commons of Great Britain."
  In more recent times we find that in all the discussions which have taken place such a limit as the right honourable Gentleman has arbitrarily assigned has never been imposed either by this House or by any competent authority within its walls. The action of Lord Beaconsfield, of Lord Rosebery, and of the Duke of Devonshire has been mentioned to the House, and I would cite also the case of Lord Salisbury, who not only violated this Order, but claimed a vote for a Member of this House, and carried his appeal to the highest Court in the land. We therefore have during the last quarter of a century all the Prime Ministers who had sat in the House of Lords—Lord Beaconsfield, Lord Salisbury, and Lord Rosebery—acting unanimously in contravention of the Sessional Order. I would remind the House that the Duke of Devonshire, to whom reference has also been made, was very near becoming a Prime Minister, being actually charged with the duty of forming an Administration, so that he may very fairly be added to the list of Peers occupying the highest position in the Government who have set this rule absolutely at defiance. The right honourable Gentleman was apparently rather shocked the other day—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The right honourable Gentleman is now pursuing and commenting upon the Debate which took place the other day. He must confine himself to the Question of Privilege."
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I will confine myself to the Questions on the Paper, bearing as they do upon another case, that of Lord Buckinghamshire, which I will not specifically refer to in detail

  875
  because it was mentioned the other night. I can only say that the right honourable Gentleman was entirely wrong this afternoon in saying that the Order is generally observed by Peers. The facts show that not only the eminent Peers to whom reference has been made, but Peers holding a very prominent position, likewise disobey this Resolution. I am reminded by one Question on the Paper that the noble Duke referred to was, whilst we were considering this Question, proposing the Address in reply to Her Majesty's most gracious Speech from the Throne in another place, and the other Peer whose case was referred to occupies, and has occupied, a very important position in the public life of this country, both as a Minister of the Crown and as holding an important post under the Crown in one of the principal Colonies in the Empire. Sir, the question we have to decide is, not whether the House has been acting wisely or foolishly in passing annually this Resolution, but what is the interpretation we place upon this Resolution, and what reasonable interpretation can be placed on the language in which it is couched. I think we have a right to know whether the House intends to act up to this Resolution, or whether it intends to proclaim to all whom it may concern that black means white, and that the language of the Resolution is not to be construed in the ordinary and natural sense. I desire, Sir, to consult the House generally as to the precise course that should be pursued. When attention was called to the case of Lord Rosebery, some fire years ago, a resolution was submitted to the effect that, in the opinion of this House, a breach of its privileges had been committed. Now, Sir, I do not think we have sufficient information, especially after what has fallen from the First Lord of the Treasury, to commit ourselves to that assertion. I would rather suggest that we should follow other precedents, which are, perhaps, more convenient, viz., to refer the question of the alleged breach of this Order to a Select Committee. There is a Committee, which this House annually sets up pro formâ, called the Committee of Privileges. I believe that that Committee has never actually acted as a corporate body since 1833;
  876
  it was, I believe, revived pro formâ on the opening day of this Session; but for practical purposes it does not exist. When the House has found itself confronted with questions of this kind it has been it practice on several occasions to appoint a Select Committee specially to consider the subjects, and that is the course which I venture to suggest to the House at this time. If that be the view taken, I will propose:
  "That it having been represented to this House that the Duke of Bedford and Earl Carrington—two Lords of Parliament—did severally, on 10th February last, infringe the liberties and privileges of this House by concerning themselves in the election of Members of the Commons, it is ordered that these matters be referred to a Select Committee."
  That is the course which was taken, though the circumstances were not quite the same, by Sir Stafford Northcote in 1879, and it relieves the House from undertaking to judge, upon the insufficient information now before it, whether the acts alleged did or did not constitute a breach of its liberties and privileges. I will relieve the House from the necessity of going further into the subject at the present moment, by formally moving the resolution.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON ()formally seconded the Motion.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I do not advise the House to concur in the suggestion of my right honourable Friend, for I think the course he proposes would really lead to no practical result, and would be of no value whatever. The Committee would either report that a technical breach of the Standing Order had been committed, or that it had not been committed. If they reported that it had not been committed, it is evident that no action on the part of this House could even be suggested. If they reported that it had been committed, it is equally clear that this House has no power of enforcing the Standing Order, or taking any action against either the Duke of Bedford or Lord Carrington. In fact, I think it was the main contention of my right honourable Friend when he called the attention of this House to this subject, at an earlier stage of our proceedings, that this House was powerless to apply any remedy if the Stand-

  877
  ing Order was infringed. Well, Sir, if it be not in the power of this House to take any overt action, even if the Standing Order has been broken, what is the object of having the inquiry that my right honourable Friend desires? It may be that the object of my right honourable Friend is not to take action against those two Members of the other House, but to lay the foundation for some future Motion in a future Session on the lines of the Motion the House has already rejected on the first day of the present Session. But in that case, Sir, we ought to inquire not into the action of these two noble Lords, but into the propriety or impropriety of maintaining the Standing Order. I should certainly not advise that course; but that is not the question before the House. If the House were to accede to the Motion it would not, I conceive, be in the power of the Committee of Privileges to give any advice to the House involving the Question of maintaining, year after year, Session after Session, the Sessional Order which we have already discussed within the last fortnight. Under these circumstances, Sir, if I am right—as I think I am—in saying that the sole subject of the inquiry, on the part of the Committee, would be as to whether a technical breach of this Order had, or had not, been committed by the noble Lords, we should be asking a certain number of our Members to go through a perfectly empty and vain task, which would lead to no prac-
  tical result whatever. The value of the Standing Order, if it has any value, as I think it has, does not depend on our power of enforcing it, because we have no power of enforcing it. By common admission we have no power, and it never has been enforced in any case mentioned by my right honourable Friend—
  MR. J. LOWTHER: The Bishop of Carlisle, in 1710, came to the Bar.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: If he came to the Bar he certainly came of his own good pleasure. This House would have no power to compel a Member of the other House to come to the Bar. In these circumstances, it appears to me that this House would only put itself in a false position if it committed itself to make an inquiry which, in any event, can lead to no useful result. We shall be no further advanced either in dealing with the two noble Lords in question, or with the general principle of the Resolution, than we are at the present time. As we have a sufficient number of really important inquiries demanding the attention of this House, I see no object in entering upon the perfectly vain and frivolous inquiry which my honourable Friend desires.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 119; Noes, 230.—(Division List No. 7.)

  AYES.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Daly, James

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Allen, W. Newc. under Lyme)

  Davitt, Michael

  Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Dillon, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hogan, James Francis

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Duckworth, James

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Baker, Sir John

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Dunn, Sir William

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Kilbride, Denis

  Billson, Alfred

  Ffrench, Peter

  Kinloch, Sir J. George Smyth

  Blake, Edward

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Labouchere, Henry

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Lambert, George

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Gibney, James

  Langley, Batty

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Gilhooly, James

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Carew, James Laurence

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Leng, Sir John

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Gold, Charles

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Colville, John

  Harwood, George

  Logan, John William

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Cozens-Hardy, Herbert Hardy

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Strachey, Edward

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Maden, John Henry

  Pinkerton, John

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

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Thomas, David Alf'd (Merthyr)

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Tully, Jasper

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Morris, Samuel

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wayman, Thomas

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Richardson, J. (Durham)

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Moss, Samuel

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Weir, James Galloway

  Murnaghan, George

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Williams,John Carvell (Notts.)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Roche, John (East Galway)

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

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees)

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Woods, Samuel

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow,W.)

  Shee, James John

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  O'Keeffe, Francis Arthur

  Sheehy, David

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Mr. James Lowther and Sir Wilfrid Lawson.

  Perks, Robert William

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Davies, M.Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Denny, Colonel

  Hutchinson, Capt. G.W. Grice-

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Doughty, George

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Asher, Alexander

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Joicey, Sir James

  Balcarres, Lord

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'sea)

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

  Ellis, Thos. E. (Merionethsh.)

  Kay-Shuttleworth,RtHn Sir U.

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

  Engledew, Charles John

  Kemp, Gorge

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Kenyon, James

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Barry,RtH.A.H.Smith-(Hnts)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Knowles, Lees

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Fergusson, Rt H.Sir J.(Manc'r)

  Lafone, Alfred

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Beach,Rt. Hn. SirM. H. (Bristol)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Corn.)

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lawaon, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Bethell, Commander

  Fison, Frederick William

  Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset)

  Biddulph, Michael

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'sea)

  Bigwood, James

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Forster, Henry William

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry

  Long, Rt Hn Walter (Liv'pool)

  Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's L.)

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Lowe, Francis William

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fred'k

  Lowles, John

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Burt, Thomas

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Caldwell, James

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Carlile, William Walter

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Gretton, John

  M'Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  M'Killop, James

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

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

  Hall, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles

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

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hamilton, Rt.Hn. Lord George

  Milbank, Sir Powlett C. John

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

  Monckton, Edward Philip

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

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Monk, Charles James

  Coddington, Sir William

  Hardy, Laurence

  More, Robert Jasper

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Harr, Thomas Leigh

  Morgan, J.Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Cohen, Benjamin, Louis

  Heath, James

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Helder, Augustus

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

  Hill, Rt. Hn. A. Staveley(Staffs)

  Mount, William George

  Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

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

  Crombie, John William

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh

  Myers, William Henry

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Curzon, Viscount

  Howard, Joseph

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hughes, Colonel Edwin

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  880

  881

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Valentia, Viscount

  Pender, Sir James

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Penn, John

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Ward, Hon. Robert A. (Crewe)

  Pilkington, Richard

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

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

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Plunkett, Rt.H.Horace Curzon

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

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Purvis, Robert

  Souttar, Robinson

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

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Spencer, Ernest

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

  Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

  Spicer, Albert

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Stanley, Hn.Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Ridley, Rt.Hn.Sir Matthew W.

  Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Williams, Jos. Powell (Birm.)

  Rothschild, Hon.Lionel Walter

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Round, James

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

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

  Russell, Gen. F.S. (Cheltenham)

  Stock, James Henry

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Wyndham, George

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. E. J.

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Younger, William

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

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

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Thorburn, Walter

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  ASH WEDNESDAY SITTING.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That the House do meet to-morrow at Two of the clock."—(The, First Lord of the Treasury.)
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (): I oppose this Motion. I oppose it because I want to be politically consistent, and I could wish that honourable Gentlemen on both sides would follow so good an example. I understand the right honourable Gentleman's sole intention in moving this Resolution is that honourable Members may go to church between the hours of 12 and 2. We should do nothing of the kind. Those of us who want to go to church can, as honourable Gentlemen know, go at 8 o'clock in the morning; and, if honourable Members desire to go at 12, they can do so, if they will allow those of us who remain to conduct the business of the country. The Order is a sanctimonious sham, and does not appeal to anybody. I have made a study of the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House. On Friday night the right honourable Gentleman began the preliminary stage of the Closure, and in his most delightful manner expressed the hope that we
  should defer all controversial matters to a later stage of the Session. But why should he take from us two precious hours of the time of this country that we are willing to give? Everybody knows that the Gentlemen who take either the Established Church side or the Catholic side go to church early in the morning, and not in the afternoon, and, therefore, the right honourable Gentleman is not in the slightest degree destroying the pious associations of the day. I am sure the right honourable Gentleman would be the last man in the world to advertise piety at such a cheap cost. For these reasons I oppose the Motion, and I will go to a Division if I am the only man to take this particular course. I feel very strongly on the subject, and next year, if I am spared, I will, following my right honourable Friend's example, move the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire whether any honourable Gentleman does go to church between the hours of 12 and 2 on Ash Wednesday.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 213; Noes, 142.—(Division List No. 8.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon John

  Banbury, Frderick George

  Ambrose, William (Middlesex)

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Bagot,Capt. Joseceline FitzRoy

  Barry,RtHnA H.Smith-(Hunts

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor)

  Arrol, Sir William

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

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

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

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Beach, RtHn. Sir M.H. (Bristol)

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Penn, John

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

  Pilkington, Richard

  Bethell, Commander

  Heath, James

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Biddulph, Michael

  Helder, Augustus

  Plunkett, Rt Hon. Horace G.

  Bigwood, James

  Hill, Rt.Hn. A. Staveley(Staffs

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Hill, Sir Edw. Stock (Bristol)

  Purvis, Robert

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Ridley, RtHn Sir Matthew W.)

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Carlile, William Walter

  Howard, Joseph

  Round, James

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelten'm)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hughes, Colonel Edwin

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Hutchinson,Capt.G. W. Grice-

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. E. J.

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

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Charrington, Spencer

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

  Kemp, George

  Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew)

  Coddington, Sir William

  Kenyon, James

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Knowles, Lees

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lafone, Alfred

  Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

  Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

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

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Lawrence,Sir E.Durning-(Corn

  Spencer, Ernest

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

  Curzon, Viscount

  Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset)

  Stanley, Edw. James (Somerset

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'sea)

  Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Denny, Colonel

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Stewart,SirMark J. M'Taggart

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Doughty, George

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Stock, James Henry

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Lowles, John

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. (Kent)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Talbot, Rt.Hn. J.G.(Ox. Univ.)

  Fergusson,RtHn.Sir J. (Manc'r

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Thorburn, Walter

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Tritton, Chares Ernest

  Fisher, William Hayes

  MArthur, Charles (Liverpool

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fison, Frederick William

  M'Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Folkestone, Viscount

  M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim,E.)

  Ward, Hn. Robert A. (Crewe)

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Killop, James

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

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Gilliat, John Saunders

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

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredr'k

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Webster, SirR.E.(I. of Wight)

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Milbank, Sir Powlett C. John

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

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Gorst, Rt Hon. Sir John E.

  Monk, Charles James

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Goschen,RtHnG. J. (StGeorge's

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  More, Robert Jasper

  Williams, Jos. Powell (Birm.)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

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

  Gretton, John

  Mount, William George

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

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

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

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wyndham, George

  Hall, Rt. Hon Sir Charles

  Myers, William Henry

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Younger, William

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Hardy, Laurence

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Pender, Sir James

  NOES.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Billson, Alfred

  Allen, W. (Newc-under-Lyme)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Blake, Edward

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Baker, Sir John

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Ambrose, Robert (Mayo, W.)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Asher, Alexander

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Burt, Thomas

  884

  885

  Buxton, Sydney, Charles

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Pinkerton, John

  Caldwell, James

  Hogan, James Francis

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Carew, James Laurence

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Joicey, Sir James

  Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Jones, Dd. Brynmor (Sw'sea)

  Richardson, J. (Durham)

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Colville, John

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt.H.SirU.

  Roche, John (East Galway)

  Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Cozens-Hardy, Herbert Hardy

  Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Crombie, John William

  Lambert, George

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Daly, James

  Langley, Batty

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Davies, M.Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Lawson, Sir Wilf. (Cumb'land)

  Shee, James John

  Davitt, Michael

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Sheehy, David

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Leng, Sir John

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Dillon, John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Souttar, Robinson

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lloyd-George, David

  Spicer, Albert

  Doogan, P. C.

  Logan, John William

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Duckworth, James

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Dunn, Sir William

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Strachey, Edward

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Ellis, Thos. Ed. (Merionethsh.)

  Maddison, Fred.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Engledew, Charles Jonn

  Maden, John Henry

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.)

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

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  Thomas, Alf. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Thomas, Dd. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Tully, Jasper

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Morgan, J. Ll. (Carmarthen)

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Morris, Samuel

  Wayman, Thomas

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Morton, Ed. J. C. (Devonport)

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Moss, Samuel

  Weir, James Galloway

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Murnaghan, George

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Gibney, James

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

  Gilhooly, James

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Gold, Charles

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

  Woods, Samuel

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  O'Keeffe, Francis Arthur

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Harwood, George

  Jease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Perks, Bobert William

  Mr. MacNeill and Mr. Kilbride.

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

NEW BILLS.
The following Bills were brought iii and read a first time:—
SIR R. REID: Bill to amend the Public Libraries (Scotland) Acts.
COLONEL HUGHES: Bill to amend the Metropolitan Officers' Superannuation Act, 1866.
MR. H. SAMUEL: Bill to amend the Metropolis Water Act, 1871, and to make further provision for the due supply of water for the Metropolis.
GENERAL LAURIE: Bill to enable Leaseholders to become Freeholders.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS: Bill to amend the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.

    SIXTH DAY.
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Main Question [7th February], "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as followeth:—
    "Most Gracious Sovereign,—
    "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament:"—(Captain Bagot.)
    Main Question again proposed. Debate resumed.

    HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS OF SCOTLAND.
    Another Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words,—
    "And we humbly express our regret that, although the Commissioners appointed by your Majesty in 1892 to inquire into the Land Question in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland have reported that 1,782,785 acres of land now occupied as deer forests, grouse moors, etc., might be cultivated to profit, or otherwise advantageously occupied by crofters or small tenants, there is no indication in your Majesty's Speech that arrangements will be made for acquiring some portion of this land, so that the crofters, cottars, and fishermen may be able to live under more favourable conditions than those under which many of them now exist; and 1hat there is no indication that the benefit of the Crofters Act, 1886, will be extended to all crofter tenants holding under lease at the time of the passing of that Act."—(Mr. Weir.)
    MR. WEIR (): I make no apology for moving this Amendment to the Address of Our Most Gracious Majesty, because the grievances which it is sought to relieve by this Amendment are grievances of many years' standing. In 1883 a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into these grievances, and I should like to call the attention of the House to the words which Sir George Trevelyan, on 8th March 1886, used in this House—
    "I begin by referring to the fact that there are 2,000,000 acres of land not grazed on now, because they have been converted into deer forests, and, in addition, enormous tracts of country have been given up to shootings which were formerly used as grazing ground. I am sure that my honourable Friend the, Member for Falkirk Burghs is not aware of the enormous rental of these deer forests and shootings. It is only 16 years ago that the rental of the shooting in Scotland was £73,000 a year. I would rather take a later date. In the year 1877 the rental of the deer forests and shootings was £233,000, while in the last eight years it has increased to £363,009."
    And since then it has probably increased to half a million sterling. Most of the land which is used for deer is also suitable for cultivation, and I say that it is a shame that the Government should allow the people of the country to be driven out of it in order that deer may live, and that the landlords may get great rents from sportsmen who are only at their
    888
    shootings a few weeks during the year. Then he further says—
    "My honourable Friend the Member for Falkirk Burghs talks of the extreme injustice to the landlords of one clause in regard to compensation for improvements. He says, 'Can anything be more contrary to justice and common sense than giving a man compensation for a house which he has built, and which perhaps the owner would not care to have? I say, what could be more contrary to justice and common sense than pulling down a house which a man has built at his own expense and with his own labour, without his landlord having forbidden him to do so, and without giving him a penny of compensation. It has been frequently the case in making clearances for deer forests, and still more frequently for making-clearances for sheep walks, that a man who has built a house and cultivated the ground round him has had to see that ground laid waste and his house pulled down without a penny of compensation for his labour and expenditure. The honourable Member for Wigtonshire followed with a speech, in which he set on foot a class of criticism that has been mainly followed from the opposite Benches. The honourable Member said the Commissioners had made five or six different representations with regard to the measures which ought to be taken with regard to the crofter districts, and that of these we had taken only one, and that was the one that referred to land. Now, Sir, in the first place, I maintain that that was the recommendation of recommendations. It was, I fancy—and the honourable Member for Wigtonshire will not deny it—in reference to the land that the agitation began which caused the Commission to be sent to the Highlands. What are the words of the Commissioners? They say, 'The principal matter of dissatisfaction in connection with the occupancy of the land urged on our notice in almost every district with the utmost vehemence, and with the greatest consensus of authority, is the restriction of the area of holdings.' That is the main question that the crofters have in mind. There their discontent began, and until the grievance is remedied it will not cease."
    Well, Sir, I read this to show that the grievance is not a grievance of yesterday—it is a grievance of very old standing. I am not going to take up the time and weary the patience of the House by a description of the clan system under which the crofter formally held his land. But I say that the Highland people are entitled to come to this House and, through their representatives, ask the Government to give their attention to the report of the Royal Commission appointed in 1892 to consider this matter. The neglect of the Government to extend the benefits of the Crofters Act to small tenants holding under lease enables landlords to continue carrying out evictions. Crofters who were leaseholders at the

    889
    time of the passing of the Crofters Act are being driven off the land, while deer forests continue to increase in area. Depopulation is going on to an alarming extent. In 1851 the population of Argyleshire was 96,821, whilst in 1891 it was only 75,915, showing a diminution in the population of 20,879 in 40 years. In Inverness the population in 1851 was 98,417, and in the year 1891 it was 88,362, showing a diminution of 10,055. This is making no allowance for the normal increase during that period. With that decrease in population, one would have thought that the Poor-rate would also have diminished, but, on the contrary, it is all the other way. The Poor-rate has gone up alarmingly; in fact, it is more than double. In 1852 the Poor-rate in six crofting counties was £46,565, whilst in 1892 it was £94,697. In 40 years the population in six crofting counties has decreased by 37,064. In 1851 it was 397,372, and in 1891 only 360,308. There is an erroneous impression in the minds of some members of this House that there is no land in the Highlands fit for men to cultivate, but the Royal Commission which sat in 1892, and reported to this House in 1895, a Commission composed of Liberal and Conservative Members of this House, and a few outside Gentlemen, who sat as experts, divided the land into three classes. They pointed out that 1,782,785 acres of land were suitable for the wants of the people—I hope the Lord Advocate will take note of this, and not as he did two years ago, inform me that my figures are erroneous. My figures are accurate. The Royal Commission divided the land into three classes: they pointed out that there were 794,750 acres suitable for new holdings, 439,188 acres suitable for the extension of existing holdings, and 548,847 acres suitable for moderate-sized farms. We are told time after time that there is no land fit for the people, that the land which is used for the deer forests is not suitable for grazing or arable purposes. It is the fact that this land is available, and it ought to be disposed of as the needs of the people require, and not kept for sportsmen, in order that landlords may get enormous rents. We are told that it is an advantage to the country that these lands should be turned into deer forests because they attract wealthy
    890
    people to the Highlands. This may be advantageous to the railway companies, hotelkeepers and gillies. The landlord does not spend his money in the Highlands. Not at all; he spends it in London, Paris, and Monte Carlo. It is not expended among the Highland people, and to say that the great rents which go into his pocket, are a benefit to the country is a pure delusion. My complaint is, that although these facts came to the knowledge of the Government in 1892, no step has been taken by the Government to remedy this state of things. Sir George Trevelyan brought in a Bill, on the 22nd of Apri1, 1895, which would have placed half a million acres of this land in the hands of the people; but that Bill was opposed by the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House, who was then in Opposition. I wish the right honourable Gentleman was in his place. He claims to be a Highlander, and at one time owned a large Highland estate. When the Bill was under discussion I intimated that if it were allowed to go through its second reading, I would go into the Lobby with him and endeavour, to the best of my ability, to assist him in making it a better Bill, but he opposed it because it was not generous enough, and did not go sufficiently far. When the right honourable Gentleman came into power with a magnificent majority behind him we did hope, and had a right to expect, that he would do something for these people, but, in spite of his criticisms, and in spite of the appeals which we have made for help in this direction, little or nothing has been done. I hone the right honourable Gentleman the Lord Advocate will give us some promise to-day that something will now be done. We shall probably be told that something has been done by the Congested Districts Board. The right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House complained when the honourable Member for Caithness moved an Amendment last year. He said that they had given large sums of money under the Congested Districts Act; but this was not so. This Congested Districts Act placed £15,000 at the disposal of the Congested Districts Board. The right honourable Gentleman promised us £35,000, but later on told the House that the annual grant of £20,000 under the Highlands and Islands

    891
    Public Works Act, 1891, would be discontinued. Now, I think this is simply trying to throw dust in our eyes. Let us see what was done with the £15,000 that was granted to the Congested Districts Board. It is stated that the Congested Districts Boards may accept gifts of land. I know of none which are likely to be made. That Board has been in existence since 1897, but I have never been able to obtain any information with regard to the work it has done. The right honourable Gentleman will probably tell us that the report is contained in the Library of the House. I inquired for it last night, and found it there in dummy. All that has been done, so far as I can learn, is that a few rams have been bought. I do not know whether any young cockerels have been obtained in order to improve the breed of fowls. Since the 1st August 1897, this Board has been in existence, and practically nothing has been done. I believe some land has been secured, but only a very small piece. But what about this 1,782,785 acres of land which was reported to be suitable for the people? That is the land that we want to get at. In the time of the late disturbances, gunboats and Marines were sent down to the Highlands, but does the Government for one moment believe that Highlanders are going to be frightened by gunboats or Marines, or even by cold steel or the whiz of bullets. They have a right to come to this House through their representatives and demand that their grievances shall be redressed. I, for one, am not anxious for a repetition of those riotous, anxious times in 1884 and 1885, which the right honourable Gentleman will probably say took place under a Liberal Administration. Some of them did, but some also occurred under the rule of the present Leader of the House. We have every right to expect the Government to do something now, if only in the interests of the country generally. I was recently talking to a recruiting officer, who said, "We used to get 50 or 60 recruits in a few Highland townships, but now there is not a man to be had." This country has spent large sums of money upon war material and ships, but where do we get our finest men from? The Highlands. We ought not to allow Highland families to be driven from their native glens. Lord Roberts speaks
    892
    of Highlanders as the very finest soldiers. I am not surprised that it costs nearly £100 to get a Highland recruit. Now, the first part of my Amendment refers to the land, the second part refers to leaseholders. The Crofters Commission, up to the end of 1897, dealt with 19,756 applications to fix fair rents. They reduced the old rents on 19,497 applications from £80,373 to £58,910, making a reduction of £21,463, and they reduced arrears amounting to £183,776 by £123,631, leaving £60,145 to be paid. This gives some indication of the rack-renting and robbery which has been going on in the Highlands. I take this opportunity of urging upon the right honourable Gentleman the Lord Advocate that leaseholders should be brought under the Crofters Act. I should just like, with the permission of the House, to refer for one moment to an extract of a speech made by Lord Salisbury in December 1888, at Edinburgh, in which he said—
    "I wish to say one word on the question of arrears, and I wish to say it because it has received a Scottish application. The only argument which I know that at all has any plausibility for remitting the arrears which are complained of in Ireland, is that in the Bill which was passed to relieve the Scottish crofters the question of arrears was dealt with. Now I can conceive no mistake greater than to confuse the question of Irish land with the question of the Scottish crofter. The Scottish Crofters Bill was no Measure for which I am responsible, and I do not profess to admire it in all respects, but it has this particular merit—it was not a disturbance of old, long-established rights. The ground on which you interfered with the position of the Scottish crofter was that you said that up to a comparatively recent period they had held upon a tenure which was not the general tenure of these islands; and that the tenure had, by lapse, by carelessness, by use, by encroachment, been converted into a condition of things wholly and unjustly disadvantageous to themselves. It was said that the old clannish tenure, which was very different from the old ordinary laws of landlord and tenant in this country, had slipped into a law of landlord and tenant entirely to the advantage of the landlord, without any consideration of the valuable interest which the clansman formerly had in the land upon which he lived. That was a very fair argument, and the Act of Parliament which followed from it was that the rule of prescriptions hitherto observed generally in this country should be considerably extended—extended from 60 to 80 years—and that all who had for 80 years been in the condition of crofters should have their ease specially considered. That was a decision perfectly consistent with the ordinary doctrines of the rights of property in general. The case of the Irish tenant was very different. There Parliament in its wisdom set aside the rights of

    893
    landlords which had existed for many years, many hundreds of years, and had existed by full confession and approval of the law, in many cases by direct provision of an Act of Parliament. Of course, I do not wish to discuss the policy of that Measure. I was myself opposed to it, but that is not my present point. What I wish to show is how different it was from the case of Scotland, to show you how in the case of Ireland you took away from the landlord that which the landlord always had a right to in Ireland for centuries, that which he has a right to in every other country in the world; that is to say, to occupy, if he pleases, subject to all contracts and subject to all compensations, for improvements to the land which he owns. You have taken that away from the Irish landlord. It is a tremendous Measure, and it has nothing whatever in common with the very moderate and limited Measure which in respect of these peculiar circumstances you have applied to the crofters of Scotland. Therefore, I say, the fact that in dealing with the crofters of Scotland you also dealt with the arrears which had arisen under a system that you determined to be varied, has nothing whatever to do with the larger and far more revolutionary Measure which was applied to Ireland."
    I would ask the attention of the Lord Advocate to the fact that these were the views of Lord Salisbury in 1888, expressed in reply to a speech by Mr. Gladstone. The Crofter leaseholders are now in precisely the same position that they were years ago, and I sincerely hope that some remedy may be found for the grievances of which they complain. If nothing is done serious trouble may happen. In the Highland crofting counties there are frequently to be found two sets of tenants living next door to one another. One has had his rent reduced, and his arrears to a large extent wiped off, whilst another who has the misfortune to> be a leaseholder is left out in the cold, and gets no benefit whatever from the Crofters' Act. What I ask is that these leaseholders should be brought within the benefits of the Crofters Act. That is not an unreasonable request. In some cases arrangements with the landlord can be made, in others no arrangement can be made; the landlords are inflexible or the trustees are inflexible, and the unfortunate tenant is cleared out. I am afraid that some of these days a number of these tenants will put their backs to the wall, and resist any efforts made to evict them.
    DR. FARQUHARSON (): I do not think anybody can
    894
    take exception to the line adopted by my honourable Friend when, in the exercise of his duty to his constituents and in the fulness of his knowledge, he has brought this subject before us, in a speech which I do not think anyone can describe as a mere debating society exercise, dealing with abstract and impracticable principles which have no bearing on the condition of things at the present moment. I think he has also been well advised to take advantage" of what is really the only opportunity which we poor semi-excluded private Members have of bringing forward Debates on subjects of interest to our constituents. Of course, if we are kept down in one direction it is quite plain we must crop up in another. I am very sorry that my honourable Friend's colleagues representing Highland constituencies are absent on this occasion, and still more do I deplore the absence of my honourable Friend the Member for Orkney, who was to have seconded this Motion, and who has much greater practical acquaintance with the subject than I have. I am pleased to have the honour of doing so in his absence, and of making these few observations, because, although I am not what is ordinarily called a crofter Member, still I represent a county which contains a large number of small farms, of small people very like the crofters, who live almost exactly in the crofting traditions, and whom we have tried on many occasions, I am sorry to say unsuccessfully, to bring within the scope of the Crofters Act. In my own constituency in Aberdeenshire there are a great number of people living very like crofters, under conditions very much the same as those in Lewis and Skye and other parts of the Highlands. Now, it is quite evident that we are not to have a very great crop of Scottish legislation during this Session, and I do not think we can grudge the little time that we take on this occasion in ventilating a Scotch grievance. I think we Scottish Members, on the whole, are rather an unobtrusive and retiring set, and we only overcome our native modesty and interfere with the settled order of things and the smooth running of official programmes under certain conditions, that is, when we are smarting under an intolerable sense of injustice, when we want to inform and develop public opinion

    895
    outside this House and instruct Ministers as to what the condition of public opinion really is from our own practical experience. There is surely nothing in this grievance brought before the House by my honourable Friend on this occasion at all revolutionary, and I am quite certain of this, that there is nothing confiscatory. All that is wanted is to complete the work that has already been begun. We have heard a good deal lately about various reasons for which Royal Commissions are appointed. The Leader of the House last night practically admitted that they are occasionally appointed to stave off inconvenient questions with the object of acting as an anæsthetic upon the public mind, a kind of zareba behind which the Ministers and candidates may safely retreat when pressed by inconvenient questions. Whatever may have been the reason for the appointment of the Crofter Commission, there is no doubt of its complete, satisfactory, and brilliant success—a success which no doubt is largely due to a number of men, one of them lately dead, Lord Napier of Ettrick, whose abilities were shown in the conduct of that Commission and in the admirable report that he wrote, and the skill and charm with which he put the case before the country was such that it ultimately became irresistible; it was also due to the energy and initiative of one whom I may call our late right honourable Friend, Sir George Trevelyan, whose name is equally honoured in this House and out of it, not only for legislation, but many other matters that he has placed on the Statute Book. There is no doubt about the success of the Crofters Act. I was reading the other day the remarks made by the Chairman of the second Commission, in which he pointed out that the Crofters Act had infused new life into these men. They have now got new hope for the future, and confidence that their improvements will not be confiscated, and that all they do for the benefit of the land will become their own property. They have begun to build their farmhouses, they are building barns, they have cultivated the soil better than they did before; and, best of all from the landlords' point of view, they are now paying their rents regularly and well. Well, all we want now is to carry this excellent system one stage farther. You
    896
    know the Crofters Commission has only carried out two essential particulars; the crofter has only got fair rent and fixity of tenure; the extension of his holding, which was urgently recommended by the Crofters Commission has not been carried out. In order to get some information upon that point, the Crofters Commission of 1892 was appointed and sat, and it made a report, and if a political accident had not so prematurely terminated the useful career of the Liberal Government, I am quite certain it would have carried out legislation in order to put that crowning stone upon the edifice which we had raised so successfully on a former occasion. My honourable Friend says there is plenty of land now in the Highlands fit for the accommodation of these poor cramped up people. We know perfectly well that they are able to use it, and we look to the Government now in the full opulence of power to suggest machinery. It is not for us to suggest machinery to carry out the Commission's recommendations, whether by a system of land purchase recommended by my honourable Friend, who was a member of the Commission, or by the re-appointment of the old Crofter Commission which laid down regulations by which these things might be carried out. I am not going to suggest machinery. I hope we shall get some sympathetic words from the Lord Advocate. If he cannot accept the Amendment I trust, at all events, he will be able to give us some glimmer of hope during the period of office that may remain to him that he will do something to tackle this interesting and necessary question. There is no possible idea of anything confiscatory. If land is taken no doubt a fair price will be paid for it. All about Skye and these Highland districts is very poor game country; there is very little game. I do not suppose there will be really very great interference with the sporting rights of proprietors, and if the sporting proprietors are at all embarrassed there as they are in other districts with which I am familiar, I have no doubt they will be glad to get something tangible in hand in agricultural value instead of depending on their sporting estates. We have been told the old story about emigration. Of course, that is a policy of despair. You cast people out of the country to which

    897
    they are passionately attached. I do not think you ought to do that until you are, at all events, convinced that there is not room for them to remain in their own country, and, as this Report of the Commission of 1892 has shown emphatically, a large portion of the territory of the Highland districts may usefully be employed for the purpose. I think it really would be a pity to drive people away to uncongenial soils and climates, and very hard and trying conditions of life, before, at all events, there is a reasonable attempt made to plant them down in their own country under less unfavourable conditions than those which they now occupy. That my honourable Friend should raise in this House the grievance of the leaseholders is natural, for it is very cruel and crushing. That one man should have his rent adjusted by the Commission, and that the other man next door should have none of these advantages, is hard and trying, and there are precedents in other countries which will show that a system of putting leaseholders under new conditions has been tried with benefit to that special class of the community. Therefore I am glad my honourable Friend has brought forward this Motion. I have great pleasure in seconding; t, and I hope we shall get some sympathetic words from the authorities I see sitting opposite.
    MR. HEDDERWICK (): There is, in my opinion, ample justification for the Amendment which has been moved by my honourable Friend, but I confess that while I make that statement I have very little hope of any practical issue from the Amendment itself tonight, and taking that view of the Motion, I shall be very brief in the observations which I have to make with regard to the questions which it raises. In the first place, Mr. Speaker, I should like, if I may, to put one or two questions to the right honourable Gentleman opposite. I should like to ask the Lord Advocate, in the first place, whether he accepts the finding of the Deer Forest Commission as an accurate representation of the facts. I should like to ask him, in the second place, whether he admits that there is congestion in various parts of the Highlands, owing to the insufficiency of the land. And I
    898
    should like to ask him, in the third place, what the Government have done, or what the Government propose to do, to relieve that congestion. Mr. Speaker, I think these are fair questions; I think they are questions which we are entitled to ask, and I hope the Lord Advocate will give mo something like a fair and straightforward answer to them. The Government, Mr. Speaker, claims to be sincerely interested in the relief of agricultural distress. They have passed various Agricultural Rating and Relief Acts. Opinions may—and in fact do—differ as to the value of these particular Acts, but, at all events, the Government stand by them as proof of their zeal on behalf of distressed agriculture. Well, Sir, if that is so, in the Highlands there is a section of the community which exists in such dire distress that it would be almost impossible to paint in too dark colours the conditions in which these people live. There are some people, I know, who say that the poverty and distress which exists among these crofters to whom I refer is so great that it is useless to attempt to do anything on their behalf, and that they ought to be cleared off the land. I think that is a very hard thing to say. Poverty is not a crime, but even if it were a crime we have long ceased to punish crime with expatriation; and Certainly the last thing which any Government, in my opinion, should wish to do, is to deprive itself of the possible services of these people. Why, Sir, we know that the possession of many admirable qualities is quite compatible with extreme penury, and we know that in the case of the crofters that is so. In times past they have been a source of strength to the State when the State was in perilous circumstances, and if they are bundled out of the country, it may be that we may suffer grievous loss in times of peril that may be yet to come. But, Sir, I fear that if nothing be done by the Government on behalf of these poor people, the wish of these politicians who would be glad to see them cleared off the face of the earth may very likely be gratified, and that at no very great length of time, without any enforced removal at all. I take the figures which have been given us to-night by my honourable Friend, and I ought, to say that I have not verified them myself, but

    899
    I have no reason to doubt the care of his researches or the accuracy of his results. And what did he tell us? Why, Sir, he told us that, taking the six crofting counties of Scotland, in 1851 the population amounted, if I have the figures accurately, to something like 397,000 inhabitants; that in 1891, after a lapse of only 40 years, that population had decreased to 360,000, thus showing a decrease in 40 years of something like one-ninth of the total population of the six counties. Well, Mr. Speaker, these figures are very striking. It has been said that—
    "Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey, Where wealth accumulates and men decay."
    I do not suppose that anybody for a moment doubts the truth that lies embodied in these words, but if the condition of a country be perilous where wealth accumulates and men decay, what is to be said of the prospects of a country where not only do the men decay, but the wealth, instead of accumulating, diminishes in a far greater proportion than the decrease of the population? I take my honourable Friend's figures on that point again. He has told us, I presume with accuracy, that taking a complete period of 40 years, the poor rate in these six crofting counties has risen from something like £46,000, I think, to £98,000. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, you have, in the course of a period of 40 years, a population decreasing by one-ninth, and at the same time an increase in the poor rate of more than twice the original amount named. I think that, Mr. Speaker, is a very shocking state of affairs. Surely that is a state of affairs that must appeal most powerfully to a Government which professes to be the friend of the distressed agriculturist. Surely these figures are startling enough to make the Government consider whether there is not something very far wrong in the condition of these six crofting counties. Well, what do the Government propose to do? What is the remedy for this state of affairs? The Congested Districts Relief Act is no remedy. My right honourable Friend the Lord Advocate knows in his heart that that Act is no remedy. Then what, Mr. Speaker, is to be done? What is wanted by the people? They want more land. More land, yes! that is the only true remedy for the conges-
    900
    tion which exists in these crofting counties. Is there not land to be had? Why, Sir, we have the result of the labours of the Deer Forests Commission. That Commission issued its Report more than three years ago, a report which shows that there are over one million acres of land suitable for cultivation by the crofters to be had cheap in the Highlands. On the other hand, we have a Chancellor of the Exchequer whose coffers have long been overflowing, and in these circumstances I want to know why the Government, who profess to be the friends, the friends, the sincere friends, of the agriculturists, are not prepared to do something which will be of real value for these unfortunate people who are suffering so terribly in the North of Scotland. Mr. Speaker, I await an assurance from the right honourable Gentleman. I hope that he will endeavour to give me an explicit answer to the questions which I have put to him. If he can see his way to do anything in the direction of converting some portion, at least, of the land which has been reported upon by the Commissioners, and which I have referred to as being suitable for cultivation by crofters—to their use, he will confer a benefit upon a section of his countrymen which will be remembered long after things which perhaps engage his attention more have been forgotten.
    MR. SHAW-STEWART (.): I desire to say a word or two, seeing that I have the honour to be one of the members of the Royal Commission referred to. In the first place, I would like to point out that the Mover of this Amendment speaks in the Amendment of nearly two million acres of land now occupied as deer forests, grouse moors, etc., which might be cultivated to profit by the crofters. I should like to point out that more than half a million of these acres were allocated by us for moderate-sized farms, and that was expressly stated in our report.
    MR. WEIR: I said so.
    MR. SHAW-STEWART: And it is added that "such lands are not, in our opinion, adapted for ordinary crofters." That reduced the number of acres to something very large, I grant, but very far from two million acres; rather less than a million and a quarter. Well, but there is another paragraph in the report which

    901
    I should like to draw the attention of honourable Members to, and that is that we recommended that this acreage might be available to tenants under certain conditions. What were those conditions? They were these: That the tenants should be possessed of the means requisite to equip and stock their holdings. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to find many tenants, unfortunately, in the Highlands who are in this position, able without aid to equip their holdings and to stock their holdings; and the only possible way, in my mind, that these recommendations can be given effect to would be by a system of land purchase. Yes, but that system of land purchase is just what the friends of the honourable Member who moved this Motion object to. It is one of the remedies which they take the strongest objection to, and I do not think it is very reasonable for them to expect the Government to attempt to remove these evils by means of land purchase, when these Gentlemen who profess themselves to be, and undoubtedly are, possessed of considerable information as to the territorial economy of the Highlands—it is not reasonable for them, to expect the Government to propose a land purchase scheme to remedy these evils if these Gentlemen tell the Government that that scheme would be of no use whatever—because that is what they have been saying. Well, the honourable Gentleman who has just sat down spoke of the expatriation of the Highlanders as being a very unhappy and unfortunate thing. I agree with him. But expatriation, unpleasant as it is, is far preferable to the conditions under which a great many of the inhabitants of the Highlands voluntarily live. This state of things could not have been remedied oven by a scheme of land purchase. Take, for instance, the island of Skye. If the whole of the land of Skye were free to-morrow to enable you to put out the best part of the 3,000 and odd cottiers, there is not land enough to maintain those men in any decency, not to say comfort. Expatriation has a ring about it which is unpopular, and it is very much looked upon as a remedy which, ought not to be pressed. But in spite of this I do say that a great many of the able-bodied men in Lewis and Skye would be far better seeking their fortunes elsewhere than living at home,
    902
    eking out a miserable existence. I hold very strongly, that the only remedy for those who wish to remain on the land and cultivate it at a profit is a scheme of land purchase; and until the honourable Gentlemen on the other side agree upon a reasonable scheme I do not think it is right for them to blame the Government in the matter. I do not think it is right to say that the Government have done nothing, because the Congested Districts Board, which they introduced, has not been long in existence, and I think it is capable of doing much, and will be a very useful palliative. If it does1 as much for the Highlanders as the Congested District Board for Ireland has done for the people in the West of Ireland, the Government will have done a very good tiling indeed by setting up that Board. That is all I wish to say, and I hope that the honourable Members opposite will combine and recommend a scheme of land purchase such as the Government might be able to take up.
    MR. J. CALDWELL (): Instance after instance has been mentioned by the honourable Gentleman, whom I highly respect, but he has wound up his speech with the remark that the grievance of the Highlanders would be best remedied by a system, of land purchase. But, of course1, the honourable Gentleman was aware that there were eight members of that Commission, and that he was one of the minority. Only three of them were in favour of a system of laud purchase, the other five being against it. I mention that to show that the system, of land purchase has really no support, and I should be very much surprised indeed if the Government took up that position. Them, another matter which the honourable Member referred to; was this: He took exception to what I think the Lord Advocate said in 1897 with regard to the amount of land which was available for the crofters. Now, if the honourable Member and the Lord Advocate will refer to the Motion they will find that it alludes to land merely for the extension of existing crofts. The motion also refers to land for crofters and small tenants. Now, I am sure that the honourable Member who has just spoken knows perfectly well that for crofters and small tenants the amount of land which the Commission reported was available is the amount mentioned

    903
    in the Amendment—namely, 1,782,785 acres. What the honourable Member referred to is only a portion that related not merely to the crofters but to the small tenants, and that was the fallacy into which the Lord Advocate fell when he was replying to some observations of mine in 1897. Now, then, that disposes practically of everything, I think, that was said by the honourable Member. The case of the Highlanders in Scotland resembles very much the condition of the congested districts in Ireland. You have got a Congested Districts Board in Ireland, and we have got a congested district too in Scotland, and probably we shall have some observations from the honourable Gentlemen below the Gangway, who have had considerable experience in the working of the Congested Districts Board in Ireland. Now, the condition of the Highland crofter is similar in many respects, though very much worse than those in the congested districts in Ireland, because the Highlands—I see the right honourable Gentleman shakes his head—have got the worst soil and climate, and the yield per acre is very much less than in Ireland. I think I could also show that, owing to the barrenness of the Highlands, they have not the facilities for maintaining a, large population. I venture to say that I am quite within reasonable limits in saying that the condition of the Highland crofter is infinitely worse than that of the Irish peasant. Take, for instance, what has been done already to show the state of distress in the case of the Highlands. The case has been such that even the present Government, and their predecessors1 have found it necessary to take vary large sums of money every year out of Scotch money for the purpose of relieving distress in these crofting counties. We go to the Local Government Act passed in 1890 by the predecessors of the present Government, and we find £10,000 a year is specially allocated for the relief of the rates in these crofting counties. Then there is the sum of £15,000 a year which is taken out of the hands of the Congested Districts Board for subsidising the fisheries), the greater portion of which will go to' these districts. I venture to say that when you find the people of Scotland being taxed as a whole for the benefit of others to the extent of £40,000 a year, they are fairly
    904
    entitled to ask this question, "How is it that this distress exists?" Are there no means of relieving this distress without taking this enormous amount, which is an increasing grievance every time this money comes into the coffers. But that is not all the money which these crofting counties require. In addition there are special allocation grants out of the Imperial funds. We find every year on the Estimates—I think last year it was £15,000—a large sum out of the Imperial purse for the purposes of the; Congested Districts Board. Then the Government also gave a guarantee with regard to opening up means of communication. Well, then, we are dealing with the problem in, the Highlands, a population of the United Kingdom where there is admittedly: great, distress. We are admittedly paying large sums of money every year purely out of Scotch money and out of Imperial money. I venture to say that that, is a problem which we are entitled to ask the Government to take into their consideration, and to see whether the condition of these people: has been improved by all this expenditure, or whether other means should not be adopted for relieving the distress. Now I think that, the whole policy of the Government is, nothing more than a system of doles, and is not a system which will relieve the distress that exists in the Highlands. If you are going to relieve the distress in the Highlands, then two things are necessary. You must first increase the quantity of land for cultivation. We know perfectly well that in the Highlands there is a combination, of the two industries, the crofting and the fishing, and they require both in order to gain a livelihood. When the Crofters Act was passed it was made one of the points in it that provision should be made for the purpose of increasing the holdings of the crofters. These holdings are very small in amount, and they do not extend to more than £2 or £3 a year, and it is obvious that, that size is not a croft which would bring much return to a crofter and his family. The Crofters Act made provision for increasing the crofts, but the conditions were such as practically to make that provision become useless, because the land had to be adjoining the same croft, and it is obvious, that a man in a circle, or in the inner circle, could

    905
    not get more land without coming across another crofter. Then the land must, be held of the same proprietor. All parties were agreed that an increase of land to the existing crofters was a necessity of the situation, and that that was necessary to relieve distress. Hence the appointment of a Royal Commission, and hence the Royal Commission reporting that there was plenty of land available. Remember that upon this matter of land for the crofters being considered in the He-use, time after time it was said that there was no land available. They said that the land that is not occupied is not considerable, and there is no land for the purpose of increasing the holdings. Well, it was to meet that argument that this Commission was reported, and appointed, as you know, by both sides of the House; and this Commission, with the exception of the point of land purchase, unanimously reported that there was plenty of land available to carry out the very object which both parties are agreed is the best way to relieve the distress. Increase the land, and the power of producing an income for a family, and thereby you get rid not only of doles, but you place the population in a position to live by their own exertions. Now I come to the part about, the Congested Districts Board. This Board was appointed in August, 1897, and what, have they done? Why, we have had no report from them, but we had an opportunity of getting information from the Government when the estimate for the Congested Districts Board was before this House in the month of August last, after they had been about a month in office. We ask for information. We ask this question in Supply, "What, have the Congested Districts Board done during the lass year they have been in office?" The Lord Advocate could not give us a single word or item. We pressed him to tell us one thing, but he said he could not do so., because he had not the information. He was getting £15,000 for the next year, and we said to him, "If you are going to get, this £15,000, what are you going to do with it? Tell us what you are going to do with it if you cannot tell us what you have already done." But the Lord Advocate could not tell us what they were going to do with that money, and here we are again to-night without that information. This is the only op-
    906
    portunity we, have of getting information, and what do we find? Why, that the Commission have reported now, and the Lord Advocate has put, the report upon the Table of the House, and it is there for the purpose of all Members to see. But what has been done? We know-nothing about it, and are we, the Scotch Members to allow this opportunity on the Address to pass without saying a single word, when we remember that we had not a single word about it last year, and we have not a single word about it at the present moment? I venture to say that that would be a most inexcusable thing to expect Scotch Members to do. I may say that I hoped, at any rate, that the Lord Advocate would have spoken and told us what he had done. Well, now, another point of this Motion is with regard to the leaseholders. It is perfectly well known that in the Crofters Act only those who were not leaseholders had the benefit of that Measure. Now let us see how that works? In the case of those who had no leases at the time of the Crofters Act being passed their rents were reduced about 25 per cent., but at that time a good many crofters, happened to have leases, and knowing that legislation was going to come, a good many of the Highland landlords gave the tenants leases, so that they would not be under the Act. We do not want, at this, time of the day, to discuss the question of the leaseholders. Why were the leaseholders not included under the Scotch Act when, it was first passed? What has taken place in the case of Ireland? Why, in Ireland the present Government included the leaseholders in the Act. Now, as the crofters are practically the same interest, they are entitled to the same privileges, and all that we ask in Scotland is this: that, a principle of that kind introduced into Ireland by the present Government under conditions, exactly similar to those of Scotland should be also applied to the crofters in exactly similar circumstances, and that this rule should be applied in the case of Scotland as well as in Ireland. We have a right to ask the Government why these leaseholder are not entitled to be admitted to- the benefits of the Crofters Act in the very same way as the leaseholders in, Ireland? Now, I have never looked at this crofters' question from a party point of view, but entirely

    907
    from a crofter's point of view. I admit that the Government have, done something for the crofters, but if you look at it carefully you will find that whatever they have done always took the form under which the landlord got the lion's share. Take the £10,000 a year given for the reduction of leases. Why, in Scotland the rates are levied, one-half on the owner and one-half on the occupier; therefore the landlord gets £5,000 a year, which is one-half of that sum. The deer forest tenants and the tenants of the large farms get the bigger portion of the other half, and it is a very small portion of that £10,000 that goes into the hands of the crofters. The same thing you will find with regard to the opening up of communication and the making of roads. It is all very well to say make roads in the Highlands and railways. We admit that they do good to the population of the Highlands, but does it not do good to the landlords in the Highlands? Is it not a fact that by opening up the Highlands by making roads and railways you thereby improve the property of the landlord far more than the benefit that it can possibly give to the crofter. The Government will give you an occasional grant in aid of education in the district, because one-half of it goes into the landlords' pockets. They will give you money for making roads, because all this tends to improve the property of the landlord more than, it benefits the crofters, and I venture to say that if you are going to deal with a problem, of this kind we are entitled, now that that Commission has sat and reported that land is available—and bearing in mind that we were told in 1890, just at this time last year, that they were considering a scheme, and that it was premature for us to press them as to their method of dealing with the distress in the Highlands, because the Congested Districts Board had only been recently appointed, and they had not had time to report—to know what has been done. A year has elapsed since then, and we are entitled to ask for information. I venture to say that, while I do not put the matter personally from a party point of view, on the other hand, I would say that the best thing for the Scotch Members, from a party point of view, to do would be that the Government should do nothing, and that they should keep the crofters in starvation, and leave the
    908
    Liberal Government to throw the land open, as I think it will be thrown open when the Liberals come into power.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE: The Motion of the honourable Member deals with two different subjects. It complains that the Government have not proposed legislation following upon the report of what is generally known as the Deer Forests Commission, and also it seems to be a specific grievance that there is no indication, in the Queen's Speech that the benefit of the Crofters Act will be extended to all crofter tenants who held leases at the time of the passing of the Act. I should not have thought it necessary to have to remind the honourable Member of the reason that was given to Parliament for the passing of the Crofters Act at all, had it not been that he seems to have refreshed his memory. He took the trouble to quote a speech of the Prime Minister's in 1888, in Edinburgh, in which the Prime Minister most accurately gave the particular reasons on which the Crofters' Act rested, but I cannot congratulate the honourable Member upon seeing the application of the passage which he quoted. Mr. Speaker, these peculiar benefits were given to the crofters under the Act of 1886, and the reason was because Parliament was satisfied that, as an historical fact, there existed in the case of the crofters a customary tenure of a peculiar character, and a tenure which, although nominally and for the matter of that legally, was a tenure at will, yet had, from the custom of centuries, been recognised, not as a tenure at will at all. It was felt that, in the peculiar state of circumstances, this tenure, which was merely customary, ought to have some legal sanction and recognition. It followed, of course, from that, and perhaps before I say any more I ought to point out that, taken along with that, there was also the point that, as a matter of fact, in the great majority of cases, the improvements upon the holdings had been done by the crofters themselves. I am sure any honourable Members who have thought out this question of land tenure at all—and there are many here who have had occasion to think it out—will see that this execution of improvements

    909
    by the tenant can be the only justification for what is called a dual proprietorship in the land. It was almost a necessity of the Government propositions in 1886 that the benefits of the Crofters Act should only extend to those who historically held their customary tenure, and should not extend to the small tenants who held leases. Several honourable Members thought they made a point by pointing out that the present Government, or at least the same Administration, in the case of the Irish Act extended to Ireland this privilege under the original Act. The fallacy of that argument has been pointed out again and again by my right honourable Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, but I suppose I must repeat it once more, as the old fallacy has been trotted out again with a semblance of novelty by the honourable Member who has just sat down. What was done in the Irish Act was merely an acceleration. Under the terms of the original Irish Act, as soon as the tenancies came to a termination, then the next tenant got the whole of the benefit of the Act. Accordingly, all that was done by the provision referred to was that the period was accelerated, and a tenant under an existing lease was given that advantage at once which otherwise he would have had to wait for. Anyone can see that that is different from the position of the Scotch crofters. If you extended the provision of the Crofters Act to the small tenants you would then be going beyond the range of the Crofters Act altogether. The honourable Member for Aberdeen, West, admitting that he did not represent a crofter county himself, apologised for interposing in the Debate—although the honourable Member need not in the least have done so—because, he said, there were many in his constituency who were not crofters, but small tenants, and he was anxious to see the provisions of the Crofters Act of 1886 extended to them. Now, when I pass from that to the second portion of the honourable Member's Motion there is, I think, another fallacy that has underlain practically every speech that has been made this evening on the other side of the House. All the honourable Members speak as if the Deer Forests Commission of 1892 had reported in favour of certain things to be done, and
    910
    as if there was nothing in the world for the Government to do except to frame a Bill upon the lines of the recommendations of that Commission. Now, if honourable Members were as familiar with the matter as I am, they would know that the Deer Forests Commission reported on no such lines. It has already been pointed out by the honourable Member for Renfrew, East, that he and another Member of that Commission added a very strong opinion that no scheme would be at all possible except a scheme of land purchase. The honourable Member for Mid Lanark, with a sweep of his hand and in grandiloquent tones, thought he had scored a point against my honourable Friend behind me when he said that he (the Member for Renfrew, East, was in a minority, of two out of nine Members on the Commission. If I were only defending my honourable Friend I might say that so far from the Member for Mid Lanark scoring a point against the honourable Member for East Renfrew, he only accentuated his argument, for he said—
    "How can you expect us to go in for a scheme of land purchase when we find a majority of the Commission do not agree that land purchase is the best way of going to work?"
    Now what did the majority of the Commission say? The Commission said—I am now quoting the text—
    "The problem for consideration is, has the result of our inquiry been to enable us to schedule any lands; and, if so, what lands which, with a due combination of old arable or land suitable for cultivation along with pasture held in common, may reasonably be deemed capable of rearing a profitable stock or of profitable occupation' by an industrious tenant possessed of the means requisite to equip the stock and holding?"
    And not only that, they went on to say—
    "We desire to add that the occupants of these lands must be selected with care."
    Well, Sir, I think that was a most cautious determination; and all that they reported was that there were 1,700,000 acres of such land—of which 794,000 acres were capable of cultivation for new crofts, 439,000 acres for extension of crofts, and 548,000

    911
    acres for farms of a moderate size. The House will observe that they did not commit themselves or make any recommendation at all upon what scheme was to be put in practice in order that that land might be made available. On the contrary, they indicated with the very greatest care that although as a matter of agriculture and nothing else, this land might be cultivated with profit, it could only be done if the tenants were not only industrious, but equipped with the necessary means and selected with the necessary care. A great deal has been done, and yet honourable Members have spoken as if the Government had nothing to do but to take up that report and find everything ready to hand. What have the Government done? The Government have not been idle. On the contrary, they have started the Congested Districts Board, and they have intimated that the Congested Districts Board have been endowed with a substantial amount of money. Honourable Members have asked, "What have the Board done?" The honourable Member for Mid-Lanark was perfectly eloquent about finding this report in "dummy," as if he had never heard of that before. I sometimes wish that other things were found in "dummy." He need not blame me. I do not manage these things. I have other things to attend to besides reports in "dummy." But the honourable Member will not have to control himself very long, for certainly within a week or ten days the report will be in his hands. I humbly think that when honourable Members come to read that report they will find that it is a document full of promise. It is necessarily a very difficult question this, and I am quite certain that all those who really wish the welfare of the Highlanders—as I know many honourable Members on both sides of the House do—will agree that whatever is done in this direction should be done with the steady resolve to help those who are prepared to help themselves. And I venture to say that when the report comes to be studied it will be found that that is the leading principle kept in view by the Congested Districts Board. I may as well set at rest the gloomy anticipations of the honourable Member who moved the Amendment. He seemed to be very apprehensive that the money will not
    912
    go to the Highlanders, but bi wasted in expenses. Well, if he will look at the accounts in the report he will find that at the end of the financial year, which comes down to 31st March, 1898, the expenses were limited to the very modest sum of £402. The Congested Districts Board have had many things to deal with. Extension of holdings is not the only way of helping the crofters. The Board have done a great deal not only by buying rams, but by assisting in the rearing of stock, and also, with very good results, in providing proper seeds—especially seed potatoes. Certain experiments have been made in that direction with great success. But even in this matter of enlarging holdings and creating new holdings something has been done. I think that all those who are disposed to look at the matter deliberately will agree that this is a matter in which it is absolutely necessary to proceed with great caution and deliberation. I do not pretend that a great deal has been done as yet. But at the same time a beginning has been made, and I am quite sure it will interest honourable Members to know that one of the first places in which new holdings have been created, with the help of the Board and the assent of the proprietor, has been on the estate of Sir A. Campbell Orde, which estate, I am afraid, has been frequently mentioned in the time of a former proprietor in other than terms of praise. In the same way there is a scheme on foot, and which I hope will soon be settled, in the island of Bernara, South Harris. There must be always difficulty in getting land that is particularly suitable for small holdings, for honourable Members will remember that the report of the Deer Forests Commission only dealt with the question of the suitability of the land itself. It did not deal with the question of what you are to do in cases of land on an estate which at present is partly suitable for small holdings and partly not. There is always a difficulty, and there would be an injustice in picking out the eyes of an estate, and there would be a waste of money in acquiring land, only part of which would be useful for the purpose for which it was bought. The honourable Member for Mid-Lanark must always remember that it is going utterly beyond the mark to make use of large figures and talk of

    913
    the ground indicated by these large figures as suitable for meeting the problem of congestion in connection with the fisher population. Because, quite apart from a legislative enactment—the contiguity clauses of the Act of 1886—contiguity is a physical fact which you cannot get over. It is perfectly impossible to find land for everybody near enough to the fishing crofters. I have said enough to show that the Board is tackling the problem, and that what it has done is more or less an experiment, but an experiment which, if successful, can be repeated, but not to be undertaken at once on too large a scale. It is, however, I humbly think, an absolute justification for the Government not accepting the Motion, which in its terms manifests that the action of the Congested Districts Board has not been appreciated.
    MR. THOMAS SHAW (): The discussion has raised a question of no slight importance for a considerable class of Her Majesty's subjects. The question at the present moment is not one of a constitutional character, and there can be no objection to it on broad grounds. It is a question largely of administration, affecting the peace and welfare of an important section of Her Majesty's subjects. I think this House was entitled to consider that after a year's operations of the recently constructed Congested Districts Board, we should have something further than a promise,—something of the nature of substantial performance which could have been pointed to by Her Majesty's Government. One of the most interesting speeches which have been delivered was that by the honourable Member for East Renfrew, whose position in this matter is certainly one of great influence and power, because he was a conspicuous and useful member of the Deer Forests Commission; and therefore he will permit me, without reflecting in any sense on the spirit in which that speech was delivered, to express the disappointment with which I listened to his observations with regard to the expatriation of the Highlanders of Scotland. It used to be said that the problem consisted of the bald alternatives of abject poverty at home or exile abroad. And my honourable Friend is prepared for the latter of these alter-
    914
    natives. But the House will recollect that it was in view of the allegations that this was the only alternative, that a Commission was appointed to inquire whether it was necessary for crofters to go to a foreign shore in order to get a living, or whether, on the contrary, there was land available in the territory of Scotland itself. Now there has been an answer in the affirmative in a large sense on that subject. It is now established beyond all doubt and beyond all question that there are in Scotland one and three quarter millions of acres of land suitable for cultivation by small tenants; and that for tenants even of the crofter class, for new holdings and the extension of holdings, there are no less than one and a quarter millions of acres available. In the face of that ascertained fact, is it not deplorable that any honourable Member of this House should now go back on the old exploded alternative of abject poverty at home or exile abroad? Surely, Sir, the Government could give us something, in view of the now ascertained facts, which would enable us to cherish some hope for the Highlanders of Scotland, that they will devise some effective machinery whereby to place that available land at the disposal of the people of the Highlands. In regard to the Lord Advocate's observations as to leaseholders, that is a matter which I will come to in discussing the second branch of the Amendment: but I am bound to say here that he has really slammed the door of hope in the face of all leaseholders within the Highland area. On this matter of available land let me say what I consider has been the real substantial difficulty on the subject of the operations of the Congested Districts Board. Mr. Speaker, the Congested Districts Board have large powers; they have power to purchase land, power to divide land among the crofters, power to fence land and to make land accessible by roads, and power to plant buildings on the land. But we have to repeat the complaints made against the Congested Districts Board in Ireland—that you have failed to give them what is at the bottom of all sound administration of the land— power for the acquisition of the land itself. My right honourable Friend the Lord Advocate cited the case of North

    915
    Uist. The citation was singularly infelicitous, because that was a case which demonstrated to everyone who knew the elementary facts of the position that without compulsory powers of acquisition of land it would be impossible to effect reform until the death of that landlord. I rejoice that a change has come over the administration of that estate, and that the present proprietor is willing to treat with a public board for the acquisition of land within its bounds. I fear it was not so in the past, and accordingly, unless compulsory powers could have been put into operation, the Congested Districts Board would have been entirely helpless. Throughout a large portion of the Highlands there is a similar clamour for land, and the existence of available land is proved. The Government, however, has not surmounted the barrier raised by those landlords who are not willing to accept the position of parting with their land, even to a public authority, and who can therefore obstruct the boasted beneficial effects of the Board's administration. The Lord Advocate has stated that the Congested Districts Board was full of great promise. I expect very little more from it unless Ave have those compulsory powers. The promise will not go further than the report that the comparatively small sum of £402 has been paid in expenses, and that seed potatoes have been distributed. But these things will do nothing to satisfy the land hunger that is felt all over the Highlands. You have proved first, that there is available land; secondly, that there is a class of people willing to cultivate the laud; and thirdly, that Parliament has provided money for the purpose of bringing the people to the land. Therefore, in those circumstances should we not have a little more than promises and something in the nature of performances? I may point out that in Scotland our case is worse than in Ireland, for this country has not the alleviation of the operation of the Encumbered Estates Court. In Ireland it never can be said that there is an absolute dearth of available land, because by the operation of the Encumbered Estates Court there is, at all events, some area of Irish land for which the Congested Districts Board may become an applicant. But here in Scotland we have nothing of that kind at all.
    916
    We are devoid of any opportunity of taking advantage of powers of acquiring land whenever the landlord has any objection to the scheme. I hope that in any early report of the Congested Districts Board there may be some effective expression of opinion in favour of the compulsory acquisition of land, without which I see very little ray of hope in the solution of the problem we have in hand. The other topic dealt with in the Amendment is the grievances of the leaseholders. And here I am free to admit that there is a certain legal and technical ground for the position my right honourable Friend the Lord Advocate has taken up in this matter. I may say that the legal and technical ground was very largely taken up in the case of the leaseholders in Ireland. But, Sir, not only there, but here, higher ground has also been taken up in regard to the position of the leaseholders. It is said that if we interfere with the position of the leaseholders we should violate the rights of contract, and that such violation would be confiscation. I was interested to hear what the head of the present Government said in 1887, when the Government of that day adapted itself to the circumstances of the time and gave to the leaseholders of Ireland the benefit of the Irish Land Act. With one sweep of the hand Lord Salisbury abolished all those legal and technical difficulties which the Lord Advocate has endeavoured to set up to-night. I cite two or three sentences from Lord Salisbury's remarks in the House of Lords on 22nd April, 1887. His Lordship said—
    "I cannot close my eyes to the fact that these leaseholders will form their standard of what is right and just, not from any theories or doctrines or knowledge of law, but from the practice which they see sanctioned by statute, with respect to their neighbours; and when they see persons in whom they cannot see any essential difference of condition from that which they occupy, and when they see their neighbours enjoy advantages which they do not enjoy, it is impossible to say that though their discontent is illogical, therefore it is unreasonable or unintelligible."
    And his Lordship went on to say that the Government would then support the Bill of 1887, which gave leaseholders the benefit of the Irish Land Act. If you come, apart from these legal and technical points,

    917
    to look at it, what is the situation? There is one man holding land side by side with another, under the same climatic and other conditions, under the same landlord, with the same hardships, with the same set of circumstances, where the improvements on the holdings have been similarly made in large or even complete measure by the tenants. Then one of these tenants—the tenant holding only from year to year—has conferred upon him the boon of fair rent, fixity of tenure, and all the security on the head of improvements; while the other tenant —the leaseholder—has none of these advantages. Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is time that we should adopt a precedent which we have been so fortunate as to find in the case of the Irish Act. Can it be said that the leaseholders in the Highlands are less well ordered or less deserving of the recognition of Parliament than the Irish leaseholders? I put the case thus: As you have a precedent in Ireland, so you should follow it now, not by making fine-drawn distinctions which the leaseholders cannot understand, but by giving, under equality of condition, equality of treatment by the law.
    SIR JOHN G. S. KINLOCH (): I rise to support the Amendment, but on somewhat different lines from that taken by the Mover. The line which I take up may appeal to the party of the Lord Advocate. I frankly admit that I am an admirer of deer forests and grouse shooting from the point of view of the Scotsman who looks after the pennies. I consider that they are of very great importance to Scotland. They bring in an enormous amount of wealth. The confiding Englishman gives us large rents. If you put the deer forests in the right place they can do no harm, but when you plant them in a crofter neighbourhood you create a scandal and raise an indignation against deer forests which ought not to be aroused. I say deer forests and sporting grounds in their proper place are good for the people and the country. We who own deer forests in the right place consider that those in the West country close to crofter settlements have caused a scandal which is exceedingly hard on us and a great abuse. The Mover of the Amendment referred to gamekeepers and
    918
    ghillies in a very contemptuous way, and spoke of them harshly as non-producers. I say that they are a most respectable class of men, and that they have sons and daughters who do a great deal of good. These sons and daughters are well educated, and go out into the world and take places as ministers, doctors, and clerks. A more industrious set of people you cannot find in the country than the gamekeepers and ghillies.
    SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN (): I support the Amendment, not on the side of the deer forests, but on the side of protection of the improvements made by the crofters. The fact is, there are a large number of crofters in my constituency, and they are very much interested in the development of crofter legislation which will grant them protection for the improvements they have made on their holdings. They regard themselves as having a reversionary interest in such legislation, and they hope and expect to get it from the Government some day. I believe that in 1884 and 1885 this protection would have been given to them if they had not then remained so quiet, but had caused some disturbances, as was the case in other parts of the Highlands. When a Bill to extend the Crofters Acts to my constituency came before the House I made an appeal to the Leader of the House, and he replied to me in very cordial and sympathetic terms, when I pointed out to him the necessity for the protection of the improvements of the crofters. He said he was in entire sympathy that these improvements should be protected. With reference to what the honourable Member for East Renfrew said as to land purchase, I say that my constituents have no desire for land purchase. They do not want British money for the purchase of their crofts. All that they want is proper protection for their improvements, but the Leader of the House refuses to give them that protection by the method which has proved so eminently successful in the crofting counties. We are entitled to a remedy for our grievance, but the only way the Leader of the House has indicated for providing the protection we desire is in the Agricultural Holdings Bill. But the English Agricultural Holdings Bill is put at the very tail of the Mea-

    919
    sures referred to in the Queen's Speech. And if the English Bill is at the end of the Queen's Speech, the Scotch Agricultural Holdings Bill will come after that, which renders it a greater impossibility for anything being done.
    Question put, "That those words be there added:"
    The House divided:—Ayes 142; Noes 117. (Division List No. 9.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork,N.E.)

    Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

    O'Kelly, James

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    O'Malley, William

    Allen, W. (Newc.-under Lyme)

    Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

    Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

    Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

    Hedderwick, Thos. Charles H.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    Pinkerton, John

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Hogan, James Francis

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Baker, Sir John

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    Price, Robert John

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

    Billson, Alfred

    Jones, Dd. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Reckitt, Harold James

    Birrell, Augustine

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Blake, Edward

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt.H.SirU.

    Richardson, J. (Durham)

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Kearley, Hudson, E.

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Labouchere, Henry

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Burt, Thomas

    Lambert, George

    Roche, John (East Galway)

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Langley, Batty

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Caldwell, James

    Lawson, Sir Wilf. (Cumb'land)

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

    Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

    Cawley, Frederick

    Leng, Sir John

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Shee, James John

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Lloyd-George, David

    Sheehy, David

    Colville, John

    Logan, John William

    Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

    Crombie, John William

    Lough, Thomas

    Souttar, Robinson

    Daly, James

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Spicer, Albert

    Dalziel, James Henry

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

    Davies, M.Vaughan (Cardigan)

    M'Dermott, Patrick

    Steadman, William Charles

    Davitt, Michael

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Strachey, Edward

    Dillon, John

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Sullivan, Donald (Westmeath)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

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

    Doogan, P. C.

    Maddison, Fred.

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Duckworth, James

    Maden, John Henry

    Tennant, Harold John

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

    Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

    Thomas, Alf. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Tully, Jasper

    Fenwick, Charles

    Molloy, Bernard Charles

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Ffrench, Peter

    Morgan, W. Pritch. (Merthyr)

    Weir, James Galloway

    Field, William (Dublin)

    Morris, Samuel

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

    Morton, Ed. J. C. (Devonport)

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

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Moss, Samuel

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    Gibney, James

    Murnaghan, George

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Gilhooly, James

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Gold, Charles

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

    Mr. Thomas Ellis and Mr. Causton.

    Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

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

    Hammond, John (Carlow)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Harwood, George

    O'Keeffe, Francis Arthur

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Balfour, Rt H GeraldW. (Leeds)

    Bethell, Commander

    Archdale, Edward Mervyn

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Biddulph, Michael

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Bigwood, James

    Arrol, Sir William

    Barry, RtHA.H.Smith-(Hunts)

    Blakiston-Houston, John

    Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

    Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Bond, Edward

    Bagot, Capt.Josceline FitzRoy

    Beach, Rt.H.SirM.H.(Bristol)

    Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Ln.)

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Beach, W.W.Bramston(Hants)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Balcarres, Lord

    Beckett, Ernest William

    Brown, Alexander H.

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

    Begg, Ferdinand Faithful

    Butcher, John George

    Carlile, William Walter

    Hill, Sir Edw. Stock (Bristol)

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

    Hoare, Ed.Brodie (Hampstead)

    Plunkett, Rt.H.Horace Curzon

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

    Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Hobhouse, Henry

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

    Holland, Hn. Lionel Raleigh

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hornby, Sir William Henry

    Purvis, Robert

    Charrington, Spencer

    Howell, William Tudor

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

    Ridley, Rt.H. Sir Matthew W.

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Round, James

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

    Russell, Gen. F.S. (Chelten'm)

    Colston, Chas. Ed. H. Athole

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

    Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

    Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.

    Kenyon, James

    Saunderson, Rt.H. Col. Ed. J.

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Savory, Sir Joseph

    Cruddas, William Donaldson

    Knowles, Less

    Seely, Charles Hilton

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Lafone, Alfred

    Seton-Karr, Henry

    Curzon, Viscount

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

    Lawrence, Sir E.Durning-(Cor)

    Shaw-Stewart, M.H.(Renfrew)

    Davies, Sir Hora.D. (Chatham)

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Dixon, Hartland, Sir F. D.

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

    Donkin, Richard Sim

    Lea, Sir Thos. (Londonderry)

    Spencer, Ernest

    Dorington, Sir John Edward

    Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset)

    Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

    Doughty, George

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

    Doxford, William Theodore

    Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Drage, Geoffrey

    Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

    Stewart, Sir Mark J.M'Taggart

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Lowles, John

    Stock, James Henry

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Fergusson, Rt.H.Sir J.(Man'r)

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Thorburn, Walter

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Firbank, Joseph Thomas

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Valentia, Viscount

    Fison, Frederick William

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Wanklyn, James Leslie

    Folkestone, Viscount

    M'Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)

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

    Forster, Henry William

    M'Killop, James

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

    Gedge, Sydney

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn.W.F.

    Webster, SirR.E. (I. of Wight)

    Gibbons, J. Lloyd

    Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

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

    Godson, Sir Augustus Freder'k

    Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Whiteley, George (Stockport)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Monk, Charles James

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under L.)

    Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

    Montagu, Hn. J. Scott(Hants.)

    Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.)

    Goschen, RtH G.J.(St.George's

    More, Robert Jasper

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Morrell, George Herbert

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

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Murray, RtH. A. Graham (Bute)

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

    Green, Walford D. (Wed'bury)

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Myers, William Henry

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

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Wyndham, George

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

    Northcote, Hn. Sir H. Stafford

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Hanbury, Rt.Hn. Robert Wm.

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Hardy, Laurence

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Heath, James

    Penn, John

    Helder, Augustus

    Pilkington, Richard

    MR. SPEAKERhaving called on Mr. HERBERT ROBERTS,
    MR. LAMBERT (): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, my Amendment, which stands next on the Paper, contemplates, as you will observe, the assistance of deserving poor to secure State-aided pensions. As I understand, my Amendment is out of order, because a private Member has introduced a Bill; but may I, Sir, draw your attention to the fact that no private Mem-
    922
    ber has a right to introduce a Bill into this House involving a charge on the public revenue, and I submit with great deference that, as my Amendment suggests State-aided old-age pensions, any private Member introducing a Bill with that object would be out of order, and that, therefore, my Amendment is in order.
    MR. SPEAKER: No point of order arises, because no honourable Member is entitled to any precedence over the

    923
    Member who first catches my eye; but I have not the least objection to inform the honourable Member that his Amendment is out of order, because the discussion on it would be the same as that which will take place on the Bills on the subject which stand on the Order Book.
    MR. LAMBERT: Would you allow me to ask, Sir, whether a Bill proposing a charge on the public revenue would be in order as emanating from a private
    Member?
    MR. SPEAKER: That, no doubt, is the general rule laid down; but the point does not arise now upon any particular Bill, and I will not decide it until it arises. The subject of the honourable Member's Amendment to the Address is relevant to several Bills on the Order Book, and he will have an opportunity of submitting his views to the House when one of them comes on. He cannot now anticipate discussion on a Bill which is on the Order Book.
    Main Question again proposed:—

    CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL, BILL.
    Another Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words,—
    "And we humbly assure Your Majesty that we regard with grave concern the introduction of the Calcutta Municipal Bill, now under consideration by the Bengal Legislative Council, which, if enacted, will practically destroy the representative character of the Calcutta Municipaity, and will constitute a retrograde step in the system of local government in India, and pray that Your Majesty will graciously direct that the further consideration of the Bill be postponed until a duly constituted Commission has taken evidence and has reported upon the objections urged against the Bill by the ratepayers of Calcutta:"—(Mr. Herbert Roberts.)
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS (): Mr. Speaker, the Amendment which I am about to move deals with a complicated subject; but I will endeavour to place it before the House in a manner as clear and as precise as possible. It raises two principal points—firstly, the meaning and effect of the Bill to which the Amendment refers; secondly, the desirability, in view of the opposition to the Bill in Calcutta and elsewhere, of postponing the further con-
    924
    sideration of its clauses until opportunity has been given of hearing the objections raised against it before a duly constituted Commission. I disclaim any intention of making this a Party question. Speaking for myself, I deplore the introduction of political and Party considerations into the discussion of any Indian question whatsoever, and so far as municipal matters in India are concerned, I think, whatever privileges India enjoys in this regard have been conferred on her equally by both Parties. The Municipal Government of Calcutta, as it exists at the present moment, was conferred on that city during a Conservative Administration, in 1876, by that distinguished Indian statesman Sir Richard Temple. Later, a similar system of municipal self-government was extended to other towns and districts in India under Lord Ripon; and, later still, we had the Indian Councils Act, passed in 1891—a Measure interesting to us at the present time, because it was passed through this House by the present Viceroy of India, and increased largely the popular element in municipal administration. Both parties in the State, it is clear to me, are responsible for the promotion and maintenance of self-government in India, as far as that self-government results in good and efficient administration. But, Sir, there are one or two special points which, I think, give the Bill referred to in my Amendment peculiar importance as regards the city of Calcutta. Calcutta is the metropolis of India, and, along with Bombay, is the most progressive and most advanced city in India. It is also, with Bombay, next to London, the most populous city in the British Empire. It follows, therefore, that if municipal self-government is proved to be successful in Calcutta, that fact will have a material influence on the extension of the principle to other towns in India. But, on the other hand, if the principle of municipal self-government is condemned in Calcutta, it is not difficult to see that the effect will be to give a very serious check to the whole policy of self-government in India. My main contention in submitting this Amendment is as follows: It is that the history of municipal administration in Calcutta proves clearly that a permanent improvement in its sanitary condition is only possible, and can only be

    925
    achieved, by the co-operation of the residents of the city. I do not intend to go into any details in favour of this proposition; but, with the indulgence of the House, I should like to mention one or two principal points with reference to the municipal history of Calcutta. The House may remember that the first Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal was appointed in 1854. Two years later the first municipal administration was set up in Calcutta. Three Commissioners were appointed by the Government, who were made responsible for the municipal government of the city. That system was autocratic, and what I wish to point out is that it completely failed in the object for which it was established. Sir John Strachey, in 1863, remarks with reference to that administration as follows—
    "With regard to the Northern, or native, Division of Calcutta, which contains some hundred thousand people, it is no figure of speech, but the simple truth, to say that no language can adequately describe its abominations."
    That is a description of the first period of municipal rule in Calcutta. The next period commenced in 1863. In that year the Government established a new system. They set up the Justices of the Peace for Bengal, resident in Calcutta, together with the Justices of the Peace for Calcutta, as a body corporate, to be responsible for the administration of the city. This system, again, was absolutely unrepresentative, and what was the result? I should like to admit at the outset that there is one great piece of work connected with the rule of the Justices of the Peace, and that was the introduction of the waterworks, which produced admirable results on the future life of the city. But the system failed entirely to effect any real improvement in the city, and the testimony of the Medical Officer of Health on the condition of Calcutta in 1876, after 13 years of this kind of rule, is perfectly conclusive on this point. Dr. Pagin says—
    "It is impossible to conceive a more perfect combination of all the evils of crowded city life in the primitive filthiness and disorder than is presented in the native portion of Calcutta."
    Again, I submit, this is a perfect proof of the point I am endeavouring to make—namely, that there was no real per-
    926
    manent improvement in the sanitary condition of Calcutta during either the first or second periods of unrepresentative municipal rule. Now I come to 1876, the turning point in the history of municipal administration in Calcutta—a year always to be remembered as that in which Sir Richard Temple conferred a representative system on the city. I would remind the House that the system he set up was a corporation of 72 members—48 elected by the ratepayers and 24 nominated by the Government. This system worked well, and produced good results. In 1884 a Commission was appointed to inquire into certain practical points in connection with sanitary reform, and made a report recommending that certain reforms be carried out. But I desire the House to observe that this Commission did not in any way recommend any constitutional change, except a change afterwards brought about—namely, the inclusion of the suburbs within the municipal area; and I would also remind the House that Mr. Cotton, one of the Commissioners, and now a Chief Commissioner, did not agree with the report, but drew up a note of dissent, in which he bore remarkable testimony to the character and good record of the Corporation up to that date. His report is so remarkable that I should like to quote one or two sentences. Mr. Cotton says of the work accomplished by the Corporation of Calcutta, under a system of representative municipal rule, from 1876 to 1889—
    "The Corporation of Calcutta, as a representative body, commands the confidence of the vast majority of the ratepayers; it has already done much in the direction of sanitary reform; it has not retrograded in giving effect to a single sanitary improvement; stimulated by the healthy action of public opinion, and profiting by the greater experience gained year by year, it has afforded, by the systematic enterprise of the past three years, the most solid guarantee that it will continue to advance on the path of progress."
    It seems to me it would be impossible to receive evidence more clear or more worthy of attention. That opinion as to the real benefit of the representative system in municipal administration cannot for a moment be doubted. Acting upon the recommendation of the Commission appointed in 1884, the municipal constitution was somewhat modified in 1888, and as that is the constitution

    927
    which now exists in Calcutta, and which is proposed to be fundamentally altered in the Bill to which I draw attention in my Amendment, I will give the House one or two of its main provisions. The constitution established in Calcutta in 1888 consists of a corporation of 75 members—50 elected by the ratepayers and 25 nominated by the Government. That is the main body of the Corporation. Then there is an Executive responsible to that main body, and consisting of 18 members—12 elected by the Commissioners and 6 nominated by the Government and the trade members. I cannot, of course, go into details; but I would ask the House to observe that this constitution has two main characteristics which are essential to any satisfactory system of municipal self-government. In the first place there is an exact correspondence between the elected and non-elected elements in the main body of the Corporation, and in the Executive responsible to it. Secondly, the Executive is responsible in the main to the Corporation representing the main body of the citizens. Both of those fundamental conditions are sought to be reversed by the present Bill. The question which I want to ask now is as follows: I have given the House a rapid outline of the history of municipal Calcutta up to the present time. I have shown that the record of the results accomplished by the municipality under a non-representative system of government were by no means satisfactory. I wish, on the other hand, to show the House, from evidence drawn from results that cannot be doubted, records of the administration of the municipal affairs of Calcutta during a representative system, which have been on the whole eminently satisfactory. I will not quote to the House evidence of any prejudiced or partisan witness, but I will ask the House to bear with me whilst I quote one or two opinions taken from the views expressed by successive Governors of Bengal. We will begin with the year 1890. What did the then Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, Sir Stewart Bailey, say of the present Corporation which this Bill attacks? In 1890 he left it on record that during the nine preceding years there had been a successful administration of the affairs of the municipality. During this long period the firm financial credit of the Commissioners, the
    928
    innumerable sanitary reforms effected, specially the extension of the water supply, the increase in material prosperity in the city, which, in consequence of these reforms, had shown itself in so marked a degree that the value of land in Calcutta generally may be said to have doubled, all testified to the truth of this statement. Now I venture to submit to the House that it is impossible to get behind such a statement as that as to the real benefits conferred upon Calcutta by bringing into association with the work of administrative reforms the responsibility of the citizens themselves. I will only trouble the House with one short quotation further, and that is a few words from the speech of the present Lieutenant-Governor, Sir John Woodburn, whose ability no one can deny, whose sympathy in regard to Indian questions from an Indian standpoint we are all fully aware of. In November last, only a few months ago, he spoke as follows of the Corporation—
    "They are entitled to all the credit—and it is a high one—of realising the value and necessity of the great schemes which have been drawn up for their approval, such as those for the drainage of the city, and the construction of the Harrison Road. They have not shrunk from the heavy taxation which was needed to bring these beneficent projects into effect, and I have myself had evidence of the high public spirit and laborious circumspection which many members of the Corporation bring to the discharge of their municipal duties."
    I do not for a moment claim that Calcutta is an ideal city from a sanitary standpoint, or from any other standpoint. I admit that there are many improvements required in this direction. I do not for a moment claim that the Corporation have been perfect; they have made mistakes, as every Corporation is bound to make; but what I venture to say is, that Calcutta is a far, healthier city to-day than it was years ago, before it had a representative Government; and I say further that this improvement has, on the whole, brought about the co-operation of the people who form the great majority of the citizens of Calcutta. Before I conclude I should like to describe to the House, in one or two words, the main provisions of the Bill under discussion — a Bill which, I venture to assert, virtually de-

    929
    stroys the representative character of the present municipality of Calcutta. The number of members of the Corporation remains as before, namely, 75, but the Executive is reduced from 18 members to 12, and here I would point out that the crux of the whole matter must depend, in such a case as this, upon the composition and power of the Executive. According to the present system, the Executive is responsible to the Corporation, and also there is exactly the same amount of representative element in the Executive as there is in the Corporation. How is the Executive of 12 composed? Four are elected by the Government, four are elected by the Trades Associations of Calcutta, and four are elected by the main body of the Commissioners on the Corporation. In other words, as it must be in a case of this kind, the Government nominees and the nominated members representing Trades Associations must be absolutely identical in their views; it, therefore means that the representation of the citizens of Calcutta must always be in a standing minority of two to one. I have no time to go into the many other provisions of the Bill, but I will sum up its results in regard to the powers still left to the Corporation by pointing out that, so far as I can gather, only four material points are left by the Bill under the control of the Corporation. These are the selection of the Bank of the Corporation, the taking of the census, the provision of burial grounds, and the arrangements for the establishment of markets. Now it seems to me that if the Government have lost all faith in the capacity of the citizens of Calcutta to discharge effectually and loyally their duties as citizens, it would be better to say so frankly, and to establish the one-man rule pure and simple. I think that would be better than to endeavour to disguise the real character of this Bill by the mere name and semblance of representative government. What are the reasons which have been brought forward to account for the introduction of the Bill? I think they can be roughly classed under two heads. There were those reasons which were originally influenced by the Government when they decided upon undertaking this legislation; secondly, there were those reasons which were brought forward when the Bill was
    930
    presented and attached, in the usual way, to it. What were the first reasons advanced for this new piece of legislation? There are two principal points. First of all, this Bill was introduced in order to enable the Commissioners to recover a certain licence tax from certain companies which previously escaped taxation; and, secondly, it was necessary to amend the constitution in order to enable the Corporation to exercise proper control over building operations in 'Calcutta. Both of these things are admirable in their way, but they are not gigantic, and it is rather difficult to understand why, in order to get an amendment of this character, it was necessary to introduce a Bill containing 11 parts, 42 chapters, 668 sections, and 20 schedules. There must be other reasons for the introduction of a Bill of this character, and I will summarise those other reasons under three heads. The first of them is that facts have been brought to light in connection with the alarm of plague in Calcutta which show that the town is in a terribly unsatisfactory condition; and, secondly, that the present constitution of the municipality is ill adapted to stand the strain of a grave and sudden emergency; thirdly, it is not the view expressed by Sir John Woodburn himself in a speech which he made in Bengal. He said that the Bill will be an advantage because it will increase the share in the administration of those great interests which have been overborne by the single interests of the ratepayers. So that there are three main reasons in the opinion of the Government for rendering it necessary for this revolutionary measure to be introduced. First of all, they say Calcutta is in a terribly unhealthy condition. Sir, I think the only reply to that statement is the opinions I have quoted of successive Governors, who have borne striking testimony to the constitutional improvements which have been accomplished through the instrumentality of the municipality; secondly, Sir, and perhaps this is a reason which is of more practical importance than any views expressed by officials or others—I think the fact that Calcutta practically escaped the plague speaks volumes as regards the present sanitary condition of the town. The second charge is that the municipality of Calcutta shows itself to be ill adapted

    931
    to meet an emergency. I would reply to that charge by pointing out that experience of India has always shown that when certain emergencies do arise the co-operation of the people is essential to success. If it were necessary, and I think it is not denied that it might be desirable, to reserve to the Government absolute power for an emergency of that kind, why should not that reserve have been made and carried out by a single clause, without introducing a Bill crippling for all time, practically, the system of representative government in Calcutta? The third charge is that the great interests of the city have been over-ridden by the single interests of the ratepayers. Sir, I only wish again to point out that, according to the present constitution, these trade associations have an adequate representation, and through that adequate representation, if they like to use it, an adequate control of administration in the town. It may be, indeed, true, because a large number of these gentlemen are busy men—that they are unable, to attend meetings of the Corporation very regularly; and I notice, in passing, that there is a provision in the new Bill for payment of so much a sitting to those who attend a meeting of the Executive Committee. I say nothing as to the difficulty in the way of these wealthy citizens of Calcutta attending these meetings in connection with the municipal work in the town, but I do submit that it would be possible, in my judgment, to have suggested a remedy for that state of things without introducing such drastic changes as those in the Bill before the House. I wish again to point out, from the standpoint of the sanitary condition of Calcutta, that I entirely agree with any Bill which would effect that object; because Calcutta is not only the chief city in India, but it is also one of the principal ports in the East; and it is our duty not only to take the necessary steps to protect and safeguard the health of those who live within the area of the town, but I think it is also our duty to take every practical measure to prevent the dissemination of disease from the port of Calcutta to other countries. I say that in order to prove in the strongest possible way that I consider the question of sanitation to be of the utmost importance, and that my remarks are not in any way directed to
    932
    the lessening of the importance of that question. But, Sir, there is no doubt that this Bill has aroused a great deal of feeling in Calcutta. We all know that a large number of crowded meetings, and most representative meetings, have been held to protest against the Bill. Under these circumstances, and in view of what I have said of the real improvement that has undoubtedly taken place under the present municipality, and in view of the fact that the Corporation of Calcutta has always manifested a desire to co-operate with the Government in any emergency, in view of the fact that a great deal of alarm and disappointment has been aroused by this Bill, I think that it would be wise, it would be advisable, on many grounds, for the Government not to proceed at the present moment with this Bill without further inquiry by a competent Commission. The Bill, if carried, would mean practically (that is, in my judgment) that any improvement in the condition of the town would be practically impossible with an indifferent and unsympathetic, and perhaps an estranged Corporation. If this Bill passes it would mean, further, that the services of men, leaders of native opinion in Calcutta, men who have devoted their lives largely to the administration of municipal affairs, would be lost to the Corporation for ever, and this, I think, is a matter of the greatest importance, in view of the possible emergency in the future. And lastly, if the Bill is passed it will mean, and indicate, that a change has taken place in the settled policy of the Government in regard to future extension of self-government in municipal affairs—the policy which has been the policy adopted by both Parties equally in this House, the policy also which during the last quarter of a century has been followed, on the whole, by undoubted beneficent results, and for this reason I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name—
    MR. ROBINSON SOUTTAR (): I have some personal knowledge of the subject in hand. My brother was one of the early Chairmen of the Municipality of Calcutta, and whilst I lived in India I was a great deal-in contact with the members of the Corporation, and I look back now with very great satisfaction to those men whom I then knew in that capacity; they were

    933
    most admirable men. I remember well such men as the right honourable Kristo das Pal and Dr. Rajendrala Mittra, whose name was well known in learned societies all over the world. These men have passed away, but men of equal merit have taken their place, I have no doubt, and I want to say, from personal knowledge, that the Commissioners of Calcutta are an exceedingly well-educated and high-spirited body of men—fit for any municipal chamber in this country, and men who would be equally welcome in this honourable House itself. Now I say this because I think it would be a great misfortune for Calcutta and for India if men of that class—a very much higher class than we are accustomed to see in our Councils in this country— abstain from seeking the suffrages of the electors, and, from what I can see of this Bill, I am very much inclined to think that men of this high class will no longer think it worth their while to work or to ask for those suffrages. I want to say a word or two about the condition of the city in connection with which the Bill is going to act. I am afraid that there is a somewhat exaggerated notion with regard to the condition of Calcutta. Calcutta is a very handsome city, and the European quarter has arrogated to itself the title of "The City of Palaces." Of course, the Europeans grumble, as Europeans always will grumble who live in India. It arises partly from the climate and partly from the liver. But when I tell you that in the Park Street Ward, which is the European quarter, the death rate is only 11 to 1,000, you will, I am sure, agree with me that there is not very much to grumble about. The native part is, of course, the weak part. I will say two things in regard to the native quarter. In the first place, it is not worse than the native quarters in other Eastern cities; and in the second place, it is a great deal better than it used to be. My honourable Friend who proposed this Amendment drew attention to the words of Sir John Strachey with regard to the condition of Calcutta before local self-government was instituted. Well, they are not very pleasant reading. There was a time when there was no water supply, when the drainage was open drainage, and when the scavenging was left to the kites and crows. There is now a water supply
    934
    quite as good as anything we get to drink in this country. There is a main drainage, and there is a Conservancy, which does a great deal of work, though doubtless it might do a great deal more. I think, with my honourable Friend, that the Commissioners have some right to point with pride to the fact that when the plague which devastated Bombay reached Calcutta it failed to find a lodgment there. At the same time, I am not standing up to say that Calcutta is not capable of very great improvement. When I was living there the streets were badly swept and scavenged. There was great congestion in the native quarters. The building of the native houses was of the rudest possible kind, and the sanitary arrangements were also very primitive indeed. The worst feature indeed arises from the existence of the tanks. The poorer native houses are built of stakes interwoven with bamboos, and plastered over with mud. When people build a square in Calcutta they get the mud from the middle of the square, or they used to in the olden days. By-and-by the process of taking away this mud made a very large hole. This hole then became filled with water, and was made into a tank. There are hundreds of these tanks, covering sometimes 25 per cent, of the district. The people bathe in the tanks; they wash their cooking utensils in the tanks, and I am afraid that very often they drink from them. Therefore, they are exceedingly dangerous, but they are not things that can be removed in a moment. The water, even if it is dirty water, is absolutely necessary for the purposes of Oriental life, and before the Commissioners could attempt to shut up these tanks they must provide better ones for the people. At the same time, I think this is one of the things that certainly ought to be done by the Commissioners, because I believe that the tanks have a great deal to do with the death rate of Calcutta. Of course, the death rate is high, and I do not wonder that the Government try to lower it a bit. But the worst places are the places in the suburbs, which have only been under the control of the present Commissioners for a few years. The worst death rate in Calcutta is in the suburb of Entally, which has a death rate of 48 per 1,000. whilst Park Street Ward, the European

    935
    quarter, has a death rate of 11 only. Fenwick Bazar has a population of 30,000, and a death rate of only 23, which is an ordinary English death rate. Taking the whole city of 500,000 people, it has a death rate of 32 per 1,000, and if you include the suburbs, it raises the death rate to 36 per 1,000 in a population of nearly three-quarters of a million. It is very strange, from our point of view, that the suburbs should be more unhealthy than the city, but those who know the city know it is a question of tanks, and jungle, and bad sanitation. Now the Government propose to put this right, and they have brought in a Bill to put it right. I have not the slightest quarrel with regard to the Government putting Calcutta right in every sanitary way. I should like to hear that Calcutta was being improved, and I do not suspect, as some speakers do, the present Government of any desire to strangle local self-government in India. I do not think we have any reason to imagine that the Government have such an intention in their heads. Local self-government in India was not a wicked invention of the Radicals. The Calcutta Municipal Bill was introduced by Sir Richard Temple, who was a Conservative, and local self-government was given to India under the régime of Lord Beacons-field. It is, therefore, in a sense, the offspring of the Conservative Party, and I do not see why we should suspect that Party of any desire to strangle its own offspring. The Bill is a big Bill, and I have not the slightest doubt that it is a good Bill in many of its clauses, but we do strongly object to the constitutional clauses. I must remind you, Sir, that the present Corporation consists of 75 men and the General Purposes Committee of 18, of which two-thirds are elective, and this Committee submits its operations to the approval of the general body of these Commissioners. The Government proposes to keep the number of the Commissioners at 75. It is proposed that this Executive Committee, however, shall only consist of 12, and it is proposed that of this number eight shall be nominated by the Government practically, and only four shall be elective, and it is further proposed to give this Committee, as far as I can understand, at any rate, absolutely autocratic powers. No doubt the existing arrangement is a bad arrangement, and
    936
    I think it is very capable of improvement, but I think the arrangement proposed by the Government is a change for the worse. The trouble in Calcutta is over-centralisation, and they are making the over-centralisation worse than it is. At present there are 75 Commissioners elected to look after the business of Calcutta, and the business of Calcutta, as a matter of fact, is looked after by 18 men. Now, what is the result? There are two results. In the first place, the work is scamped. It is impossible for 18 men to do work which would keep 75 men busy. In the second place, the work is made abortive by criticism. We know perfectly well how it is in this House when a burning question which ought to be discussed in full Committee is sent upstairs to be disposed of by a small Committee. When that Measure comes downstairs again, every man who is interested in the Bill, and every man who thinks he ought to be on the Committee, immediately begins to tear the work of the Committee to tatters. It is exactly so in Calcutta. There are 18 busy men, and as a consequence there are 57 critics, and now the Government proposes that there shall be only 12 busy men, and that there shall be 63 critics. They know perfectly well that it would be impossible that the work could be done in this way, and so they say, "We won't ask this Committee to submit their operations to the general body of the Commissioners, but we will give them autocratic powers." That means that in future in Calcutta there will be 12 busy men and 63 dummies. I believe this is based on an utter misconception of the difficulties that exist in Calcutta. It is not centralisation you want, but division of labour. Instead of 12 men doing the work, or 18 men doing the work, you want to give each one of the Commissioners a task to do. The city is very capable of being divided into sections at the streets running at right angles at various points, and the city ought to be divided into sections, and there ought to be at least a dozen Committees dealing with the municipal affairs, and also with the various sections of the city. Each Commissioner ought to be on that Committee for which he is best qualified, and probably

    937
    it would be better that no man should be a member of more than two Committees. If these Committees were allowed to elect their own Chairmen, and if those Chairmen formed the Finance Committee, you would have an organisation which would work extremely well. The Chairman, who is a perfect slave at present, terribly over-worked because he presides over so many meetings, could preside over the Finance Committee, and over the general body of the Commissioners. Of course, everything ought to go before the general body of the Commissioners, but you can quite under stand that when everybody is interested in the work, when everybody has a hand in the work, and when everybody has work which he specially wants to push on, he is not at all so likely to obstruct the work that has been done by the rest of the Commissioners. That is the secret of the improvement of the Calcutta Corporation. You say that the Commissioners talk too much and work too little. I say they will talk a great deal less if you give them more work to do. There is another reason why I believe the Government will fail in trying to do this work through 12 men. The Government nominees are to be eight, and are, of course, to be Europeans, otherwise there would be no reason for an alteration of the figures. Now, is the noble Lord sure that European Commissioners are the best for governing Calcutta? I very greatly doubt it. They will be commercial Europeans, and I, as one myself, and speaking of my own class, know, from experience, that commercial Europeans in India are extremely busy men. They have, between their business and their little bit of recreation, all their time occupied. They do not know the native language; they never visit the native quarters, except under exceptional circumstances, and their only knowledge of the natives is gained through their domestic servants. Neither have they any special sanitary knowledge, whether at home or abroad. Europeans are very valuable for their business capacity upon a Finance Committee, but I fear that on a General Purposes Committee Europeans would not be of very much use, and what will be the result? The result will be that the Chairman will have to do all the work, and that the 12 Europeans will meet and simply say
    938
    "Aye" to everything he suggests. I have not the slightest doubt, from my own knowledge that the Chairman, several of whom I have known personally in Calcutta, will be an exceedingly able man, but the responsibility will be too great even for an able man, and the grave difficulty in Calcutta—one of the gravest difficulties—is the fact that the Chairman will not keep his position. Chairman after Chairman has been elected, and has resigned. I do not know the reason why they have resigned, but there have been a great many during the last 10 years. There is a greater reason still to which I must allude. The government of Calcutta, or any other great Eastern city, or Indian city, ought not to be entrusted to the hands of 12 Europeans. Every man knows how strangely caste prejudice works amongst the natives. We call it prejudice, but to the people it is more important than life itself. Caste baffles the reformer at every turn, and caste baffles especially the sanitary reformer. It is not peculiar to the rich, but it is shared by the poor. I remember very well once passing some of my workmen who were engaged in partaking of their evening meal. The sun was just sinking to rest, and, as I passed, my shadow was thrown over their cooking utensils. In a moment every man was up, the food was thrown away, and the cooking utensils broken into a thousand pieces. My shadow had actually defiled their food. How can Europeans grapple with a race which is permeated by prejudices like these, except through the enlightened natives? You have 75 enlightened natives who manage the municipal affairs of Calcutta; but you forget that behind that 75 enlightened natives there are nearly 750,000 natives who are crushed down by prejudice and by superstition. We, in our fine, go-ahead, Anglo-Saxon way, drive through business, and issue this order and that order, and expect those orders to be obeyed, and before we know there is murder, and riot, and rebellion. It is very absurd, of course, but it is India. In the great assemblies you can manage without natives; in the Imperial and Legislative Councils you do not touch the life of the people, but in your municipal councils you have got to work through the natives,

    939
    whether good or bad, because your municipal life does touch the life of the people. This is especially true in Calcutta. I daresay the noble Lord will point to Bombay as an example, but that is a very different city. In Bombay there is a very mixed population. There are thousands of Parsees there who have no caste prejudices, and there are thousands of Jews, Malays, Armenians, and men of that sort, and life is altogether freer in Bombay. It is altogether different in Bengal. Perhaps it is a pity that it is so. Perhaps if we had to recreate the Bengali we should create him differently. But we must take him as he is, and let us remember that with all his faults he is an intellectual force in the East, and we must also remember that Calcutta is a great centre of thought and national life. I want to make a suggestion. I think that if local self-government is going to be satisfactory in India, the Government have to do something which they have not done at all, and which, as far as I know, they do not contemplate doing. The noble Lord knows well that Calcutta is not the only municipality that needs stirring up. Calcutta is always, of course, to the front, because it is the head-quarters of the Government; but there are other municipalities which require stirring up as much as Calcutta. Has it occurred to the Government that they have themselves to blame for the present state of things which exists in India, since local self-government was introduced there? Look at our own experiences in this country of England. Sixty years ago local self-government was introduced. Was it a success? Not a bit. Our local administrators did not learn their business all at once. Did the Government abolish it because of that? Did it turn the councils into lay figures and rule the great cities, few of which are greater than Calcutta, by committees of 12? No! They treated the Corporations as a schoolmaster treats dull pupils. They gave them an expert tutor to look after them. The Local Government Board, one of the finest institutions we have, was established in this country for the purpose of looking after our Corporations and our municipal life, and, under the watchful care of the Local Government Board, our Corporations have become what they are to-day. One would
    940
    have thought that with experience like this the Government of India would have started such a Local Government Board there; but whether it was thought that the natives of India were more clever than the people of this country, and that they could pick up their sanitary knowledge at their feet, I do not know; but the self-government was thrown into the water, and was left to sink or swim, and some municipalities look like sinking. As I have said before, Calcutta gets special attention, but there are places besides Calcutta where the same problem will have to be faced by the Government, and assuredly it would be very advisable that all these problems should be faced upon the same uniform plan. Is this proposal of the Government the uniform plan? If it is, then the Government is deviating from the line of policy which their predecessors for many years adopted in India, the policy of slowly but steadily teaching the natives to govern themselves. I do not think that it is the desire of the Government to upset the policy of their predecessors for a moment, but such a thought is the legitimate outcome of this Measure, because if the most cultured city in India is not fit for self-government, no other city is. If self-government is to be successful, it will not be on the present lines, and it will not be on the lines the Government proposes, but it will be by the creation of a powerful Local Government Board, which will have at its disposal the very best sanitary knowledge, both engineering and medical, that India can give. A Local Government Board of this sort should be in touch with every municipality; it should jealously watch the death statistics, and should have full power to inspect, advise, warn, arbitrate, and to compel. Such a Board would not interfere with self-government at all, but would help it immensely. It would take the burden of responsibility off the shoulders of the Lieutenant Governors, and it would be a tower of strength to every health officer, to every borough engineer, and to every chairman, and in my opinion it ought to have been established years ago. The Amendment speaks of a Commission; but I very frankly say if the Commission is simply to inquire into affairs in Calcutta, it would not be of great service, because

    941
    after all the facts about Calcutta are pretty well known already; but I do think that a Commission to inquire into local self-government through the whole of India, with a view to strengthening it and making it more powerful, would be exceedingly useful. I do trust that the noble Lord will encourage us to hope that the constitutional clauses, to which we so strongly object, will be hung up until he sees whether or not there is a better way.
    On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval,
    MR. REGINALD McKENNA (): I do not know whether an apology is necessary for intervening in this Debate by one who makes no claims to special knowledge of Indian affairs, and has only followed them from afar; but when the proposed abolition of the Corporation of Calcutta was brought before me, it seemed to me one of those cases in which it became the duty of every private Member in the House to exercise his duty of safeguarding the interests of the inhabitants of India. What is it that the proposal of the Bengal Legislative Council amounts to? It is a proposal to repeal the power of local self-government in Calcutta. Local self-government has had but a very short trial there. I hardly think it is necessary to argue that self-government has proved a complete success in India. It is only necessary to show that so far it has not been without a considerable measure of success, and that there is no evidence whatever that it is a failure. During the very short period of time that has been allowed to it, it cannot be said that any fair opportunity has been given for local institutions to develop themselves properly. The only complaint, so far as one can discover, that is made against the existing Corporation of Calcutta is that it could not be relied upon to secure sanitary Measures, and perhaps the further complaint that the Members talk too much. So far as the defect in sanitation is concerned, it must not be forgotten that in Calcutta we have to deal with a city founded on a most unhealthy swamp, and that the difficulties in securing sanitation are immense. That these difficulties have not been satisfactorily dealt
    942
    with by the existing Calcutta Corporation cannot to a certain extent be denied. But we have got to compare the Calcutta of to-day with the Calcutta before self-government was introduced. If we go back prior to 1886, we have it on undoubted authority that the conditions were worse than to-day, and judging by the standard of what has been experimentally done, it cannot be said that the existing Council has been altogether unsuccessful in their sanitary work in Calcutta. No doubt, if the condition of that city were compared with the ideal city, we should be able to find many flaws in their government, but, looking to the state of things as we knew them before self-government was conceded, it is not disputed that the Corporation has worked well, and I do not think it is alleged, certainly not in any definite way, that they have been a failure. There is no charge of corruption against a single member of the General Council. Now, Sir, under these circumstances, with such a great change as that which is now proposed, one would naturally expect to find that an inquiry had been held, that evidence had been tendered, and that a case had been proved against the existing Corporation of defective administration. But there has been no inquiry, there has been no evidence tendered; no case has been attempted to be shown against the existing local authority. It is surely the duty of the British Government, in its control of Indian affairs, above everything else, to make sure that it is not outraging the public sentiment in India. We govern there to a certain extent, no doubt, by the strength of our Army, but surely we govern there far more effectually and forcibly by the fact that there is a general belief in the justice of Great Britain.
    AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Far from it.
    MR. REGINALD McKENNA: My honourable Friend says "far from it," but take educated opinion throughout India, and we see that there is a general belief in our desire to do justice, and therefore it becomes more essentially necessary that we should do nothing which would injure the opinion that the educated natives may have in the sense of justice in this country. We have already of late years committed

    943
    acts which have steadily tended to undermine our influence, and we ought not to consent to a Measure such as this Calcutta Municipal Bill, which will leave the impression on educated opinion in India that we are going back on the policy, which we have supported for the last 25 years, that we no longer believe in the necessity for local self-government, and that we have abandoned our principles and the hopes we have held out to the natives of India. That would be a disastrous thing for us. I would certainly appeal for such a consideration of this Bill, and such a delay as is suggested by the Amendment in order to give an opportunity of satisfying opinion in this country, if not in India, that there has been a case for abolishing municipal institutions in Calcutta.
    MR. GEORGE HARWOOD (): The noble Lord who represents the India Office has opposed the Amendment upon general grounds. I do not suppose that we can touch on the matter of the facts of the Calcutta Corporation. It may or may not be wise to make the change from narrow considerations. There may be, and must be, a good deal to be said on the other side of the question, otherwise our officials in India would not propose this change. But I recommend the Government that they should look at the matter from a broader point of view—a point of view, I maintain, which the House of Commons and the Government have the right to take. I am sure I speak the feeling of most honourable Members who are comparatively new to this House when I say that we are distressed and pained at the way in which Indian questions are treated in the House of Commons. When we realise the facts of the Indian Empire—facts which far transcend in poetry and in charm anything that the romancer or the writer of the wildest fiction can imagine; when one thinks that the people of this island in the far North Seas—a people few in number comparatively, different in race and character—should by force of circumstances have been led to wield the empire over a quarter of the population of the globe—over a country which is inhabited by one of the most interesting people in the world, with an ancient and complicated civilisation—one would have supposed that the House of Com-
    944
    mons would have been struck by the poetic charm of the situation—
    AN HONOURABLE MEMBERcalled attention to the fact that there were not forty Members present.
    After a count, and 40 Members being present, the honourable Member resumed,
    MR. HARWOOD: I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that it strikes one that there is something almost pharisaic in the attitude of the House of Commons towards this great question. When we dispute the wisdom of this or that extension of the Empire, these extensions are always justified to us by the plea that they are for the spreading of civilisation and for the improvement of the people. But when we come to this House and watch the way in which this House acts, I am afraid we are driven to the conclusion that many of these high claims are mere fustian, and that they have no real solid basis. It seems to me that in regard to Indian questions this House may be divided into three elements. We first have those who take a particular interest in Indian questions, but they labour under the disadvantage that they seem always to have to take what may be called an Indian native view of the question. Then we have, in the second place, the official element, which confines its attention chiefly to giving very sparse information. The third element consists of the great mass of Members of the House of Commons who, if we may judge by appearances, take no interest whatever in Indian questions. I want to put before the noble Lord what I would call a reasonable House of Commons' view of this matter. I do not follow my honourable Friends in the statistics they have given, nor do I presume to follow in the least degree the particulars they have given of Calcutta or any other Corporation. But I think this House may look at the matter from a broader and more detached point of view. I would ask the House to consider whether their attitude towards Indian questions in general is a wise and right one. As to its wisdom, I know what one is often told—namely, that it is better to leave these questions to experts. India has an admirable batch of Civil Servants, who serve it well, whose advice may

    945
    well be followed, and who may be wisely left to take their own course. But I venture to say that does not exhaust our responsibility. As one who has casually passed through India, I cannot help saying that India is served by an admirable body of Civil Servants. If England had not the command of such Civil Servants for all its purposes throughout the world our Empire could not exist for a week. No one knows better than we do what patriotic, devoted, intelligent service is given all through the Empire by the Civil Servants. Therefore, no words shall fall from me in depreciation of the value of their services or in depreciation of the value of their advice. But what I want to put to the no Die Lord and the House is this—it does not always follow that the men on the spot are the best qualified to decide on the principles on which you should regulate your government. This is one of those cases in which an outsider often sees most of the game, and one must recognise that whilst the men on the spot have a thoroughness of knowledge and a particular quality of experience which we cannot possess in this House, yet very often the prospective is liable to be distorted by their close proximity to the scene. All over the world, when the Anglo-Saxon is brought into contact with natives, certain feelings are aroused in him which disqualify him from taking an impartial view of the situation as a whole, and I maintain that the House of Commons is just the body to put the prospective right and take a large general view of the question. Therefore, the House of Commons must not be led in matters of detail, or in the consideration of principle, blind-folded by the specific advice even of the most able Civil Servant. As to the wisdom of our attitude of aloofness with regard to Indian questions, I would ask, is it right that the House of Commons should adopt such an attitude? To speak on an Indian question is synonymous to speaking to empty benches in this House, and I claim that it is not wise that the House should depute its responsibility to its Civil Servants. We have lately heard a great deal said about empire—a great wave of Imperialism has gone over the country. I am not going to complain of that, but I think we ought to utilise the occasion to ask ourselves as a nation, and this House of
    946
    Commons as a governing organisation, whether we realise that empire has its corollaries and its duties, and that it is not merely enough to extend our territories. It seems to me that we are drifting into a very narrow view of those duties and those corollaries. In regard to empire, it seems to be taken for granted in the Press and in the House of Commons that if every European nation can agree with us everything is settled, and—
    MR. SPEAKER: I think the honourable Member is travelling away from the question.
    MR. HARWOOD: What I wanted to say was that the corollaries of empire imply two things—firstly, that in extending our Empire we should feel called upon personally and collectively to devote to that Empire the best attention we can; and, secondly, that we should train the people of these different countries which we take over, and endeavour to teach them what we call Western civilisation, one of the fundamental elements of which surely is to teach them self-government, and to train them gradually to depend more and more on themselves. We should make that our object even from a selfish point of view, because if we continue to extend our Empire we shall not have the force, the people, the intellect to continue to govern all these extending territories with the same minuteness of personal government that we had at first. That seems to me the crux of this question. Calcutta municipal government sounds an uninteresting subject, but underneath this, question, I beg the House and the noble Lord to consider, lies a still greater question, and a question which ought to seriously call forth the interest and the attention of the House of Commons. It is this—are you or are you not going to do all you can to extend amongst the 250 millions of your Indian subjects the principle of self-government? If you are, you should be very careful not to do anything which may be a discouragement to that principle. I venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that it must have struck anyone who has travelled in India, or who is at all acquainted with the facts of the case, how little so far we have extended this principle of self-government. One can-

    947
    not help feeling, when one is in that country, that it is a comity governed by a foreigner almost to the minutest details. Attempts have been made to encourage local self-government in Bombay and Calcutta, but if this Bill is carried it will be a discouragement to this extension of self-government, and also a discouragement to the hopes of self-government throughout the whole Empire of India. I think it would be a sad thing if we, as it were, damped the courage or chilled the enthusiasm of our subjects in India who are hoping that the British Government may teach them something of the principles and practices of self-government. I know very well that it is often said they are not to be trusted, and that they are not loyal. I attended one of the Indian Congresses, and I must say that if the expressions of loyalty which were uttered there had been used in an assembly of Englishmen they would have been characterised as most absurd and exaggerated. There is no doubt that amongst the people of India exists a great sense of gratitude to our Government, and a great sense of loyalty to our Government, but there is also a great hope that the British Government will give them the training of self-government, not that they may throw us off, but that they may learn from us how to govern themselves. The noble Lord may produce evidence of abuses in Calcutta, he may show us evidence from experts advising that in this or that matter, such as water or sanitary arrangements, it is not advisable to alter the form of government, but I would ask him not to be actuated merely by the consideration of Calcutta or by expert evidence, but to remember that if this Bill is allowed to pass the greatest discouragement will be put upon the hopes and aspirations of a nation which longs to be loyal, and which will be loyal if you train it in the traditions and hopes of your civilisation.
    MR. SCHWANN (): Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the general principle that we ought to do all that lies in our power to further self-government among the Indian people. I believe all of us who take an interest in India have noticed that in the last few years there has been a decided tendency on the part of the Indian Government to put the hands of the clock backwards. It is only a few
    948
    years ago that there was a decided attempt in Bengal to abolish the right of trial by jury. That proposal was dropped Largely in consequence of opinions expressed in the papers and in this House; and I believe since then the principle has been rather extended than restricted. I believe this present Bill for the municipal government of Calcutta arises to some extent from the retrograde feeling on the part of the Government of India. I remember when I was in India seven years ago, the great question then which seemed to agitate the retrograde mind of the officials was that there must be in every municipality or local body an Englishman as President. I need not say how galling that was to the Indian people. There are among the Indians as fine business men as any to be found in this country. I do not say that every Indian is qualified to be a Councillor or to take a position in the Municipal Council, but, at the same time, a great number of them are as well gifted in this respect as the English people. I know they felt the greatest repugnance at having Englishmen forced upon them as Presidents of their local bodies. No doubt the municipal bodies in India have been at times unseemly and unruly, but we have all read the papers in England, and have seen cases which certainly do not tend to throw great credit or dignity upon corresponding institutions in England. I remember when having charge of the Amendments to the Bill by which the Councils of India were to be increased in number, reading the reports of the English Commissioners on the subject, and without exception those Commissioners were all favourable to the increase. I should like to ask whether the plans and advice of the Indian Government for the benefit of the population of Calcutta were always up to the highest European mark. I do not think anybody could say they were. For a long time the Indian Government directed education, and I visited, with Her Majesty's Inspector, nearly all the schools in Calcutta, some of which had just been handed over by the Government to the new municipality of Calcutta. Those schools were most wretched institutions, some of them being held over stables, and others in badly lighted rooms. If the present Municipal Government of Calcutta is to

    949
    be blamed for that, I think some share of blame ought to rest on the Government which preceded it. I think the suggestion made by my honourable Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, that a Local Government Board should be established in India, which should be able to foster and guide the different municipal institutions of India, is a very admirable suggestion. Of course, it is very difficult for anyone who has not been in the Government of India to say how that would fit in with the general arrangements, but it does not seem to me to be altogether impossible. I hope the Government will put aside any narrow official view and look to the wider interest of the Indian people. For my own part, I think it would be desirable to wait until the present Viceroy, Lord Curzon, who seems to have shown a considerable amount of acumen since he has been in India, has taken in the new circumstances and formed an opinion.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: The Bill will have to pass through Lord Curzon's hands.
    MR. SCHWANN: I am delighted to hear from the noble Lord that that will be so, and in view of that fact I think it will be a great benefit that this Debate has taken place. I hope the same good sense which has been shown in this House will be displayed in India, and that this Bill which we so much deprecate may not pass.
    SIR H. FOWLER (): Mr. Speaker, I wish, before I touch this question, to express my strong feeling of admiration for the manner in which this Amendment was brought before the House. I think the speech of my honourable Friend the Member for West Denbighshire, in moving the Amendment, was not only a very lucid and powerful speech, but it also stated the case which the House has before it to consider. I do not propose to go into the general question of the government of India, or the relationships between this country and India on the many interesting points mentioned by the Member for Bolton. Although I can see the line the noble Lord may take with reference to this Motion when the matter is still, so to speak, sub judice, still, as this House has so few opportunities of expressing its opinion
    950
    on Indian affairs, it is not out of order nor out of place that upon a question of this gravity the House should be in a position to express, I will not say a definite or a final opinion, but at all events a strong opinion as to the aspect this Measure assumes in its sight, and give the noble Lord some idea of what is the feeling in some sections, at any rate, of the House. The Bill is a very long one, consisting of 700 clauses, but what we have to deal with is the past history of this question in Calcutta, and is not a very old question. The municipal government in Calcutta dates back, I think, to the year 1876, and the present Measure is founded on a Measure which was introduced by Sir Richard Temple in that year. The Bill was reconstructed in a great many points in 1888, and what we are dealing with now is the municipality of Calcutta as it was constituted in 1888. It is now, in 1899, proposed to materially alter the municipal government in Calcutta. I think the first question we have to ask is, what has been the past history of this experiment? Has it broken down in any one of its conditions so flagrantly, so utterly, and, apparently, so hopelessly that it is absolutely necessary in so short a period as 10 years—and 10 years is a short period in Indian history—to pull the thing to pieces, and alter it again in a manner which would be very foreign to our notions of dealing with municipal government here, and which we have reason to think is unpopular in India? We have been very slow in our progress in municipal government in England. Generations passed before we arrived at the changes which have been arrived at in India within a comparatievly short period. Apparently the point at issue between my honourable Friend and the Government, not of India, but the Government of Bengal, is really confined to one or two points. As I understand the matter, the Council of Calcutta consists of 75 members. Fifty of those members are elected, as we elect them here, by popular voting—the vote of the ratepayers. Fifteen of them are nominated by the local Government, and the other 10 are elected by various bodies, such as the Bengal Chamber of Commerce, the Calcutta Trades' Association, and the Com-

    951
    missioners for the Port of Calcutta. Though the nominated element is rather strong, I think on the whole it is a prudent distribution of the elective principle. The House will observe that there is a complete majority—50 out of 75—composed of members elected by the voters. But there is an Executive Committee, or you may call it a Cabinet, which, as I understand, really does the work. The others are a sort of House of Lords, but the 15 appear to have the powers of the House of Commons. Sir Richard Temple and the other wise administrators who formed the original municipality of Calcutta followed, in the constitution of this Executive, precisely the same principle and the same proportions as were adopted in respect to the Council. This Executive Committee or Cabinet—call it what you like—consist at the present time of 18 members. Twelve of these members are elected by the 50 elected members of the municipal corporation, and the other six are elected in various proportions by the non-elected and the Government nomination. The whole question now under discussion turns upon the constitution of that second body. As I understand the new proposal, it is suggested to leave the original constitution of the 75 members as it was, but it is proposed to reduce the Executive Committee from 18 to 12, and instead of giving the elected members power to elect two-thirds, it is proposed to allow them to elect one-third only, which is practically to put them in a minority. In Sir Richard Temple's legislation no allowance is paid to the Commissioners for their work on this Committee. The work there is, as it is in England, unpaid, but the Bill which it is now proposed to introduce gives, for the first time, fees. It provides that—
    "Every member of the General Committee shall be entitled to receive a fee of 32 rupees, and every member of a Sub-Committee a fee of 16 rupees for each Committee which he attends."
    That, I think, is an innovation in municipal government, and certainly a novel innovation in India, which I do not see any reason for adopting, except it may be, as I rather gather from one or two remarks made in connection with this Bill, with the idea of attracting certain classes of the community to discharge
    952
    these public duties—not the people who cannot afford to give the time to these public duties, but those who could afford to give the time, but are not disposed to give it without some inducement. I hope the Government will carefully consider before they sanction a principle which will have a very large development in India. But that is a question of slight importance compared with the other question. We are trying a great experiment in India, and one which, I think, has been successfully tried—the introduction, as far as possible, of self-government in the large municipalities. Of course they have made blunders, of course they have done stupid things, but I should like to know what municipal Corporation or County Council in Great Britain has not made blunders and done foolish and stupid things, has not retarded sanitation, and has not required legislative compulsion to make it do its duty, and has not, at last, had the heel of the Local Government Board brought down upon it in order to bring it up to the mark. We know that education in municipal work is a slow process in the western countries, and naturally it will be the same in India. Perhaps they talk too much, and talk too long. Even if they did, too much talking is not confined to municipal life. I am not sure that even in the Mother of Parliaments they might not have found that the objections based on that point were not without precedent. Obstructing public business is a serious offence, we know, but I do not think, at all events, that with Englishmen who understand the working of Parliamentary life, municipal life, and local self-government through all its ramifications, that agreement will weigh against the great principle of self-government. I know you cannot bring at once to perfection either in Calcutta or in Bombay, or anywhere else, similar institutions to that which you have in western countries, but the process of education must be carried on. I think the checks, if they are to be called checks, which the Local Government of Bengal introduced, under the sanction of one of the wisest Governors that Bengal ever had—I mean our old friend Sir Richard Temple—will be quite sufficient. The noble Lord may have had evidence before him, but

    953
    I see no evidence yet to justify the statement that the system has broken down, and that we should introduce into an experiment not yet ten years old a novel principle altogether of nominating officials on popular elective bodies, and throwing to the wind the idea of popular self-government. One honourable Member made a suggestion which I think is a good one—namely, that this Bill should be suspended for some little time in order that not only the new Viceroy should have an opportunity of considering it, but also that the Government of Bombay itself, which brought it in in rather too drastic a manner, should have an opportunity of reconsidering the position. A suggestion made by one of my honourable Friends is also to my mind a good one, that in the interests of the nation it would be desirable if some authority were appointed to see that these works should be carried out in moderation for the safety and the welfare of the whole of the community. My honourable Friend behind me points out there would be no objection to a suspensory clause being inserted in the Bill. These are all considerations which will weigh with the Government, and which I think will sufficiently safeguard the satisfactory working of the sanitary work of that department of the Government without imperiling what is a vital principle so far as India is concerned. Now there is one other point to which I should like to call the attention of the Government, and that is this, the unwisdom of exciting public feeling on questions of this sort. There is no doubt that there is considerable public feeling roused in Calcutta upon this question. It has been exaggerated, but the exaggeration is not confined to questions of this sort. I have received documents myself in which not very wise language is used with reference to the step taken, and improper motives have been imputed to the Government in connection with it. But, nevertheless, looking at the delicate relations between this country and India, looking at the Oriental minds and the rapidity with which this sort of feeling spreads and assumes dangerous proportions, it is not wise to put the Imperial Central Government of India and the Government of Bengal into conflict with public
    954
    opinion unless there is absolute necessity; they may have gone too far ten years ago: it may have been unwise, I do not say it was, that they should have given such large powers—the majority control—to these elective representatives of this Committee; but, having done it, it will be more unwise to go back. Prove the case, and if there is proved to be any public danger to the peace, health, or Government of Calcutta, I should be the last to shrink from supporting the Indian Government through thick and thin in such an emergency. But there is nothing of that sort. The rather philosophical view on the part of the Executive seems to be that there would be a more vigorous control if it were in the hands of the Government. We have educated our people in local self-government, and there has been a marvellous transition in the local government of this country, and marvellous results. There has been a marvellous change in the local self-government here and a marvellous public expenditure, with wonderfully good results on the same lines. Let us encourage self-government in India, do not discourage or repress it. So long as you run no risk encourage it in every possible way. I do not knew what view the noble Lord the Secretary for India will take in this matter, and we cannot expect him to say what he will do because the matter will come before him judicially, but still the final decision upon this Bill rests in his hands. But what I want, if I may say so, to indicate to him is that I think it would be desirable that the Bengal Government should not send this Bill home in its present state even to him, and unless they can make out a very much stronger case than they have they should be willing to wait until the experiment has had a fairer trial; until the new Viceroy, of whom a great many of us have the highest opinion, has had an opportunity of considering the matter. At all events, it should be kept in reserve until the House on a future day, and in a clearer light, has a better opportunity of pronouncing a sound judgment upon it.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: I think anybody who has listened to this Debate must admit that all who have spoken have done so in a tone of great modera-

    955
    tion. There has boon a desire on the part of the speakers to eliminate so far as possible all points of controversy, and everyone has endeavoured to put forward proposals and suggestions which they believe to be for the benefit of India generally. My task in replying will also be easier because the Debate has been free from those reflections upon the Civil Service which have unfortunately too often characterised Debates upon India. If honourable Gentlemen would only recollect that these gentlemen are, as I believe, discharging the most difficult and onerous duties of any public service of the world, and doing it well, they would refrain from making such observations and relieve me as the official head of that service from taking the notice of them that I am bound to do. Now, Sir, the Motion which is before the House tonight is of a very peculiar character. Every honourable Gentleman who has spoken in support of it has assumed that he is speaking on and supporting a Motion promoting the best interests of the several local Governments in India, but to my mind there has never been a Motion made which so obviously strikes at the roots of government as this. For many years past every Government in office has endeavoured to promote local self-government in India by the creation of local Legislatures, which have, within limits, freedom of action, and during the time I have been in office I have added to these local Legislatures, one in Burmah, and one in the Punjaub. Of all these legislatures the most important is Bengal. But the honourable Gentleman comes down and proposes in the interests of local self-government, on one or two sections of a Hill of 700 clauses and 20 schedules, to summarily arrest the whole proceedings of the Bengal Legislature, to stop the investigation now being carried on by a special committee appointed by that body, and to institute a Commission whose business will be not to take an impartial view of the question under consideration, but whose duty is to be confined to reporting on the objections which can or may be urged. Now I do not think anybody who had any wish to promote local self-government in India could have brought in any Motion so destructive as this.
    MR. HARWOOP: Will the noble Lord tell the House what is the composition of the local Legislature of Bengal?
    LORD G. HAMILTON: It is composed, as all local Legislatures are, with the idea of representing as accurately as possible the constituent elements in which they live.
    MR. HARWOOP: Will the noble Lord say how much of it is elected?
    LORD G. HAMILTON: What is the use of the honourable Gentleman putting questions of this kind to me? Does the honourable Gentleman know the number of electors in Calcutta? Docs he know what the population of India is? The electorate of Calcutta is not 60 per cent, of the population. What I do say is that these local legislatures have to go through certain preliminaries before they can introduce any sort of Rill. In the first place they have to get the consent of the Viceroy, and then they have to get the assent of the Secretary of State in Council. Whoever is Secretary of State in Council—and I am sure the right honourable Gentleman will take this opinion of mine—derives the utmost benefit from the enormous experience of the members of this Council. There is no function which that body discharges more admirably than the investigation of matters which come before the local legislatures. This Rill was laid before the Indian Council and carefully examined before we assented to its introduction, and we reserved to ourselves the power to alter any of the details or any of the separate clauses of the Bill. The Rill then goes back to India, and passes through the ordinary procedure prescribed by the rules governing legislation, which is something similar to that prescribed by the Rides in this House. Then it comes back, through the Viceroy, to the Secretary of State for India, and it has an opinion pronounced upon it as to whether or not the Bill should be added to the Statutes. I am, therefore, in a position of some difficulty. I shall, in the course of a few months, in my capacity as Secretary of State, have to decide whether this Bill, in the shape in which it emerges from the Select Committee, shall pass into law or not; and, therefore, the House will understand in the speech that I make to-night that

    957
    I express no final opinion, but only make use of facts and arguments to traverse the statements which have been made sufficiently to show that there are two sides to this question. Well now, Sir, I think everybody will agree, and nobody more than my predecessor, the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, that municipal government is granted by a higher power to a local authority for the purpose of trying to establish an efficient administration of local affairs. Such authority is always delegated to the local authority by the higher power. Now that higher power can always withdraw those functions which it has so delegated if the local authority mates a misuse of them, or obviously neglects the duty imposed upon it. The fact that any local authority is representative in its character does not in the least free it from this general principle. But, at the same time, every Government, and every higher authority, wherever there is a local or municipal body representative in its character, is far more tolerant of its proceedings than if it were a body under its direct control and jurisdiction. Therefore, in India, as in this country, there has always been shown towards any municipal authority in the constitution of which the representative principle has entered considerable leniency as regards its shortcomings. But there is a line at which that tolerance is no longer possible, and that line is reached where the action or inaction of the body in question endangers the lives and the health of the community under their charge. Now, Sir, almost every speaker from the other side has assumed that, out fit sheer wantonness of spirit, and from a desire to destroy or retard the representative principle in India, this Bill has been introduced, and they seem to assume that the Indian Government—or, rather, the Bengal Government—is so short of work that it has gone out of its way to find itself this task. Now let me just bring the House back from the regions of imagination, into which a good many Members have wandered, to the conditions which at the present moment have to be faced by the Government in India. In the first place, plague is prevalent in certain parts of India, and at any moment plague may descend on the ports of Madras and Calcutta, and if
    958
    it once became epidemic in Calcutta it is absolutely impossible to calculate the amount of injury and harm it would do, not only to Calcutta, but to the whole of Northern India. No statistician, however competent, can in any way appraise the full injury which the plague has done in the past few years in Bombay, for not only has it damaged commerce and increased the actual local mortality, but it has created such terror that there has been a periodical exodus from that city of its inhabitants, carrying with them the germs of the disease into other portions of the Presidency. But it is not a mere question of the increase of mortality or the health of the people. Bombay is a great seaport town, used for the greater portion of the export trade of the West of India, and upon the export and import trade depend the occupations of tens of millions of people throughout Western India, and if plague once descends on the town, and curtails a portion of the export and import trade, the means of sustenance of these people is imperilled. Therefore, it must be borne in mind that the sanitary regulations of this great seaport town are not a mere matter of local interest. They are not merely matters of town interest, but they are matters of national interest, and for the sake of an abstract principle of representative givernment, we could not allow the lives, and interests, and the means of sustenance of tens and hundreds of millions of people to be endangered by the negligence which I have previously mentioned. And similar considerations apply to Calcutta. Well, now, every Gentleman who has spoken on the other side has assumed that the municipality of Calcutta has done its work well in recent years, and that there has been a marked improvement in the sanitary condition of that town. Well, I am afraid that that is not in accordance with the facts. The sanitary condition of Calcutta during the past few years has unquestionably deteriorated, and in ten years the death-rate has increased 30 per cent. In the earlier days, after the creation of the existing municipality, no doubt, the work was done well; but in recent years I think it is almost the universal opinion of everybody who has watched the proceedings of the municipality that there has been a steady deterioration, both in the character of those who serve on the

    959
    municipality as well as in the class of work done. I do not wish unduly to press this point, but perhaps the shortest and most convincing way in which I can prove to the House the accuracy of my contention is to quote one of the very many extracts from this Blue Book, which has only recently been published, on the sanitary condition of Calcutta. Fortunately we have only had a few sporadic cases of plague in Calcutta, and when the first case of bubonic plague occurred in Calcutta, the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal appointed a Sanitary Commission to investigate as to the sanitary condition of Calcutta. This Commission was composed of some eight gentlemen of experience, and they appointed, in addition to that number, one of the most able medical officers in India, who was a man of exceptional sanitary experience, who was lent to the Corporation in order to discharge the functions of medical officer. He had a large number of places to look after, and 1his is what he says, reporting in October 1896:
    "I assumed charge of the Conservancy Branch of the Health Department of the Calcutta Corporation ten days ago. My attention has been, during this period, confined chiefly to what are reputed to be the dirtiest, most overcrowded, and unhealthy wards. The knowledge which I have so far gained of the conditions prevailing justifies me in pronouncing these wards abominably filthy. It would require stronger language annica' to convey anything like a correct in than is to he found in the 'Encyclopædia Britpression of the appalling state of affairs. My services have been placed at the disposal of the Commissioners for three months. I venture to state, as an opinion, that if my services were placed at their disposal for twenty years I should not be able, within that time, with a mint of money at my hack, to bring the chaotic condition of affairs into anything like order."
    This is the opinion of a man of experience and an authority on the subject, and it is entirely endorsed by the reports of the Sanitary Commission and the various officers which they appointed. I have never heard it disputed that the sanitary condition of Calcutta, is very bad. Therefore, Sir, it must be remembered that the Government of Bengal had to deal with the difficulty that the sanitary condition of Calcutta was appallingly bad, and then arose the question—What was this condition of things due to? Was it due to inferior local administration,
    960
    or the difficulties surrounding the nature of the country, or was it in any way due to a failing in the administration? I wish to preserve a judicial temperament on this and all the questions relating to this Bill, but I am bound to say that the evidence brought before me shows that this condition of things is very largely due to the chaotic system of administration which has prevailed in Calcutta during the past few years. I quite agree that in this country there have been a good many instances in the earlier days of local self-government, of local authorities, either by omission or commission, misconducting themselves, and afterwards so far pulling themselves together as to greatly improve the locality which they administer. But we have got to deal with a very exceptional state of things in India. In this House we all greatly value the services of those gentlemen who are called "the members of the long robe." In India, too, these gentlemen assist, and they speak upon various questions, and as a rule the Debates are lengthy. Now, one-third of the Corporation of Calcutta is composed of barristers, and a certain number of these gentlemen have not had much opportunity of speaking outside the municipal chamber. During the last nine years there has been established in that municipality, I believe, what is called a Complaints Committee. It is obvious to anybody who is accustomed to local self-government what the result of this would be, and it strikes me that it would not tend to raise the grade, but to lower it, of officials in the discharge of their duties. Honourable Gentlemen have quoted one or two extracts from speeches of the ex-Lieutenant-Governors in support of the theory that Calcutta is very well administered, and that the sanitary conditions there are satisfactory. I interrupted the honourable Gentleman who made this Motion, and remarked that I did not think he had seen the significance of the extract he was reading. It was not a compliment to the municipality of Calcutta, but it was a compliment to the Chairman, and if the honourable Gentleman will read—as I wanted him to read—the concluding part of his own extract, he would see that the enumeration of the benefits is stated to be a sufficient and lasting tribute to the manner in which its first Chairman, Sir

    961
    Henry Harrison, discharged the duty of his responsible, difficult, and thankless task. The fact was well known to everybody who has lived in Calcutta, in recent years—and I should think the honourable Gentleman who seconded this Motion must be aware of the fact—that the only thing which made the Municipal Corporation, since it has been established, an efficient body was the extraordinary tact and ability which its first Chairman, Sir Henry Harrison, displayed. From the time of his retirement it has been exceedingly difficult to get anybody to take up his post. The endeavour to carry on, under almost impossible conditions, the executive work has been too much for almost all the able men who subsequently succeeded him. Those are the conditions of things which have to be considered. You have the plague in India, and you have a most deplorable sanitary condition in Calcutta; and, moreover, you have a body of gentlemen, no doubt actuated by the highest possible motives, but who unquestionably have the reputation of being, I believe, the most talkative local authority in the world. I do not say that that in itself is a reason why they should be disestablished, but when you have got this plague to deal with in Calcutta—and you must recollect that it is the most awful calamity by which the human race can be afflicted—you cannot allow talk to stand in the way of of work. The Indian Government have a strong charge upon them, they must protect the lives of the people under their charge, and they must take care, so far as they possibly can, that Calcutta does not run any undue risk from defective administration, or from defective sanitary arrangements. It was for these reasons that this Bill was introduced which is now under the consideration of the Bengal Council. Now, Sir, since that Bill has been introduced there has been a change in the personnel of that body as regards the official who is the Viceroy of India, as well as the official who is the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal. The honourable Gentleman the Mover of the Motion has quoted, with approbation, the language of Sir John Woodburn which he used in connection with this very Bill only three months ago. He was then President of the Bengal Legislature. Now, if Sir John Woodburn was three
    962
    months ago capable of taking a fair and equitable position on what he admitted was a difficult question, why does the honourable Gentleman imagine that in the three months that have since elapsed he is now incapable of maintaining that attitude in the matter? Lord Curzon, too, has an absolutely unbiased mind on this question, because the sanction to introduce this Bill was given before he arrived in India, and therefore the House has the utmost guarantee that this Bill will, from those in high authority, receive absolutely impartial and fair consideration. Now, Sir, so far I have expressed no opinion as to details. It is, perfectly clear to those who have looked through the proceedings in past years, and are connected with the Calcutta municipality, that if an effective administration is for the future to be set up, it must not be a miniature model of the existing municipality. That was present, I believe, in the mind of Sir Alexander Mackenzie when he made the present proposal which is before the Bengal Legislature, which is to try and adopt a municipality for Calcutta similar to that of Bombay. In Bombay the Executive Council consists of 12 members, but the composition of the Committee is different from that which is provided for Calcutta. There are four nominated members in Bombay, and eight elected members, and the proposal in this Bill is that for Calcutta there should be four members nominated by the great trades interests, and four nominated by the electors of Calcutta. There is a great difference between the composition of the population of Bombay and that of Calcutta. In Bombay there is a great diversity of race and of religion—there is a large Parses element, and there is also a large Mohammedan element. Consequently the native members are much more disposed to take an independent view of the questions that come forward. In Bengal the natives are all much of the same race, and the class of members who are returned, so I am informed, are much of the same social standing and views, and have the same interests to support. One of the objects of Sir Alexander Mackenzie in wishing to have the nomination of four Government members was to include in them a Mohammedan to represent Mohammedan interests, which are at present inadequately represented in

    963
    Calcutta, and also to put in someone who would look after the interests of the poor Hindoos of Calcutta who live in the slums, and whose welfare at the present moment, in the opinion of the Bengal Government, is not sufficiently safeguarded. Therefore the House will understand that there is no ground whatever for the fear which seems to exist in the minds of honourable Gentlemen in this House that the idea of having so many nominated members was to select no one but Europeans; but, on the contrary, our object is to give a more adequate representation to the native races and classes who, under a limited franchise, have not received sufficient representation upon the Calcutta municipality. I agree with the right honourable Gentleman that we ought to try to preserve, as far as we possibly can, the representative element in this municipality, subject to one condition, which I consider to be of paramount importance, and that is the establishment of an efficient Executive. Now, Sir, I have stated the views and objects which the Bengal Government have in view in introducing this Bill, and I have shown that it has been introduced in accordance with the system of local self-government in India which has been promoted by every Government and every Party for 40 years past. I do hope, therefore, that the House will accept my assurance that I will, to the best of my judgment, impartially consider the many provisions in this Bill when it comes finally before me for judicial consideration, and I hope that the provisions will be so satisfactory as not to make it necessary to interfere with the action of the local Legislature in the manner suggested, for that is a serious interference in itself, and the more serious that it is an obstacle to passing legislation for the protection of health, and be at a time when the primary object is to fight against the worst of all enemies—namely, the plague.
    SIR WILLIAM WEDDERRURN (): I am extremely sorry that the noble Lord has not accepted this reasonable Amendment. He has laid much stress on a Health Officer's report upon the insanitary condition of Calcutta. Even in this country you might send an officer into the slums of the
    964
    Metropolis, and he would bring us a report of filth and disgraceful sanitary conditions. But this state of things cannot be made the ground for upsetting the institution of self-government. I quite agree with the noble Lord that nothing could be more terrible than this plague, and every effort should be made to keep it out. But, as a matter of fact, the Calcutta municipality have succeeded in keeping out the plague. They have got absolutely solid results to show, and they have the well-considered opinion of a whole series of impartial Lieutenant-Governors, who say that the work they have done has been as good as under the circumstances could have been expected. Now, it appears to me that the noble Lord has altogether failed to realise the history of this thing. The remedy, supposing Calcutta is in an insanitary condition, is not to upset local self-government there. The noble Lord does not realise that the whole history of Calcutta shows that from the very beginning the attempt to administer the affairs of the municipality by officials has been unsuccessful. It has been a distinct failure, whereas whenever the representative element has been introduced, and whenever the Commissioners have been elected by the people, you find a very great improvement in the sanitary conditions and health of the people. My honourable Friends have already referred to a whole series of favourable comments upon the action of the municipality, but I notice that the noble Lord lays special stress upon the opinions of two high officials—I mean the late Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, Sir Alexander Mackenzie, and the present Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, Sir John Woodburn. I understand that the noble Lord is under the impression that the views which these two officials have expressed are altogether conclusive that this municipality must be fundamentally altered. Now, I have very carefully gone through all the Papers in this case, and I think anyone who will go through them will say that, even after the report of these two officials, the grounds are not sufficient to warrant the change which has been proposed. I would specially commend to the notice of the noble Lord a very interesting speech which Sir Alexander Mackenzie made at the opening of the great drainage works that have now

    965
    been started in the suburbs of Calcutta. Now, that speech, and the condition of things to which the speech referred are very important for two reasons. The first reason is this. It was in that speech, delivered at the opening of these great drainage works, that Sir Alexander Mackenzie first sprang on the Calcutta Municipality the terrible news that they were entirely disapproved of, and that they were going to be put an end to. That was the first hint the Municipality had of it. My second reason has to do with the sanitary condition. I am sorry the noble Lord does not consider it necesssary to give attention to my remarks, for I am commending to his special notice a speech by Sir Alexander Mackenzie to which I attach very great importance, because the treatment of the Calcutta suburbs forms the best comparison between the work done by autocratic officials and that accomplished by a representative Municipal Commission. If the noble Lord will refer to the report of the Commission which sat in 1884 to examine into the insanitary condition of Calcutta, he will find that certain recommendations were made for the improvement of the city, which were afterwards put into force. The main recommendation was that the suburbs, which had previously been under Government officials, should be transferred to the Municipality. That was simply because the condition of the city was so much superior to the condition of the suburbs, and it was admitted that at that time, in the suburbs north, east, and south of Calcutta, there was no underground drainage, there was no pure water supply, and the Conservancy arrangements fell far short of those in force in the town. That was the result of official work, and it was in consequence of that that the Commission recommended that the suburbs should be transferred to the administration of the Municipality. That body immediately took most vigorous measures to improve the Conservancy, and in the speech from which I have been quoting Sir Alexander Mackenzie congratulated them upon the drainage works which they had constructed. In opening them, Sir Alexander expressed his astonishment at their gigantic nature, and he referred to the great engineering difficulties which had had to be overcome; while, with reference to the delay which had occurred
    966
    in completing the works, he said that wise caution had been maintained, and that they had done well not to hurry too much in carrying them out. His praise was absolute, and instead of condemning and cursing the Municipality, Sir Alexander Mackenzie set to work to bless it. Perhaps I had better quote his words. He said—
    "The Municipality has never shown niggardliness, or been backward in sanctioning money for either the water supply or the drainage."
    As regards the insanitary condition of Calcutta, I really do not know where the noble Lord got his information from. I recommend him to get it from Sir Alexander Mackenzie, who spoke of the health of the human population as quite remarkable.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: This is Sir Alexander Mackenzie's own Bill.
    SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: The noble Lord has drawn attention to the fact that Sir Alexander is the author of this Bill. I would, therefore, ask what is the great body of evidence upon which this revolutionary Measure is based. What are the reasons given by Sir Alexander Mackenzie? The first is that the Commissioners talk too much. But, surely, that is a very small ground for upsetting an institution 20 years old. I am certain that this House will grant a little indulgence to those who do talk a little too much. The second ground is that the Executive is not strong enough. But that is a stock complaint of all officials; they all want more power and more money to spend, and they all dislike the control of the ratepayers. It is within the experience of every honourable Member that great departments very properly desire the power to spend money, and that the interference of those who represent the ratepayers is always most disagreeable. Therefore, for the officials to say that the Executive is not strong enough is simply for them to repeat what officials are saying all the world over. The third reason given is a very curious one. It is that the Commissioners pay too much deference to special interests. It is very strange that the special interests that

    967
    they are accused of paying too much deference to are the interests of the ratepayers and of the general body of the people.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: No.
    SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I will prove that presently. I do not think the noble Lord can have read this, or he would not say No. As a matter of fact, if an accusation of paying too much attention to special interests is to be made at all, it ought to be made against the promoters of this Bill, because they give very special powers to wealthy European associations, to the Bengal Chamber of Commerce, to the Trades' Association, and to the Port Association, which all represent wealthy Europeans. These are all the reasons I can find. Sir Alexander Mackenzie tells us that the Municipality has done good work, and that Calcutta is quite remarkably healthy, and, as a reward for this, he is going to upset and break up their local self-government. What is the remedy he proposes? He proposes that a great revolutionary change shall be made in the constitution of the Commission. That proposed change has been explained by my honourable Friend. But what strikes one as very curious in Sir Alexander's statement is the absolute misconception of the condition of things. He tells us that this Municipality has not been a success, because its constitution has been taken en bloc from the most advanced English models. He then goes on to instance Birmingham. He says that it is just like Birmingham. I am sorry the right honourable Gentleman the Colonial Secretary is not here. I think he would repudiate anything of the sort. Under the existing condition of the Municipality a goodly number of the members of the Corporation of Calcutta are nominated by the Government. Its chairman is appointed by the Government. I think Sir Alexander Mackenzie gives no evidence of a very careful political study of municipalities, if he supposes that the Government nominate members of the Birmingham Council or appoint the Lord Mayor of that city. But this is only one instance of the happy-go-lucky way in which this matter has been treated. Instead of relying upon a good body of evidence
    968
    they have taken fanciful ideas of this sort in order to justify the change they are proposing. The curious thing is that, having told us that the only remedy is to make a great constitutional change, Sir Alexander Mackenzie tells us immediately afterwards that it is not required.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: No.
    SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: The noble Lord, I understand, has not read this speech. I will quote some of the words uttered by this Gentleman, who is proposing to upset existing institutions. He says—
    "I believe, as a matter of fact, you could do nearly all that you wanted for the future under the existing law."
    How do you get over that? Where is the necessity for a change if you can do all you want under the existing law? And, in order to emphasise that, he says—
    "With most of the evils depicted by the Sanitary Commissioners your existing Act gives ample powers to deal."
    This comes from the gentleman upon whose sole authority the noble Lord is upsetting the work of 20 years.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: No.
    SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I have not heard of any other authority except that of Sir Alexander Mackenzie and Sir J. Woodburn, and as to the latter Gentleman, I shall have to make a few remarks. Sir John, who reechoes the opinion of Sir Alexander Mackenzie as to there being too much talk indulged in by the Commissioners, and as to the alleged lack of motive power, also shows a great misconception of the facts; he is nearly as much mistaken as Sir Alexander Mackenzie. He says he would be opposed to this Bill if it upset self-government, but he considers it certainly cannot be alleged that it infringes in any way the principles of self-government. I venture to assert that that is a most extraordinary statement for a man in a responsible position to make.

    969
    Under the proposed Bill the elected members of the Council will be in a hopeless minority, and yet an experienced administrator does not think that that is upsetting the self-government of that institution. Next as to the complaint of great interests being overborne by one single interest. On this point the noble Lord is under a misapprehension. Sir John Wood-burn gives an explanation of what the single interest was. He says—"Great interests are overborne by the single interests of the ratepayers." Of course it may be very well to administer Calcutta in the interests of the European merchants, but if so, it is in the interest of the classes and not the masses, it is not proper self-government. There have been no fewer than seven large public meetings held in Calcutta between the 21st of December and the 7th of February to consider the case of the ratepayers. The last meeting was convened by a very distinguished gentleman, Sir Romesh Mitter, the late acting Chief Justice of Bengal, and the chairman was Mr. Ghose, a member of the Viceroy's Council. At these meetings the ratepayers stated their case in the most moderate way, and it seems monstrous and extraordinary that this House should not give these people a hearing. We do not say that one side is right and the other wrong, but we do say that this important institution ought not to be destroyed until it is proved to be guilty of real wrongs to the people. I may, perhaps, point out that Sir John Woodburn joins his praise of the Municipal Commissioners with that of the others. He praises their public spirit, their knowledge and activity. All he says against them is that perhaps they have shown too much zeal, but he does not say that the zeal was indiscreet; on the contrary, this is what he says—
    "The Municipal Commissioners have shown so much good sense and public spirit in all the greater matters of the past, that I have entire confidence in their bearing in the future."
    What more could be said of any body of men? But he says more—he speaks of the immense value the assistance of these people was at the time of the plague in calming the fears of the people and establishing temporary
    970
    hospitals. In every way these men helped willingly and with admirable results. And yet this House is to be asked to allow this Bill to go on upon the feeble chance that the noble Lord will veto it—a thing we know he never does when once a Bill has been placed on the Statute Book. All we ask is that the Government shall not rush the Bill through after hearing one side only, as the noble Lord has suggested, but that both sides shall be heard, so that whatever is right may be done. In conclusion, I should like to make three suggestions to the noble Lord. In the first place, I would ask him to compare the state of the sanitation of Calcutta now with that which existed before self-government; secondly, that he should see whether the progress made in sanitation should have been greater looking to the funds available; and, thirdly, whether such progress was impeded by defects in the constitution. The eyes of all India are centred in Calcutta, and it is, therefore, to calm their feelings and to show that the authorities are willing to hear them, and not condemn them unheard, that I most earnestly trust that the noble Lord will see to these matters.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I hope I may be allowed to say one word. We recognise that this Bill at the present time is under consideration, and we know that the objectionable clauses will have to receive the approval of the Viceroy and Sir John Woodburn before they are recommended to the noble Lord for his kindly approval. Under these circumstances, reserving to ourselves the right of raising this question at a later stage, and in the hope that these clauses will be so drafted as to meet our views, I desire to withdraw the Amendment.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question again proposed.

    MINISTERS OF THE CROWN AND PUBLIC COMPANIES.
    Another amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words,—
    "And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that 25 out of the 44 Ministers of the Crown who constitute Your Majesty's present Administration hold among them no fewer than 41 directorships in public companies, and that we consider the position of a public company director to be incompatible with the position of a Minister of the Crown, and that the union of such offices is calculated to lower the dignity of public life."
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to turn from the consideration of the sanitary condition of Calcutta to the consideration of the moral condition of the House of Commons. My object in raising this Amendment is to try and do an honest man's part in endeavouring to prevent the Treasury Bench from being made a roost for the decoy ducks of fraudulent finance. I want to make the position of the Front Bench as a "front pager" impossible. I would suggest that my right honourable Friend the new Leader of the Opposition should go to the country with one cry, and one cry only, "Down with the 'guinea pigs.'" Now, Sir, I am, of course, confining this Motion simply to the incompatibility of a Minister of the Crown being a director and a company promoter. I would, first of all, say, and say very briefly, how incompatible the position of a director and a company promoter is to that of a Member of Parliament, but this incompatibility is intensified tenfold when the Member is a Minister of the Crown. Now, Sir, we all know what the guinea pig nuisance in the House of Commons is. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Member for West Monmouth (Sir William Harcourt), and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer have both condemned it. The Member for West Monmouth said in this House, in 1891—and this is all-important, be cause the right honourable Gentleman spoke before Jabez Balfour adorned these Benches—that in his opinion the position of membership of this House
    972
    was often greatly abused and used for the purpose of advertisement, adding—
    "I do not, however, wish to … make any imputation against anyone who may happen to be a Member of this House, and who may happen, in the regular course of his life, to be a director; I think that, under the circumstances, no one can condemn him; but what I do condemn is the use of the membership of this House to advance the interests of directors of companies."
    Now, Sir, I shall go from that to a speech of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. In a speech we all remember, for other reasons, delivered at Swansea on the 17th of January of last year, he said—
    "He was afraid there were few Members in the Gilded Chamber—what that is I do not, know—who were not in favour of what were known as guinea pigs. He did not deny that individuals of the same kind might be found in the House of Commons."
    Now, Sir, I will proceed to another eminent man, not so eminent as the two I have mentioned, but a Gentleman on the other side of the House, whose testimony in reference to this I only saw in a Dublin paper this evening. The honourable and learned Member for East Dublin (Dr. Rentoul) has been interviewed lately, and this is what he is reported to have said—
    "I would forbid Members of Parliament to have anything to do with the promotion or direction of public companies. It is not good for the House of Commons that it should be worm-eaten with company promoters and directors."
    Now I come to the action of a Member of Parliament who uses his Parliamentary position in the interests of his company or its other directors. No matter how high honourable Members' mansions in May-fair may be, if I were a betting man I would bet that every room in them could be papered with the prospectuses sent out in a period of six months on which the magic letters "M.P." appeared on the front page. There has been a slump in these prospectuses since the Hooley revelations, as I imagine company promoters are at a discount at present. My contention is that if it is wrong for a private Member to advertise his position in Parliament it is infinitely worse for a Cabinet Minister to utilise his Parliamentary position for the pur-

    973
    pose of company promotion or in the interests of a company in which he is concerned. In 1896 there was, as honourable Gentlemen are aware, a Select Committee appointed to investigate how far a Member of Parliament could even vote in the House in reference to matters in which he was personally interested. The rule of Parliament is that an honourable Gentleman is not permitted to vote in any matter in which he has a pecuniary interest of a personal kind, or of such a nature that it might interfere with public legislation, or be hardly distinguishable from the public interest. That is briefly the rule, but I wish to state to the Committee that it ought to be extended. The following Amendment was only lost by a majority of one, and as I happened to be a member of the Committee I know that two honourable Gentlemen would have voted for it if they had not been prevented by uncontrollable circumstances from attending. The Amendment was as follows—
    "Your Committee think it desirable that the position and votes of Members who are directors or shareholders in companies affected by private Bills should be regarded more strictly than has been the case in late years. Such instances as those of directors or shareholders who have undertaken to represent their companies in conducting Bills through the House appear to come within the spirit, if not the letter, of the rule. Question put. 'That this paragraph be inserted in the Re-port.' Ayes 5: Sir Henry Campbell-Banner-man, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Haldane, Mr. Lloyd George, Mr. MacNeill. Noes 6; Mr. Bonsor Sir William Hart Dyke, Mr. Halsey, Mr. Grant Lawson, Mr. Solicitor-General, Mr. Woodhouse."
    Now, I wish to show how the director element prevailed in that Division. There was only one director among the five Ayes, my right honourable Friend the Member for Bodmin, and he had only one directorship, but the other six gentlemen had 16 directorships between them. As my honourable and learned Friends on both sides of the House are taking an interest in the matter let me state how tremendously and shamefully different is the voting in this House, when we have not only a judicial but a personal interest, from justice as administered in the meanest Petty Sessions Court. Why, Sir, a judge who would decide a case in which he was knowingly implicated would be hustled
    974
    off the bench; and it is a remarkable thing that in 1852 a judgment of the Lord Chancellor was reversed in the House of Lords by Lord Campbell because Lord Cottenham, having an infinitesimal interest as a shareholder gave a decision. Lord Campbell said—
    "No one can suppose that Lord Cottenham could be in the remotest degree influenced by the interest he had in this concern, but, my Lords, it is of the last importance that the maxim that no man should be judge in his own case should be held sacred. And that is not to be confined to a cause in which he is a party, but applies to a cause in which he has an interest. Since I have had the honour to be Chief Justice of the Court of Queens Bench we have again and again set aside proceedings in inferior tribunals because an individual who had an interest in the cause took a part in the decision. And it will have a most sanitary influence on these tribunals when it is known that this High Court of last resort, in a case in which the Lord Chancellor of England had an interest considered that his decree was on that account a decree not according to law, and was set aside."
    I hope we will act up to this principle in this High Court of Parliament. I now come to the position of a Member of the Government as a director, and my contention is that, however objectionable it may be for a private Member of Parliament to be a director or a company promoter, the position of a member of the Administration as such is ten times; worse. First of all, if a Motion in which a member of the Ministry has a direct personal pecuniary interest is assailed, the whole company of Ministers troop out into the lobby to support him at his request, just as if they were soldiers on parade. Take, for example, the instance which occurred last March, when I impugned the vote of one of the Ministers. We heard to-night an interesting speech about Ministerial power. Fancy a Minister with direct influence in the Cabinet proposing a grant out of public money for a company in which he was interested! It is inconceivable.
    AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: It is not.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The honourable Gentleman does not know history. It is supposed that a Minister is only a Minister in his own ampit, and in his own department, but everyone knows that the Cabinet and the Ministry act as a harmonious whole, and therefore it is perfectly possible for a grant to be

    975
    made by one Minister for a company in which another is interested, and that possibility can only be removed by having no directors in the Ministry at all. It is another curious thing that if these gentlemen act as Cabinet Ministers, or Ministers of departments, and at the same time do justice as directors to their companies, they must be the most hard-worked and miserable of living creatures. But my contention is that they do not attend to their duties as directors. I now and again look at the reports of company proceedings, partly for amusement and partly for the pained interest they give me, but I have never found in any report of any meeting, however stormy, that a Cabinet Minister or a Minister of the Crown had been impugned for non-attendance. It is obvious that he was not wanted to attend at all—his name was enough. That is the meaning of it. I shall be happy to pay the First Lord of the Treasury a compliment in return for the one he paid me. The right honourable Gentleman's compliment was not a serious one, but I am intently in earnest. I ask the First Lord not to reply to me in this matter, because he is the most ignorant man in this House on the subject of companies. He said some time ago that he was a mere child in these matters, and I would advise him to take to heart the words of the phophet Jeremiah in which he said, "Oh, Lord, I cannot speak, for I am a child!" I do ask, then, for the right honourable Gentleman not to speak on these matters. Perhaps I should not have introduced this subject at all, because the Amendment is a very serious one, and I only mention this by way of personal explanation. I can recall, Sir, a man whom we all greatly admired—the late Mr. Mundella: I can recall that scene when he spoke from the last seat just behind the Treasury Bench. That was the most touching scene I ever saw: the dear old man, who had won a magnificent position, and Mho then became the victim of misfortune, from which no one is exempt. On that occasion he indicated his personal character, but how much better it would have been for him if he had never been a Cabinet Minister and a company director at the same time! Mr. Mundella said this, and it is no exaggeration when I say that I can hear his tones,
    976
    and I can almost see him now if I close my eyes—I mean that I can see him in imagination. Mr. Mundella said this on the 24th of May, 1894—
    "I think that the public have a right to be sure that there is not the slightest suspicion of conflict between personal and public consideration."
    I say, with great respect, that that absolutely applies to the quarter of a century of company directors holding office in the present Government, and that, therefore, their positions are not free from blame. Now, these observations are strictly impersonal, and will continue to be impersonal, but I am bound to ask this question. Is there not an appreciative danger that the Treasury Bench will in due course of time become a sty for guinea-pigs? That is a typical question to ask, but at the same time I will endeavour to guide the House. I say that it is a well-known fact that Minister after Minister of the Crown has been in former times expelled from this House for corruption. One Minister of the Crown has been, during the present century the subject of a searching examination, from which he did not escape; and within the Parliamentary memory of the Father of this House, the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Oxford, a gentleman was expelled from the Treasury Bench for company finance and for fraud. That was the notorious John Sadleir. I looked into a biographical dictionary a day or two ago to see how they would describe John Sadleir, and the first line I saw was "John Sadleir, Swindler and Politician." Well, Sir, we want the swindler to be separated from the politician. I will not trouble the House with a list of John Sadleir's directorates, but, just to show what a respectable man he was, I may say that he was Chairman of the London Joint Stock Banking Company from 1848 to a few days before his death. But now I am in a difficulty, because if I ask for a list of the various Ministers who are directors of companies, and of the various companies that they represent, I should not be given a list. I see the First Lord of the Admiralty is not here. Well, in 1891 the right honourable Gentleman who is now the First Lord of the Admiralty was leading the House in the temporary absence, through illness and sub-

    977
    sequent death, which we all deplored, of Mr. W. H. Smith, and he was asked by a Member to give a list of the members of the Government who were company directors, and of the companies whish those gentlemen directed, and this is the reply he got—
    "The honourable Gentleman is probably aware that there are means of information within his reach which would show what directorships are held by any particular persons in which the names of the directors are given."
    Then he proceeded on strong Imperial principles—
    "I do not think it would be right—"
    you can imagine the way in which he said it—
    "that the Government should have recourse to what might be looked upon as an invidious return."
    I have been under the laborious and painful duty of making that invidious return myself, and I have got it here. Now, here is, under broad and general terms, how the matter now stands. There are no fewer than 19 members of the present Cabinet, which is the largest that ever existed, and therefore the wisest one, and of those 19 gentlemen (their benevolence extends beyond the reach of mere public details, they work to do good in commercial undertakings) there are 11 company directors, and they are divided pretty well between the Lords and the Commons. Five Lords divide eight directorships amongst them, and of these one Peer heads the list with three directorships. That is Lord Balfour of Burleigh. Now, leaving the Cabinet Ministers, and coming to the budding Ministers—that is to say, Under Secretaries and gentlemen of that description—there are 25 of them, and of those 25, 15 do pretty well, for they hold 24 directorships amongst them. Now, Sir, I think I can show exactly how matters stand in reference to directorships affecting the performance of public duties. I see here the President of the Board of Trade, whose answer we all recollect in a case between directors and working men of one of the railways. This answer was, of course, to the effect that the directors were right, and that, equally of course, the workmen ought
    978
    not to have done as they did do. The right honourable Gentleman is not a director of a railway company; he has got directorships on his own account, and it may be said that he had no interest whatever in a question affecting railways; but my answer to that is that he has 10 colleagues who are railway directors, and that, under those circumstances, when you have 10 railway directors in a Government, it is impossible to ask for, and certainly impossible, to get, real railway reform. Now there is another Gentleman, and I will deal with him very gently, because he is in another place—that is, Lord Selborne. I am more anxious to deal with him gently for this reason, that he in 1893 brought charges of wholesale corruption against the Irish Members, charges which he had in this House to apologise for. What do I find? I find that Lord Selborne is a, director of a company which he ought not to be a director of as Minister of the Crown; he is a director of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company. That company is in constant privity with the Crown, and Lord Selborne must take judicial notice of that fact. He is not only Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, but he is a close relative of the Prime Minister. ["Oh! oh!"] Oh, very well, honourable Gentlemen who are angry at these observations will console themselves with the thought that there are four quarter days in the year. I again repeat that, having regard to his position as Under Secretary for the Colonies, and having regard to the relations which exist between him and the Prime Minister—perfectly legitimate relations—he has no right to be a director of such a company as the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company. Now I come to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The right honourable Gentleman was, as we all know, Under Secretary of State for War. When he was in that position he was a three-barrelled director, and one of the companies of which he was a director was a submarine telegraph company, but since he has become Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs he has been reduced in the ranks of directors—the submarine telegraph company he has given up. In regard to the Foreign Office and telegraphs, I think I may say that it would be better if a Minister of the Crown who is con-

    979
    nected with the Foreign Office were not a director of such a company. Then comes the Attorney-General, and this gives me an opportunity of saying something pleasant. The Attorney-General is a director of the Law Life Assurance Society, and I believe that is a directorship which has been held by his predecessors in office as a matter of course. That is quite right and proper. I may, however, suggest to the Administration that after they have deprived the right honourable Gentleman of the privilege of practising at the Bar in order to confine himself to his work as Attorney-General, they might follow the example and deprive themselves of their directorships whilst Ministers of the Crown. I will just read one example more, and I think it will now be right that we should go to Scotland, because the Scotch are proverbially fond of the Saxon—I will take the case of the Secretary of State for Scotland, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and the Lord Advocate. They divide six directorships between them, and those are largely bank directorships, and they might very well sing that glorious duet, "I know a bank." What I do say is this, that I do not think it right for the Chief Secretary of State for Scotland and for the chief law officer of the Crown to be directors of the Bank of Scotland itself—a bank that must certainly be brought into contact again and again in litigation with the Crown. If I am wrong the House will correct me, and the public too; but, in my opinion, this is quite inconsistent. I will say this much, that this list is remarkable not only for what it contains, but for what it does not contain. I find that two right honourable Gentlemen who, of all others, from family associations, from commercial training, and from business capacity, ought to have, been directors are not directors, namely, the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the First Lord of the Admiralty. They are conspicuous in this list by their absence. And why is that? Because they know, as business men, that the position of a Minister of the Crown and of a public director are utterly and wholly incompatible. It is no more possible to be a company director and a Cabinet Minister, and to do your duty in both, than it is possible to serve God and Mammon. I have the Chief Secretary
    980
    for Ireland on the list also, but I will spare him. I must thank the House, before sitting down, for the kindness with which it has listened to me. You, Sir, sometimes in the exercise of your high office are bound to call men to order for unkind and disagreeable observations in respect to the Judicial Bench, but you have no right, and if you had I do not think you would exercise it, to call Members to order for expressing gratitude to one of the highest Members of the Judicial Bench for his conduct in this matter. The nation owes a deep debt of gratitude to Lord Russell of Killowen for what he has said in this respect. I could, if I had liked, have said many unpleasant things about Ministers and public companies, but I do not choose to do so. I have simply stated what I have had to state on general lines. If in so doing I have given offence to any Gentlemen, I ask them to forgive me, but I would use the same arguments and make the same charges again if I considered it necessary to do so, because my wish is, if I can, to save from pain the poor and the defenceless. I wish, if I can, to spare from financial shocks some of the most defenceless and some of the most gullible members of the community—the poor clergyman, and the poor, unmarried, elderly woman, who are deceived by promises of 20 per cent, interest on their capital, and put it into these concerns, instead of being content with 2½ per cent. in "Goschens." I also wish to spare those innumerable people who are deceived, demoralised, and defrauded by this state of wholesale corruption, and the first step in this direction will be—and I shall bring it forward again and again—to weed out from the Treasury Bench all the company directors that sit there, and the foul associations with which the name of company director is inevitably associated. I beg, Sir, to move.
    MR. BIRRELL (): Anybody who attempts to follow my honourable and learned Friend the Member for Donegal naturally places himself at a great disadvantage. Panting Time toils after him in vain, and I shall detain the House but for a very few moments indeed. In spite of the laughter which this subject has given rise to, I think on both sides of the

    981
    House there is a very strong feeling that this is an exceedingly grave question. The general estimation in which both Houses of Parliament are held by the country at large is one of the most valuable of all our national assets, and anything which endangers it and exposes it to vulgar and, it may be, absurd criticism is a thing which is to be deprecated, and which we should do all we can to avoid, or give even the occasion for offence to the weakest brethren. I do not share all the opinions which have been expressed by my honourable Friend, I do not believe for a moment that any of the companies of which right honourable Gentlemen on the Front Bench are directors are at all likely to rob the tender infant or the elderly lady in the way his somewhat too fervid fancy depicted. There are companies of that sort with which we are only too familiar in the records of the newspapers, but I do not think it is desirable, or in the interests of the Amendment which my honourable Friend has at heart, that he should seek to associate the kind of business which right, honourable Gentlemen do, as directors of companies, with affairs of that sort, and we have nothing to go upon which would in any way justify such an association. But, Sir, having no experience in these matters beyond the observations I have been able to give the subject in this House, I am thoroughly persuaded that the duties of a Minister of the Crown, who is also a devoted servant of the public, will occupy all his time and place a tax even upon his understanding. Now, the understandings of Ministers vary. Like the intelligence of the lower animals, they differ in degree. My experience is that the more marked the intelligence of the Minister, the more devoted he is to the office which he holds, the less time and also the less inclination he has to spread himself over commercial affairs and undertakings. I believe that the duties of a Minister of the Crown absorb his time and put a heavy tax upon his understanding. I am very sorry not to see the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies in his place this evening, for I should have been glad to hear him express an opinion upon the subject, for, I confess, I would take his opinion sooner
    982
    than I would take that of almost anybody else in this House. The right honourable Gentleman has been at the head of a great business; he has been the Mayor of a great city, and he has also filled responsible offices under the Crown. I should like to ask him whether, when he was the governing head of a great business, he could have devoted himself to the municipal affairs of Birmingham; or whether, when he was Mayor of Birmingham, he could have discharged properly his duties at the Board of Trade and the Colonies, in which, as a man of business and a Minister, he has excelled. I should like to ask him what his conception of the labours attaching to those high offices is, and whether he could have discharged them in the way he has done if he devoted himself carefully to private trading concerns. I feel sure he would say that the two things are incompatible. My contention is that either these Ministers of the Crown do their duty to these public companies, or they do not. If they do, then they cannot do their duty to Queen and country, and if they do their duty to Queen and country, they must of necessity neglect their duty to their shareholders, who, at all events, think them worth paying for. In any case it is pessimi exempli, and ought not to be allowed to continue. Mr. Gladstone took that view, and I want to know why Lord Salisbury does not. Mr. Gladstone had large experience of public affairs, and he had a large experience of business affairs. He was the last man in the world to speak lightly of business duties or of business obligations; he was the last man to spare himself in any public office which he held, and knowing and appreciating the duties appertaining to public offices and to business obligations, he came to the conclusion that in his Ministry those persons who sat with him as colleagues should give up their private trading concerns. I want to know what has happened since his time to render a change of opinion—a difference of opinion—a contrary view—to be considered as properly held by the Prime Minister at the present time. There is no reason whatever. It is not simply whether a Minister of the Crown has time to spare, or whether he can, in the plenitude of his ability, devote some of his leisure to trade concerns. The ques-

    983
    tion is, Is it or is it not the right thing to do? There is also another question we are bound to consider, and that is whether it is desirable, in the interests of the country, that public men should place themselves in a position where, at all events, it is possible that their public and private interests should collide. I have very little doubt that, if and when they do collide, the private interests would give way to the public interests; but here we have to deal with the general belief of the outside public, and of an investing public, which certainly does not appear to me to be the most sensible portion; and there are a great many persons who, when invited to invest money in debentures or shares of companies in which they see names of Ministers of the Crown, are disposed, vulgarly, to say, "Oh, it is always a good thing to have a friend at court; he will look after our interests; contracts will turn up, in the giving away of which he will have a hand; it is a good thing, and I am quite satisfied." Of course really it would be a bad thing for the company that there should be a Minister of the Crown sitting upon the directorate. But I am not so concerned with that as I am with the general voice, the general opinion, of the outside world in matters of this kind. I say, therefore, for these two reasons, that I think the rule laid down by Mr. Gladstone was a wise and a proper rule; and if ever there was a time when people should be anxious to avoid even the suspicion of corruption in this House among the general body of Members, or of the Front Benches, this is the time. We all hear remarks, things which we do not believe people are running about huckstering and trafficking in stocks and shares: fortunes are made in a few minutes; a great many things are done which ought to be left undone, and a great many things are said which I hope are untrue. I rejoice to think that we have in power men with clean hands, and names which are above suspicion. I recognise that as fully as it is possible for anybody to do. At the same time, corruption is a most terrible word to be used in a country governed as ours is governed—by the representatives of the people. It is a word so terrible and so serious that I think we should strive in every available way to lock every possible door and
    984
    erect every barrier that we can against this the common enemy of all democratic institutions. I do not desire to mix myself up with personal attacks or imputations. I believe it is quite possible for Gentlemen opposite to be directors of insurance companies without giving up very much of their time to the discharge of their duties, and certainly with perfect consistency to their own honour. I nevertheless think they would do well to submit to this self-denying ordinance, and to impose upon themselves, while they fulfil the honourable office of Ministers of the Crown, the sacrifice of renouncing directorships of trade concerns. Therefore I have great pleasure in seconding the Motion.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS-BEACH,): I shall detain the House but a very short time, because I do not think it is necessary to go at any length into this question. We have had two speeches—one amusing, as is always the case from the honourable Member for Donegal, and the other serious—but I will venture to say that both were inconclusive, because the speech of the honourable Member for Donegal was based on the most extraordinary, and, if I may say so, with due respect to him, ridiculous conception of the great majority of public companies, and the speech of the honourable Member for Fife was based upon ignorance of the undertakings in which alone the principal Members of Her Majesty's Government are engaged. The honourable Member for Donegal was good enough to commence his observations with the statement of his respect for myself, for which I thank him. Having done that, he then proceeded to describe himself and my colleagues on this bench as "roosting here like the decoy-ducks of finance;" and he continued to speak about us as connected with—
    "fraudulent finance, engaged in advertising and promoting companies, and log rolling by way of obtaining grants to companies."
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I must really correct the right honourable Gentleman; he must not take my character away in that manner. What I said was that I wanted to prevent any possibility of such a state of things arising on the Treasury Bench. I did not impute or

    985
    think of corruption in connection with any honourable Gentleman.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The honourable Member distinctly mentioned the name of the Earl of Selborne as a director of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, and drew plainly the inference that Lord Selborne's position would count in the making of any contract by the Government with that company. I certainly wish to take nothing that the honourable Gentleman says in an offensive spirit. I know very well that he often allows his tongue to outrun his argument, and says a good deal in this House which he really does not mean; but, really, before he suggests charges of this kind, he ought to have some little evidence of the truth of those charges. He ought to have been able, at any rate, to show that some of us had been engaged in the kind of work which he deprecates. The honourable Member for Fife took a very different line. He says—there is great force in his argument—that he did not agree with the views of the honourable Member for Donegal, that all public companies were anathema, and that they were all corrupt. We know in these days of joint stock enterprise, that the vast majority of the business transactions of this country are carried on by directors of companies, and that the mere fact of a man being a director of a, company certainly could not bring any slur on his honour, or on his position; and yet the honourable Gentleman the Member for Donegal says in his Amendment—
    "We consider the position of a public company director to be incompatible with the position of Ministers of the Crown, and that the union of such offices is calculated to lower the dignity of public life."
    Now I altogether deny that assertion as to the position of a director of a public company. There are companies and companies; there are directors and directors. There are companies with which no honourable man would care to have his name associated, and there are others to which it would be an honour to belong. But the question is whether it is right that the Members of Her Majesty's Government should occupy the position of directors of a company, however honourable in itself, and however
    986
    deserving. Now the honourable Member for Fife asserted that Mr. Gladstone laid down as a rule in this matter, which he said Lord Salisbury ought to have laid down also, which was to the effect that no Member of the Government should be a director of a company, but I am told that four Members of Mr. Gladstone's Administration were directors of companies. That is a matter of fact. But what is the nature of the directorships held by Members of Her Majesty's Government to whom the honourable Member for Donegal alluded? Some of us are directors of mutual insurance societies. I am a director of a mutual insurance society myself. It is a society in the welfare of which I have great private interests, affecting not only myself, but many of my relatives; and I have been a director of it for many years. No one can tell how an insurance company is going on unless they are within the charmed circle and in touch with the business. I contend that I have a perfect right to give a little of the time—and it is a very little—which I should otherwise give to recreation, to an occasional attendance at the board of that society. Does the honourable Member for Fife really believe that it is possible or desirable for any Minister, the most conscientious and most hard-worked—never to do anything but the work of his office, excepting eating and sleeping? Does he think it would be in the best interests of the country that it should be so?
    MR. BBRRELL: Certainly not.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: My right honourable Friend the First Lord of the Treasury takes recreation at golf. I take mine by a walk along the Embankment, and by a short attendance at a meeting of directors. The essence of recreation is change of occupation. Looking at it from that point of view, and confining it to these particular matters, in which close attention and hard work are by no means required, what harm can there be in a Minister of the Crown being a director of one of these societies. Take again the fact that some of my colleagues are railway directors. Why are they railway directors?
    MR. FIELD: In order to keep up the railway monopoly.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: My right honourable Friend the Home Secretary is a director of the North Eastern Railway. My right honourable Friend the Member for Liverpool is a director of the Great Western Railway. My right honourable Friend the Member for St. Augustine's—the First Commissioner of Works—is a director of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway. Why were they put on the boards of these companies? Because of their connection as representatives or landowners in the districts through which those lines run. Do you suppose that now they are in office they devote as much time as before to attendance at the board? That is a matter not for this House—it is not a question with regard to the performance of their duty as Ministers of the Crown; it is a question as regards their performance of their duties as directors, and I am certain that if any one of my right honourable Friends felt that he was of no service on those boards, either to the shareholders or to the inhabitants of the district, he would resign his directorship; and equally so I might go through the other posts which other Members of the Ministry fill. Take the case of the Duke of Devonshire, for instance. As everyone knows, the Duke of Devonshire is a very large landowner, and he has very great interests in Barrow-in-Furness. He is a director of the Furness Railway and of the Barrow Hematite Steel Company. That is his own private affair practically. Can the time of Ministers not be devoted to what are practically their own private affairs? Some of us are wealthy, some of us are poor, but we all have some private affairs to which we are enttled to devote a little of our time. I do not wish to press this argument one bit further. What were the rules laid down when we accepted office? They were stated by my right honourable Friend. The first was this, that no Member of the Government should enter into any engagement that would
    988
    occupy the time that would properly belong to the public. The second was this, that he should not undertake any responsibility in connection with public companies that could be supposed to diminish his influence or usefulness as a Member of the Cabinet or the Minister of a Department. Now, Sir, in my belief those rules have been rigidly adhered to. Under those rules, many directorships have been resigned. I resigned one myself as soon as I accepted office, and many of my colleagues have done the same. When the honourable Member states in this Motion that 25 Members of the Government hold 41 directorships, I remember that when this question was first mooted it was stated by some honourable Member who asked a question on the subject, that 24 Members held 61 directorships. Now, I entirely agree that any action by a Member of the Government which could in the slightest degree be contrary to those principles which were laid down by my right honourable Friend would be detrimental. I have every confidence that there is not one of my colleagues who, if he thought that their tenure of any directorship affected those principles, would not immediately resign it. But I do protest against the idea that all directors are corrupt, that all companies are rotten, that there is no honesty in the commercial world, or that there are no positions connected with the private affairs of individuals, which these individuals, even when Ministers, can legitimately hold.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I greatly regret to have to say that the right honourable Gentleman appears to me to have entirely failed to grasp what is the real intention and purport of my honourable Friend who proposed this Amendment. The right honourable Gentleman makes an appeal as to whether any of his colleagues can be supposed to be guilty of corrupt intent in connection with the directorships which they hold. He says they are men of honour, and that they would at once resign their connection with any company if it brought them within an equi-

    989
    vocal position to their knowledge. That is not the question at all. We say it is their business to avoid the very suspicion and the possibility of anything of the sort occurring. I myself feel strongly on this subject, because it has occurred to me as one of the things that we can dwell upon with the greatest satisfaction in this country, that certainly for the last 40 or 50 years at least there has been no case not only of corruption or of money-making out of public offices on the part of any Ministers of the Crown, but that such a thing has never been imputed or hinted at in the hottest of our Parliamentary and political contests between the two sides. I will quote one instance which I am sure will show the House the sort of thing I mean. There was a sudden and almost a surreptitious purchase of shares in the Suez Canal. What an opportunity that was for those who were in the knowledge of it before it actually occurred to make money! What an opportunity it was, we will say, for Mr. Disraeli himself to have helped himself or his friends financially with the knowledge they held of what was taking place! Mr. Disraeli, we all know, was a poor man. There was a great deal of feeling in politics at that time, but I have never heard the slightest whisper or murmur of a suspicion that anyone connected with the Government, high or low, was a penny the richer on that occasion. I will not be invidious in my references to other countries, but there are countries where Ministers have gone into office poor men, and have come out rich men, simply owing to the opportunities they possess, or avail themselves of, of making money. We wish to guard that immunity in fact, and not only in fact, but in reputation, before the world in every possible way. The right honourable Gentleman says that he himself is on the board of some innocent insurance company, and that he walks along the Embankment, and that is his recreation. But the right honourable Gentleman has another function. He is at the head of the Civil Service of this country, and is it not a rule of the whole Civil Service that not a member of it shall take a directorship, but that all his time shall
    990
    be at the disposal of the Government? Is not this rule rigidly enforced throughout the whole of the Service, and is it the right thing that we should have the Cabinet itself—the supreme governing body of this country—holding a position of this kind? The right honourable Gentleman says that the directorships held by his colleagues have all been of an innocent nature. I do not wish to say anything in the least degree offensive or invidious of anyone among you. I know there is no consciousness of evil amongst you, but I am bound to say that I think it is not on the face of it a very suitable thing that the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies should be a director of a great steamship company, which is receiving subsidies from the Government, and, as the right honourable Gentleman went a little out of his way to mention the Duke of Devonshire, I thought at the time that it was rather an odd arrangement that the Duke of Devonshire, who was, from circumstances of which we are aware—from his family position—necessarily at the head of a great armaments company, should at the same time be the chief of the Committee of the Cabinet which was to determine upon points connected with the defence of the country.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I understand that that position was resigned by the Duke.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I may be wrong, and I am very glad indeed if I am. I was only following what was said by the right honourable Gentleman, and I can only say that there is not a man amongst us who believes that the Duke of Devonshire was actuated by any personal consideration. Our wish is to avoid the appearance of evil, to be above suspicion of anything connected with this sort of work, and the only way that I can see by which that can be accomplished—the only sound rule to lay down—is that Members of the Cabinet, at all events, if not all the Members of the Government, shall renounce, when they accept office, all connection with public companies of whatever kind, whether their connection with such companies is direct or merely

    991
    by implication. If that were done, we should have no occasion for any remarks to be made. I hope it will be distinctly understood, on behalf of those who take this view, that we make no sort of imputation or attack upon the Government, or any individual of it. We only wish to express our strong opinion that this self-denying ordinance—and I do not know that it is much self-denial after all—this rule of discretion and propriety ought to be applied to the head of every Government Department.
    MR. FIELD (): I have no desire to intervene at any length on this subject, and I will not make any personal allusion, but I think this is a matter which should be settled by principle rather than by personality. The right honourable Gentleman who spoke from the Treasury Bench mentioned that under Mr. Gladstone's Government there were four Ministers who were directors of companies. One of those was Mr. Mundella, and the very fact of Mr. Mundella being obliged to resign his position as director shows how dangerous that position is when occupied by a Government Minister. I think it is unnecessary to labour that point. I am about to draw the attention of the House to this fact, that since the democracy has come into power in this House no charge of corruption can be brought against the members of it; therefore it is perfectly plain that when public opinion is adequately represented, corruption naturally ceases. That is a very sound point. There is just one point that has been alluded to, and that is this, that the directors of any company who sit in this House occupy a dual position. They represent, in the first place, the company to which they belong, and they represent, as Members of Parliament, the public to a certain extent. The right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer alluded to railway directors. Every member of this House knows perfectly well that this House is ruled by the railway interest, and it is ruled by the railway interest not only by the three directors whom the right honourable Gentleman named, but by numerous directors who sit on both sides of the House, and by numerous shareholders on either side of the House. We have
    992
    an imperium in imperio, and therefore it is impossible to obtain any real rail way reform so long as that railway interest predominates the House in the manner that it does. The time has come when the House should take seriously into consideration the power of directors in regard to public affairs. The name of the Duke of Devonshire was mentioned. I do not desire to attack any gentleman, but I am told that where he has a supreme interest, in Barrow, where he is chairman of a large company, and where he is at the same time director of a railway, that notices were posted up recently that no man should be employed who was over 50 years of age—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    Debate arising,
    And, it being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed this day.

  LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT).
  Second Reading deferred till this day.

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT (1879) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879," presented and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday 2nd March, and to be printed. (Bill 67.)
  House adjourned at Two minutes after Twelve of the clock.

ERRATUM.
Friday, 13th February, 1899, p. 735–6
Queen's Speech (Motion for an Address).
In the Noes, Insert—Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier.

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on 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: London, Walthamstow, and Epping Forest Railway.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Aberdeen Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Aberdeen Harbour Bill [H.L.]; Arbroath Corporation Gas Bill [H.L.]; Barton-on-Sea Water Bill [H.L.]; Birkenhead Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Bognor Urban District Water Bill [H.L.]; Bristol Floods Prevention Bill [H.L.]; Bury Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Bury Corporation Water Bill [H.L.]; Church Stretton Water Bill [H.L.]; Clyde Navigation Bill [H.L.]; Coalville Urban District Gas Bill [H.L.]; Cobham Gas Bill [H.L.]; Colonial and Foreign Banks Guarantee Fund Bill [H.L.]; Cromer Protection Bill [H.L.]; Dumbarton Burgh Bill [H.L.]; Dundee Gas, Tramways, and Extension Bill [H.L.]; Fylde Water Bill [H.L.]; Gainsborough Urban District Council (Gas) Bill [H.L.]; Glasgow Corporation (Gas and Water) Bill [H.L.]; Glasgow Corporation (Tramways, etc.) Bill [H.L.]; Glasgow, Motherwell, and Sanquhar Railway Bill [H.L.]; Glastonbury Water Bill [H.L.]; Geat Yarmouth Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Great Yarmouth Pier Bill [H.L.] Grosvenor Chapel (London) Bill [H.L.]; Hampstead Church (Emmanuel, West End) Bill [H.L.]; Hastings Corporation Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Hastings Harbour Bill [H.L.]; Humber Conservancy Bill Bill [H.L.]; Infant Orphan Asylum Bill [H.L.]; Inverness Harbour Bill [H.L.]; Kew Bridge Bill [H.L.];
810
Kirkcaldy Corporation and Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Lanarkshire (Middle Ward District) Water Bill [H.L.]; Leigh-on-Sea Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Llanelly Harbour and Pontardulais Railway Bill [H.L.]; London Hospital Bill H.L.]; Loughborough Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Manchester Corporation Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Finance) Bill [H.L.]; Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Pilotage) Bill [H.L.]; Mid-Kent Gas Bill [H.L.]; Moss Side Urban District Council (Tramways) Bill [H.L.]; Nene Valley Water Bill [H.L.]; Newhaven and Seaford Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Oldham Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Perth Water, Police, and Gas Bill [H.L.]; Portsmouth Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Queen's, Ferry Bridge Bill [H.L.]; Rawtenstall Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Renfrew Burgh and Harbour Extension Bill [H.L.]; Salford Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Skipton Urban District Gas Bill [H.L.]; Southampton Corporation Water Bill [H.L.]; Stockton and Middlesbrough Water Bill [H.L.]; Stretford Urban District Council (Tramways) Bill [H.L.]; Sunderland Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Wakefield Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Wallasey Tramways and Improvements Bill [H.L.]; Whitehaven Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Wick and Pulteney Harbours Bill [H.L.]; Wishaw Water Bill [H.L.]; Withington Urban District Council (Tramways) Bill [H.L.]; Wolverhampton Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Workington Corporation Water Bill [H.L.]: Presented and read first time.
Aberdeen Joint Passenger Station Bill [H.L.]; Airdrie and Coatbridge Water Bill [H.L.]; Bexhill and St. Leonards Tramroads Bill [H.L.]; Birmingham, North Warwickshire, and Stratford-upon-Avon Railway Bill [H.L.]; Brighton Marine Palace and Pier Bill [H.L.]; Bristol Gas Bill [H.L.]; Caledonian Railway (General Powers) Bill [H.L.]; Cambridge University and Town Gas Bill [H.L.]; Douglas and Sanquhar Railway Bill [H.L.]; Friends' Provident Institution Bill [H.L.]; Glasgow and South Western Railway Bill [H.L.]; Glasgow District Subway Bill [H.L.]; Great Eastern Railway (General Powers) Bill [H.L.]; Great Northern Railway Bill [H.L.]; Great Yarmouth Water Bill [H.L.]; Greenock and Port Glasgow Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Harbour and

811
Dock Rates (Bristol, etc.) Bill [H.L.]; Hastings and St. Leonards Gas Bill [H.L.]; Herne Bay Water Bill [H.L.]; Knott End Railway Bill [H.L.]; Lea Bridge District Gas Bill [H.L.]; London and South-Western Railway Bill [H.L.]; Loughborough Gas Bill [H.L.]; Lowestoft Water and Gas Bill [H.L.]; Muirkirk, Mauchline, and Dalmellington Railway Bill [H.L.]; Norfolk Estuary Bill [H.L.]; North-Eastern Railway Bill [H.L.]; North Staffordshire Railway Bill [H.L.]; Northern Assurance Company Bill [H.L.]; Oystermouth Railway or Tramroad Bill [H.L.]; Paisley and Barrhead District Railway Bill [H.L.]; Port Talbot Railway and Docks Bill [H.L]; Rochdale Canal Bill [H.L.]; Rushden and Higham Ferrers District Gas Bill [H.L.]; St. Albans Gas Bill [H.L.]; St. Neots Water Bill [H.L.]; Skipton Gas Bill [H.L.]; South Essex Water Bill [H.L.]; South Hants Water Bill [H.L.]; South Staffordshire Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Stretford Gas Bill [H.L.]; Transvaal Mortgage Loan and Finance Company Bill [H.L.]; Walton-on-Thames and Weybridge Gas Bill [H.L.]; West Highland Railway Bill [H.L.]; Weston-super-Mare, Clevedon, and Portishead Tramways Company (Light Railway Extensions) Bill [H.L.]; Wolverhampton Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Yeadon and Guiseley Gas Bill [H.L.]: Presented; read first time; and referred to the Examiners.

NEW STANDING ORDER.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (the EARL of MORLEY): My Lords, I beg to move the following as a new Standing Order—
"The council of any administrative county alleging in their petition that such administrative county or any part thereof may be injuriously affected by the provisions of any Bill relating to the water supply of any town or district, whether situate within or without such county, shall be entitled to be heard against such Bill."
At the present moment, under the Standing Orders of this House, a County Council has power to be heard only at the discretion of the Committee. The addition which I am now moving to the Standing Orders gives them an absolute right to be heard. This is an Amend-
812
ment that has been suggested by the County Councils Association, and by several County Councils who have written to me on the subject. It brings your Lordships' Standing Orders in exact accord with those of the House of Commons, and I therefore trust your Lordships will agree to it.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I beg to thank my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees, for having moved this Motion, which will give very great satisfaction to County Councils. They have felt that the difference between the Standing Orders of this House and those of the House of Commons in this respect was somewhat unfair to them. County Councils have a deep interest in all that concerns the water supply of their districts, and I am very glad indeed that your Lordships are about to recognise that that interest gives them a right to a locus standi before Committees of this House.
Question put.
Motion agreed to.

APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEES.

  STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
  The Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee:

  Duke of Bedford.

  Duke of Marlborough.

  Marquess of Lansdowne.

  Earl Derby.

  Earl Denbigh.

  Earl Chesterfield.

  Earl Jersey.

  Earl Lauderdale.

  Earl Waldegrave.

  Earl Cadogan.

  Earl Belmore.

  Earl Harrowby.

  Earl Amherst.

  Earl Camperdown.

  Earl Wharncliffe.

  Earl de Montalt.

  Earl Carrington.

  Earl Crewe.

  Viscount Sidmouth.

  Viscount Knutsford.

  Lord Hopetoun. (Earl Hopetoun.) (Lord Chamberlain.)

  813

  Lord Clinton.

  Lord Zouche of Haryngworth.

  Lord Balfour.

  Lord Boyle. (Earl of Cork and Orrery.)

  Lord Ribblesdale.

  Lord Churchill.

  Lord Colchester.

  Lord Wigan. (Earl Crawford.)

  Lord Poltimore.

  Lord Kintore. (Earl Kintore.)

  Lord Belper.

  Lord Brougham and Vaux.

  Lord Fermanagh. (Earl of Erne.)

  Lord Sudley. (Earl of Arran.)

  Lord de Vesci. (Viscount de Vesci.)

  Lord Herries.

  Lord Monkswell.

  Lord Colville of Culross.

  Lord Welby.

  All Petitions relating to Standing Orders which shall be presented during the present Session referred to the Committee unless otherwise ordered.

  STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Ordered, That a Standing Committee be appointed for the consideration of such Public Bills as may be committed to it by the House.

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR THE STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Appointed: The Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee:

  Earl Cowper.

  Earl Stanhope.

  Earl Waldegrave.

  Lord Balfour.

  Lord Boyle. (Earl of Cork and Orrery.)

  Lord Ribblesdale.

  Lord Kintore. (Earl Kintore.)

  Lord Colville of Culross.

  The Committee to meet on Friday next, at a quarter before Four o'clock.

  HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
  Select Committee appointed: The Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President, the Lord Privy Seal, and the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee:

  Duke of Richmond.

  Duke of Northumberland.

  Marquess of Salisbury.

  Marquess of Ripon.

  Marquess of Breadalbane.

  Earl Chesterfield.

  Earl Waldegrave.

  Earl Mount Edgcumbe.

  Earl Belmore.

  Earl Harrowby.

  Earl Cawdor.

  Earl Camperdown.

  Earl Kimberley.

  Earl de Montalt.

  Earl Cranbrook.

  Earl Ancaster.

  Viscount Knutsford.

  Lord Balfour.

  Lord Boyle. (Earl of Cork and Orrery.)

  Lord Ribblesdale.

  Lord Churchill.

  Lord Colchester.

  Lord Ker. (Marquis of Lothian.)

  Lord Rosebery. (Earl Rosebery.)

  Lord Belper.

  Lord Watson.

  Lord Rowton.

  Lord Colville of Culross.

  Lord Herschell.

  Lord Macnaghten.

  Lord Welby.

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
  The Lords following, viz.:

  Earl Chesterfield.

  Earl Waldegrave.

  Lord Ribblesdale.

  Lord Colville of Culross,

  with the Chairman of Committees, were appointed a Committee to select and propose to the House the names of the five Lords to form a Select Committee for the consideration of each opposed Private Bill.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  ARMY.
  1. (Royal Military College, Sandhurst.) Report of the Board of Visitors, for 1898;
  2. (Royal Military College, Woolwich.) Report of the Board of Visitors, for 1898.

  BANKING AND RAILWAY AND SHIPPING STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Report, December 1898.
  INEBRIATE REFORMATORIES (SCOTLAND).
  Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Secretary for Scotland to report as to rules for inebriate reformatories, under the Inebriates Act, 1898: Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ARMY.
  1. (Reserve.) Further regulations relating to the Army Reserve;
  2. (Militia.) Further regulations relating to the Militia.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1877.
  Order in Council, dated 3rd February 1899, giving effect to Provisional Rules of Court relating to election petitions, under the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898.
  INEBRIATES ACT, 1898.
  Regulations for certified inebriate reformatories in Scotland: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
PUBLIC BUSINESS.

  MOVEMENTS OF HER MAJESTY'S WARSHIPS.
  LORD MUSKERRY: With regard to the Question standing in my name on the Paper, asking the Government if directions could be given that Her Majesty's ships, or at least some of the smaller ones, should visit the Channel Islands more frequently, I have been asked to adjourn the Question until Thursday. I therefore ask your Lordships' permission to do so.
  Question accordingly adjourned.

  OUTRAGES ON NATIVES IN INDIA.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I rise to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Indian Government have taken, or intend to take, measures to prevent the outrages committed by European soldiers upon the natives of India, such as have recently occurred at Barackpore and Poonamallee. A great deal was last summer said about disaffection and sedition in India. Mr. Justice Strachey has given a novel and extraordinary definition of disaffection, and a new law has been passed on sedition. I believe that law has not yet been put in force, but events have taken place of worse effect than that which 10 or 20 seditious articles would have produced in the way of exciting disaffection. Every outrage or death caused by soldiers which goes unpunished, or imperfectly punished, must produce a worse effect on the minds of the natives of India who witness these outrages, than could be produced by newspaper articles which they for the most part do not and cannot read. At Barackpore, on April 30th last, three soldiers assaulted and killed an old Hindoo doctor without any provocation, and were put upon their trial in July last. The trial, from the long report, appears to have been fairly conducted. The judge, the Chief Justice, did his duty well, but the jury brought in a verdict of grievous hurt against all three prisoners. Under these circumstances seven years' rigorous imprisonment was the limit of the sentence the judge was able to pronounce. After that trial General Baker Russell issued an Order

  817
  to the troops under his command, in view of the recent outrage committed at Barackpore by three soldiers, resulting in the death of a native gentleman. The Order wishes all general officers and other officers to impress upon their men the cowardliness of striking or otherwise ill-using natives of India, and the serious consequences which may result to themselves. This Order, however, was insufficient, because the General who issued it would probably retire from his command within five years, and because it applied only to the forces in Bengal. In the Madras Presidency at Poonamallee at the end of July last, another outrage took place. A soldier named Knight put a cartridge into his carbine and discharged it into the body of a boy who was seated in a cart in which they and some other soldiers were driving. The boy jumped out of the cart, and they drove on without seeking to know whether he lived or died. Another person carried the boy to a doctor, who examined him slightly and sent him on to the general hospital, where he died. Knight was tried. It was said in his defence that he had been discussing with another soldier, sitting by him, how quickly he could load his carbine, and that he had touched the trigger accidentally. The jury found him guilty of a negligent act. The judge, Mr. Justice Boddam, however, blamed the soldiers for leaving the wounded boy by the roadside, and he blamed the doctor for sending on the boy a further distance to the hospital, and he sentenced Knight to nine months' rigorous imprisonment. If the judge had believed that this death was caused by accident only, would he, or could he, have passed such a sentence? I can find no mention of this Poonamallee case and trial in either a Bombay or Calcutta paper, all the numbers of which have reached me. This looks as if the editors of those papers were also of opinion that such cases are worse than seditious writing, and had therefore hesitated to comment on the trial. I have been told that the reason why juries bring in such verdicts, relieving soldiers from the consequences of these acts of violence, is the difficulty of proving malice. No doubt this is true. There was no previous malice either in the Barackpore case or the recent Poonamallee case, nor in the
  818
  Dum Dum murder case about 10 years ago—November 1st, 1889. This makes these outrages all the worse, more inexcusable in those who commit them, more offensive to the relatives and countrymen of the victims. The malice is not against the individual, but against the race. The views which soldiers have already acquired with reference to the natives is given in an English paper, "India," in which a soldier says—
  "As for the darkies, they are like stones under our feet. If they do not do what we want, we pull their turbans off their heads, and turn them upside down."
  This paper goes on to remark upon the Secretary of State having described the people of India as savages. Let me remind the House of the Dum Dum case, and relate its sequel, since I have met with persons usually well acquainted with matters in India who had not heard of the sequel. Four soldiers—three of the Leinster regiment and one of the Buffs—left the Dum Dum Barracks one night with service rifles and Government ammunition to shoot pigs. The Buffs soldier expressed his surprise at the others having obtained cartridges). On the way they obtained some toddy more or less forcibly from the people in the huts. Some of them got drunk, and one named O'Hara pulled a sleeping man from out of his verandah, chucked him into a pond, and then shot him. The poor man crawled back to his house and died. O'Hara was arrested and tried by Mr. Justice Norris, and convicted on the evidence of the Buffs soldier, and sentenced to death. But those who from race feelings wished to prevent the sentence being carried out, moved the High Court, and the sentence was quashed on the pretext that he had been convicted on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice. The Buffs soldier was not, however, an accomplice, since he had not started with O'Hara on a criminal expedition. Nor had he consented to anything of which the criminal act was a probable consequence. The consequences of not carrying out the sentence passed on O'Hara were that he re-entered the Army, but justice was not done, and encouragement was thereby given to others to follow his bad example. Some time later O'Hara again

  819
  got drunk and shot a sergeant and a soldier, and was then hanged, but not until after he had deprived Her Majesty's forces of two soldiers, and burdened himself with two more murders. If soldiers other than go id conduct men, whom the colonel can unreservedly trust, are allowed to go out shooting, quarrels with the villagers and outrages are certain to arise, since soldiers ignorantly shoot the tame animals belonging to the villagers; or peacocks or monkeys and other animals whose lives are respected by the villagers. After the Dum Dum affair I made notes of all the cases that were mentioned in the Indian newspapers, and at the end of three months five cases had occurred. I mentioned this to the Private Secretary of the Secretary of State, and he said these things often went in cycles. He might have been right, but I was, and still am, more inclined to attribute that interruption of quarrels and accidents to the good influence of the then Secretary of State, and it is a matter for great regret that he did not resume his place when the present Administration was formed. I would suggest that in future outrages by soldiers should be tried by Courts-martial with open doors, and not by juries. Juries will always, in such cases, contain men anxious from race feelings to screen the soldiers, and jurors have less feelings of responsibility than officers of rank who sit on a Court-martial. I have heard it objected a few days ago that this would be to discredit trial by jury; but I need not fear that accusation, after having in this House opposed the attempt made against trial by Jury in Bengal. The new Viceroy has recently stated that India is the pivot of the British Empire. I said much the same thing, but in different words, about 20 years ago to the noble Marquess at the head of the Government. Whether it is so or not, the well-being of the Empire requires that the people of India should not be alienated by outrages committed by British soldiers, and it is for that reason that I ask the Question of which I have given notice.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The EARL of ONSLOW): My Lords, the Question the noble Lord has put on the Paper is to inquire whether Her Majesty's Government have taken or intend to take measures to prevent the outrages committed by European soldiers upon the natives of India. Your Lordships will have heard that the cases the noble Lord referred to are not very numerous. Two only occurred in recent years, the Dum Dum case having happened some eight or ten years back-The Government of India have been consulted in this matter, and they report that in the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief there is no ground for taking any special measures, as regards British troops in India. Cases of this nature are of comparatively rare occurrence, and the ordinary law provides for the punishment of the offenders. The noble Lord himself has told your Lordships that in the case of the outrage which took place at Barackpore the jury unanimously found the prisoners guilty of causing grievous harm, and they were sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment each. As regards the Poonamallee case, which the noble Lord has been unable to trace in certain papers that he has consulted, I may say that Poonamallee is in the Presidency of Madras, and if the noble Lord had consulted Madras papers he would have found a full report of the case and of the sentence. I think under these circumstances your Lordships will be entitled to agree with me that there is no necessity for taking any exceptional measures for dealing with such cases as these should they unhappily occur.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I should like to say that the answer of the noble Earl is extremely unsatisfactory, and I am sure it will be found so in India.
  House adjourned at forty-five minutes past Four of the clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten of the clock.