Sitting of 23 February 1899

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

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—

  Belfast and Northern Counties Railway Bill.

  London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Bill.

  Midland Railway Bill.

  South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Companies Bill.

  Ordered, that the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (LORDS).
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in respect of the Bills comprised in the List reported by the Chairman of Ways and Means as intended to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with in the following ease, viz.:—
  Great Grimsby Street Tramways.

  NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  (By Order). Read a second time, and committed.
  Ordered, That Sir Mark M'Taggart Stewart be added to the Committee of Selection.—(Mr. Halsey.)
PETITIONS.
  JUVENILE VAGRANCY.
  Petition from Salford, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION (MUNICIPAL TRADING).
  Petition from Glasgow, for inquiry by a Select Committee: to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Beverley; Chester-le-Street;—and, Hockley; to lie upon the Table.
  TITHE RENT CHARGE.
  Petition from Ely, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION ACT, 1898.
  Petitions for repeal;—from Kingston;—and, Helston; to lie upon the Table.
  VIVISECTION.
  Petition from London, for prohibition; to lie upon the Table.
  BRITISH MUSEUM.
  Petition of the Trustees of the British Museum (Queen's Recommendation signified), for grant in aid; referred to the Committee of Supply.
REPORTS, RETURNS, ETC.
  UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN.
  Annual Statistical Report presented,—by the University Court of the University of Aberdeen for 1897–8 (by Act); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 61.)
  RAILWAY (CERTIFICATES) (EAST AND WEST YORKSHIRE UNION RAILWAYS).
  Copy presented,—of Draft Certificate of the Board of Trade authorising the East and West Yorkshire Union Railways to raise additional capital (by Act); to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented,—of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 2207 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.

  BRITISH MUSEUM.
  Account "of the Income and Expenditure of the British Museum (Special Trust Funds) for the year ending the 31st day of March 1899; and Return of the Number of Persons admitted to visit the Museum and the British
  268
  Museum (Natural History) in each year from 1893 to 1898, both years inclusive; together with a Statement of the Progress made in the Arrangement and Description of Collections, and an Account of Objects added to them in the year 1898."—(Sir John Lubbock.)

  PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION AND CHURCH DISCIPLINE.
  Address for "Return of the number of the Representations made to the Bishop of every Diocese in England and Wales under the eighth section of the Public Worship Regulation Act, 1874, up to the end of the year 1898; and also of the number of cases in which the Bishop to whom the Representation was made was of opinion that proceedings should not be taken on the Representation; and also for a copy in the last-mentioned cases of the Representation and of the statement deposited in the Registry of the Diocese showing the reason for the opinion of the Bishop."—(Mr. Sydney Gedge.)
  ARMY (OFFICERS' SERVICE).
  Address for "Return showing the length of Service (from date of first Commission) of Lieutenants promoted to Captains, Captains promoted to Majors, and Majors promoted to be Lieutenant-Colonels, in each year respectively for 1892, 1893, 1894, 1895, 1896, 1897, and 1898 in the following British Services, namely, Royal Artillery, Royal Engineers, Cavalry and Infantry of the Line (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 148, of Session 1892)."—(Sir Seymour King.)
  EAST INDIA (STAFF CORPS OFFICERS).
  Address for "Copies of Correspondence to date relating to the recommendations made by the Government of India in order to prevent the supersession of Staff Corps Officers by those in the Line (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 472, of Session 2 of 1895)."—(Sir Seymour King.)
  EAST INDIA (INCOME AND EXPENDITURE).
  Address for "Return of the Net Income and expenditure of British India, under certain specified heads, for the eleven years from 1887–8 to 1897–8."—(Sir Henry Fowler.)
  NORTH SEA FISHERMEN.
  Return ordered, "of lives lost by drowning among' the fishermen connected with the British North Sea fishenr since 1884 while ferrying fish or returning to the smack, distinguishing since 1889 those who had not obeyed any statutory regulations to wear a lifebelt."—(Mr. Herbert Robertson.)
Oral Answers To Questions
  QUESTIONS.

    MWANGA'S ESCAPE.
    SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, when Mwanga, after his first defeat, was driven into German territory, a communication was addressed to the German authorities, by the British military authorities on the spot, pointing out the danger of Mwanga's escape, and asking them to keep Mwanga at a safe distance, which they promised to do: what evidence there is that care was exercised to prevent Mwanga's escape; whether he will state to the House what is the latest information received with regard to the expeditions of Major Martyr and Major Macdonald from Uganda,; and whether further Papers can at once be laid upon the Table with regard to the affairs of the Uganda Protectorate?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,: Yes, Sir. A communication was addressed to the German authorities. There is no reason for supposing that care was not taken to prevent Mwanga's escape. There was a sentry outside his door, who shot the servant with whom Mwanga had exchanged clothes by mistake for the King.

    SCIENCE AND ART IN INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.
    MR. SPICER: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education how many reformatories and industrial schools under the Home Office receive grants from the Science and Art Department; under what inspection the grants are now given, and how frequently such inspection is made; and whether he would consider the advisability of increasing the number of such grants?
    THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): Fifty in England, and six in Scotland; heretofore under inspection of the Science and Art Department, hereafter under that of the Home Office and Scotch Office. It is for the last-named Departments to consider the propriety of increasing such grants.

    MILITIA TRAININGS.
    MR. MORRELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether Militia regiments recruited in purely agricultural districts show more marked deficiency if called out in August and September than in May and June; and, if so, whether he will communicate with General Officers commanding districts with a view to consideration of this point when fixing dates for drill and training next season?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. G. WYNDHAM,): Statistics have been collected which show that the percentage of men absent from training is not affected by the season, but that the percentage of those who buy their discharges is, as a rule, somewhat higher when the training is in August than when it is in May. The date of the training is always fixed after consultation with the commanding officer of each battalion, and every effort is made to comply with his wishes. In reply to a Question of which the honourable Member has given me private notice, I may say that in the Bucks Militia the percentage of men absent, and of men who bought their discharges, was lower in 1898, when the battalion trained in August, than in 1897, when it trained in May.

    PUBLIC INSPECTION OF WATER SUPPLIES.
    LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he proposes to introduce this Session a Public Bill embodying the clauses relating to inspection of water supplies by local authorities, which he proposed last year to insert in several Private Water Bills.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. CHAPLIN, Lines,): If I see any reasonable hope of making progress with a Bill upon this subject I shall be quite prepared to introduce it, and I hope I shall have the opportunity of doing so.

    DECEASED SEAMEN'S EFFECTS.
    SIR J. LENG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what amount of money, in respect of the wages and effects of deceased seamen, during the last ten years, has been unclaimed by their relatives and representatives; how that sum has been appropriated; and whether such balances in future could be distributed in pensions to aged seamen?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): Under the 179th section of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, the Board of Trade cannot treat the wages and effects of deceased seamen as "unclaimed" until six years after their receipt. They are then paid over to the Mercantile Marine Fund in accordance with the same section. The amount of unclaimed wages and effects of deceased seamen so dealt with during the last ten years amounts to £35,448 11s. 6d. The amounts derivable from this source would not go far in providing pensions for aged seamen, and they are decreasing in consequence of the efforts made by the Board of Trade to discover the relatives of the deceased seamen. The revenue is, therefore, too small and too uncertain for the basis of a pension fund.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask whether any of this
    272
    money due to deceased seamen has been appropriated for expenses of the offices of the Board of Trade?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: No, Sir. It has been appropriated for the expenses of the Mercantile Marine Fund.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Which includes, among other things, the provision of offices?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: Undoubtedly.

    ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the new form of Admiralty Contract has now been settled, and whether a copy will be laid upon the Table?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. E. MACARTNEY,): The new form of contract is not yet settled, but its preparation is well advanced.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: When will it be settled? Six months have already elapsed.
    [No Reply.]

    SOLDIERS IN BOXINO MATCHES.
    MR. LUTTRELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fatal boxing contest which took place at Cape Town on Monday, 6th February, in which a private of the King's Royal Rifle Corps was engaged, and in which his opponent lost his life; and whether, out of consideration for the maintenance of the respect in which the British Army is universally held, as well as on the grounds of expediency, he will take such steps as to prevent the soldiers in Her Majesty's Army taking part in such contests?
    MR. WYNDHAM: NO report on this matter has reached the War Office. The Secretary of State for War does not propose to prohibit soldiers from taking part in any lawful pastime.

    SIR J. B. LYALL'S REPORT ON THE INDIAN FAMINE.
    SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, at what date is it likely that Sir J. B. Lyall's Report on the Famine of 1896–8, its causes and administration of relief, will be placed before Parliament, together with any minutes or resolution thereon by the Government of India.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The Report of the recent Famine Commission was laid on the Table last Thursday. The papers printed on the third page of the Return show that the evidence taken by the Commission will be presented hereafter, and that the Government of India have not yet recorded their opinions on the recommendations made by the Commission.

    INDIAN COOLIES ON THE UGANDA RAILWAY.
    SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the mortality among the Indian coolies employed on the Uganda Railway; and what arrangements are made for their protection, both at the port of emigration and in Africa?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: The answer given by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs to the honourable Member for Chesterfield will have supplied the information sought by this question. I will only add: (1) The mortality among coolies employed on the Uganda Railway Works during 1898 appears to have been about 16 per 1,000 per annum on an average labour force of 12.800 hands; (2) at the port of emigration the labourers are kept, as far as possible, apart from all infection; they are medically inspected before they go on board, where their food, clothing, sanitation, and medical attendance are provided for. There are hospitals at the base and at different points on the works. Medical men and medical subordinates. European and Indian, are provided for the service of these hospitals and of the labourers. At the most un-
    274
    healthy season of the year nearly 10 per cent, of the labourers were in hospital; at healthier seasons from 2½ to 5 per cent, may be in the hospital. The medical report of July last says: "The prevailing diseases are malarial fever, diarrhœa, dysentery, liver complaint, scurvy, and ulcers. A complication of the last two generally necessitates invaliding." Those who are invalided are sent back to India.

    PRESS COMMITTEES IN INDIA.
    SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will furnish a Return showing the number of Press Committees which have been established in India; the names of the places where they have been established: and the number of warnings which they have respectively issued, together with the names of the persons warned and (he nature of the warning in each case?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I can give the honourable Member in my answer the information he seeks. The Government of Bombay informs me that these committees have been established in 12 places—namely, Poona, Ahmedabad, Broach, Kaira, Thana, Ahmednagar, Satara, Nasik, Belgaum, Dharwar, Bijapur,' Ratnagari. These committees have no power to issue warnings, their functions being to keep the local authorities informed as to what appears in the local newspapers.

    ARMY SERVICE.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will grant a return for 1898–9, in continuation of, and similar to, that entitled Army (length of service and ages of men in each unit), presented to Parliament during the Session of 1898?
    MR. WYNDHAM: The return presented last year was of a very special nature, since it gave particulars as to the strength of each unit, and the Secretary of State is not prepared to repeat it. There is no objection to a return giving the total figures for each arm of the service.

    CAVALRY DEPOTS.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to re-establish a depôt of any kind for the supply of men to cavalry regiments serving abroad; and, if so, on what conditions will such depot be maintained?
    MR. WYNDHAM: Regiments in the Colonies draw their men from depots under the system at present in force. The arrangements proposed for regiments in India will be fully explained when the Army Estimates are introduced.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERasked a further Question.
    MR. WYNDHAM: There are three depots from which regiments in the Colonies draw men. The subject, however, is too complex to be explained in an answer to a Question.

    MILITARY CANTEENS.
    MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether under the Queen's Regulations of 1895 sergeants could only obtain liquor from the canteen upon payment on the spot; and whether under the most recently-issued Regulations a weekly credit is allowed; and, if so, whether such credit has been found beneficial?
    MR. WYNDHAM: Assuming that the honourable Member refers to sergeants' messes, and not to canteens, at which sergeants do not buy beer except in bulk for their messes, the Queen's Regulations for 1895 laid down that payments for liquor should be made on the spot. But for several years weekly accounts have been introduced as an experiment, and, as a result of the experience gained, it is now, under the Queen's Regulations of 1898, left to the commanding officer to permit such accounts at his discretion.

    BURNHAM NATIONAL SCHOOL.
    MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that at Burnham, Bucks, the children at the National
    276
    school have been repeatedly taken on Saints' days in procession from the school into the church at nine o'clock in the morning to witness the celebration of the Holy Communion; whether this enforced attendance at these children's eucharists is legal, either as a substitute for, or as an addition to, the ordinary religious instruction in the school time-table; whether, on the occasion of the Feast of the Purification, on Thursday 2nd February, the parents of a number of the children sent to the schoolmaster formal objections to their children being taken to this service; whether, in spite of the parent having thus directed, two children named Lane were ordered by the schoolmaster to join the procession, and go to the service in the church, and one of them, Ada Lane, was thus compelled to attend; and whether he will warn the managers that the grant will be withdrawn if these violations of the 7th section of the Education Act, 1870, are persisted in?
    SIR J. GORST: Yes; a great deal of information upon this subject has been sent me since last week by the honourable Member and others. The practice of occasionally taking scholars to places of public worship during the time set apart for religious instruction has never been objected to by the Committee of Council, and is, in their opinion, legal. On the occasion referred to many parents had objected, and I have been informed by the head teacher of the school that none of their children were taken to church. But, as the case of Ada Lane is specifically mentioned, the Committee of Council has directed a specific inquiry about her case. No complaint from any parent has reached the Education Department, and there is no reason to think that any violation of Section 7 of the Act of 1870 has been committed.
    MR. CHANNING: Is the right honourable Gentleman able to state whether these special services have been inserted in the school time-table, and have been approved by the inspector?
    SIR J. GORST: I must ask for notice of that Question.

    LIGHTHOUSES AT BEREHAVEN.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the honourable Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Irish Lights Board built two lighthouses, one at the eastern or man-of-war entrance to Castletown Berehaven, and the other at the western or commercial and fishing entrance, but only placed a light on the lighthouse at the man-of-war entrance; and whether, considering the necessity of placing a light on the western lighthouse in the interests of merchant and fishing vessels, and in compliance with strong and numerous local petitions, the Board of Trade would make such representations to the Irish Lights Board as would cause the latter body to put a light on the lighthouse which they built but keep in darkness?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that a beacon tower was built some years ago at tin; western entrance to Castletown Berehaven. The original intention was to exhibit a light from this tower, but before it was completed the proposal was abandoned, and the present lighthouse at the eastern entrance was constructed. The Commissioners do not think it desirable to encourage vessels to use the western channel, which is narrow and dangerous.

    WORKMEN'S TRAINS.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the honourable Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is intended to extend to Ireland the cheap workmen's trains which are com pulsory in Great Britain?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD or TRADE: The Cheap Trains Act does not apply to Ireland, because no passenger duty is payable by railways there.

    IRISH TOWN TENANTS.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the honourable Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin
    278
    I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a. Bill this Session to secure farm tenants in Ireland in their holdings and improvements, and to enable judicial rents to be fixed?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I presume the question of the honourable Member is intended to refer to town tenants, not farm tenants? The reply is in the negative.

    IRISH SUB-LAND COMMISSIONER.
    MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 'whether he is aware that a Mr. Garvey has been made a Sub-Land Commissioner to fix fair rents in Ireland; whether he is a son of Mr. Toler Garvey, land agent in Ireland, who gave evidence before the Morley Commission on behalf of the landlords, and was trained by Mr. Barnes, a landlord valuer; whether any Sub-Commissioners have been appointed from among the tenant farmer class in Ireland recently; and, if so, can he give their names; and whether he is able to state in what district Mr. Garvey is at present fixing rents?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Mr. Garvey has been appointed a Supplemental Lay Assistant Commissioner to take the place of any one of the regular Assistant Commissioners who may be prevented by reason of illness, or other sufficient cause, from discharging the dunes of the office. So far, however, it has not been found necessary to call upon Mr. Garvey to perform the duties of an Assistant Commissioner. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the statements in the second paragraph. With regard to the third paragraph, the following gentlemen have been appointed Assistant Commissioners within the past 12 months, all of whom have had a practical knowledge of land, namely, Messrs. Bellingham, Dickey, Adamson, Hammond, Clarke, and Garvey. Of these, I believe I am right in stating that two farmed land both as owners and as tenants, that two farmed 'and as

    279
    tenants, that one was a land agent, and that the sixth was a civil engineer with a knowledge of land valuation.

    IRISH INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.
    MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Catholic Bishops of Ireland recently passed a resolution condemning the Irish Executive for excluding many children when found begging from admission to industrial schools; and whether he will direct the modifying of the order referred to, and admit as usual to industrial schools all children found seeking alms?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The resolution was to the following effect—
    "That we the members of the Standing Committee of the Irish Bishops, in our own name and in the names of our colleagues, deem it our duty to make a strong remonstrance against the action of the Irish Executive in excluding from Industrial Schools, by their recent circular, numbers of children who are eligible for admission under the terms of the Irish Industrial Schools (Ireland) Act as universally understood and acted on up to the present."
    The circular referred to was issued in the interests of the classes of children to whom the Industrial Schools Act was really intended to apply and to prevent manifest abuses of the law; and I cannot consent to its withdrawal.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Arising out of that Question, may I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether there is evidence to show that children are deliberately sent to beg in the streets with the object of having them committed to Roman Catholic Institutions?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There is evidence that; children are sent out into the streets to qualify them for committal to industrial schools.

    ENTERIC FEVER IN INDIA.
    GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can state the result of the investigation, which on 5th May 1898 he stated were then proceeding relative to the causes of the great increase of enteric
    280
    fever among Europeans living in India; whether he can state the number of cases that occurred in the years 1897 and 1898, and how many ended fatally; or if he has any objection to a return being made furnishing these particulars; and whether it is true that inoculation has been widely introduced as a preventive against the disease?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I am unable at present to add anything material to the information which I gave my honourable and gallant Friend on the 5th May last, on the subject of enteric fever in India. The matter continues to engage the attention of the Military and Medical authorities. Inoculation has not, however, been adopted as a preventive. The number of cases of and deaths from enteric fever among the troops in India for 1897 will be shown in the Report of the Army Medical Department for that year, which may be expected shortly; the figures for 1898 will not be available for some time to come.

    SHAMROCK IN THE ARMY.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the term "superior officer" mentioned in the Queen's Regulations as having power to prohibit the wearing of a shamrock by Irish soldiers on St. Patrick's Day refers to a colonel of a regiment or to any lower grade officers down to and including a corporal.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The power to permit or prohibit the wearing of a shamrock, or other emblem, is vested in the officer commanding the unit—that is, the Regiment of Cavalry, or the Battalion of Infantry, or the Battery of Artillery. It would not be delegated to any officer of lower rank except in the case of a detachment.

    IRISH NATIONAL TEACHERS.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to pay the arrears of fee grant admittedly due to the Irish national teachers; whether

    281
    portions of these fees have already been paid; whether the balance was promised on condition that the teachers would not re-open the new pension rules; and will he explain how a connection is held to exist between the Pension Act of 1879 and the Irish Education Act of 1892.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): With the assent of the. National Education Board, the sum which was found to be due on account of these arrears was paid to the Teachers' Pension Fund, except a small part due to a class of schools whose teachers receive no benefit from that Fund; and the teachers not satisfied with this have asked that it shall also be paid to them. I could only sanction this on the terms which I stated last Session, and I am told that, so far from these terms having been accepted, some action has been taken on behalf of the teachers towards testing the legality of the new Pension Rules in a court of law.

    SALISBURY PLAIN.
    COLONEL WYNDHAM MURRAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether in view of the purchase by the Government of a tract of country on Salisbury Plain for military purposes it will now be possible to give to the Infantry more rifle practice than has hitherto been practicable under the service conditions of moving targets and unknown ranges on broken ground.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Every advantage will be taken of the facilities which exist on the Government ground at Salisbury Plain for training the Infantry stationed there in field-firing and other musketry practices under the service conditions.

    BOARDING-OUT PAUPER CHILDREN.
    MR. LUTTRELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board how many unions in England and Wales board out children within the union; whether amongst these there are
    282
    any without certified committees to look after these children; and whether he would takes steps to encourage the establishment of such committees.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: According to the last returns 373 Boards of Guardians board out children within the union. In some unions committees have been formed to find and superintend homes for children boarded out within the union, but in others this is not the case. Where the children are not under the charge of a committee, they are required to be visited periodically by the officers of the Guardians; but everything is done already by the Local Government Board to facilitate and encourage the establishment of committees.

    AGRICULTURAL RATING (SCOTLAND) ACT.
    SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that, under the Agricultural Rating (Scotland) Act, the relief afforded to agricultural occupiers has in practice resulted in heavier rating for cottars and other indigent non-agricultural occupiers: and whether he can take any steps to remove this grievance?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I have received no further representations to the effect, stated by the honourable Member. Under the Local Taxation Account Act of last Session the amount of the grant for distribution has been increased by £20,000, and no further action in the matter is proposed.
    SIR W. WEDDERBURN: Will the right honourable Gentleman state whether the excess payment made by non-agricultural occupiers will be refunded to them, and what, is the amount of the shortage?
    MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I think that that was fully explained on the Bill last year. Making up the shortage only takes place after the sum of £20,000 has been paid.

    UGANDA.
    SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the £197,000 additional asked for for Uganda in Supplementary Estimates covers the cost in the present financial year of the Martyr Expedition?
    MR. BRODRICK: Yes, Sir. It covers the cost so far as it is known up to the present time.

    OATS FOR ARMY HORSES.
    GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the oats supplied for the use of the troops during the last autumn manœuvres, and which are stated in the report of the Commander-in-Chief to have been often inferior and generally to have required screening, were, as a rule, foreign or home-grown; and if he will state the respective proportions of each description of supply, as well as the contract price paid by Government?
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL WILLIAMS,): It is impossible to say whether the oats were foreign or home-grown, and there is nothing laid down in the contract as to sources of supply. Oats are accepted by a standard of quality. The prices paid are not made public.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Has fault ever been found with Irish oats?
    MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: I should think it very likely.

    MILITARY MANŒUVRES.
    GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce such amendments into the Military Manœuvres Act, 1897, as have been unanimously reported by the civilian commissioners, employed last manœuvres to carry out the Act, as essential to its efficient working?
    MR. WYNDHAM: The question of introducing a Bill to embody the amendments proposed by the Military Manœuvres Commissioners in the Military Manœuvres Act, 1897, is under consideration.

    DANGEROUS TRADES.
    SIR J. LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Statutory Rules and Orders recently issued by him under the Factory and Workshops Acts relating to dangerous trades, particulars of piecework wages, period of employment where edge tools are made, and the maximum limit of humidity of the atmosphere in certain factories, are exhibited in the factories and workshops to which they are applicable, or otherwise brought directly under the cognisance of the workpeople interested?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): Special rules for dangerous trades are required to be exhibited in all factories and workshops where they are in force. The orders issued by the Secretary of State under the Factory and Workshop Acts are not themselves posted in the factories and workshops; but in most cases, including all exemption orders, a plain statement of their effect must be exhibited. Also, as I stated in reply to the honourable Member a few days ago, notices of the orders are published in the "London Gazette" and the "Labour Gazette," and the Factory Department of my office does its utmost, by distributing the orders to the Press and otherwise, to make their provisions generally known.

    IRISH LAND LOANS.
    MR. P. O'BRIEN: On behalf of the honourable Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the last report of the Land Commission, which shows that 3,810 applications by landlords and tenants for loans of £1,459,250 had been made for the purchase of tenants' holdings under the Land Acts of 1885 and

    285
    1888, bat that such loans were refused by the Land Commission; that 1,709 applications by landlords and tenants for loans of £598,821 had been made for the purchase of tenants' holdings under the Land Acts of 1891 and 1896, but that such loans were refused by the Land Commission; whether he is aware that the total number of loans in which landlords had agreed to sell to tenants, refused by the Land Commission, were 5,519 for £2,058,071; and whether he would order a return to be submitted to this House stating the counties and estates from which the refused applications were made, and the cause of refusal?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The figures quoted in the first and second paragraphs are correct. With regard to the third paragraph, it has been stated in previous annual reports of the Commissioners that applications have been refused, or dismissed for various reasons, such as insufficiency of security, sub-lettings, sub-divisions, difficulties as to title, etc. No statistics are available on the subject, and to obtain the information desired in the Question would involve the separate examination of the 5,519 applications referred to, which would considerably interfere with the disposal of the current work of the Department. No useful purpose would be served by consenting to the return indicated, and I see no sufficient reason for asking the Commissioners to prepare it.

    CASE OF ERNEST JOHN KING.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now considered the case of Ernest John King, who at the last Lancaster Assizes was sentenced by Mr. Justice Day to five years' penal servitude for bigamy; and whether he has seen his way to recommend a mitigation of the sentence.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: My attention has not been called to this case before, but I find, on reference to the calendar, that Ernest John King's sentence is not as stated in the honourable Member's Question—five years' penal servitude—but four months' imprisonment with hard labour.

    BRITISH EXPENDITURE IN EAST AFRICA.
    MR. M'KENNA: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in addition to the expenditure of £516,000 estimated for in the Civil Service Estimates, original and supplementary, for the current financial year, in respect of the British Protectorates in Uganda and in Central and East Africa, any further expenditure in respect of these Protectorates is estimated for in the Army Estimates of the Indian Revenues: and, if so, what is the amount of such further expenditure?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No further expenditure is provided for in respect of the Protectorates named in the Question, either in the Army Estimates or the Indian Estimates.

    MEAT SUPPLIES TO THE TROOPS IN IRELAND.
    MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask, the Under Secretary of State for War what are the particulars of the quantity of beef supplied during December and January at the following stations:—Dundalk, Ballincolig, Athlone, Cahir; and the quantity of mutton supplied at the same places and for the same months; the amounts paid for beef and for mutton separate^ where different prices for each article have been tendered for; and whether the contracts were given on the basis of the average of mutton being taken at the rate of one-seventh to that of beef?
    MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: I will furnish the honourable Member with a statement showing' the quantity of beef and mutton supplied to the troops at the stations named in the question during December and January last, but the prices at which tenders are accepted are not made public. The contracts are given on the basis either of mutton being supplied one day a week or forming one-seventh of the weekly supply.

    IRISH DISPENSARY DOCTORS.
    MR. HAYDEN: I beg, to ask the Attorney-General for Ireland whether the Local Government Board for Ireland had

    287
    acted within its powers in issuing an order making dispensary doctors ineligible for the position of county councillors; and, if not, whether he will state the authority under which the Board so acted?
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): The Local Government Board have under the Poor Law Acts of 1837 and 1847 and 1848 and the Medical Charities Act of 1851 power to make, with the consent of the Lord Lieutenant, general rules relating to the qualifications, tenure of office, guidance and control of the officers of Poor Law Unions and Dispensary districts. Acting within this power, they made the rule referred to in the Question, disqualifying not dispensary doctors alone, but all paid Poor Law Union officers from being elected as county councillors.

    NIGER TERRITORIES.
    MR. C. MCARTHUR: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the prolonged delay which has arisen in connection with the transfer of the Niger territories from the Chartered Company to the Imperial Government, and the consequent disadvantage under which present and intending traders in those territories are labouring, he can give any further information as to the approximate date and terms of the transfer, and particularly whether it will take place in time to admit of mercantile operations being commenced under it during the ensuing high water season of the River Niger, which commences to rise in May.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I cannot judge of the disadvantage referred to by my honourable Friend, and any question on that subject would be more properly addressed to the Foreign Office; but I do not think it probable that the transfer will be completed before May.

    BELFAST LAND COMMISSION.
    MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the sitting of the Chief Land Commission at Belfast last week, whether he will state how many
    288
    fair rent appeals were disposed of then; in how many cases were the rents fixed by the Sub-Commission reduced, and in how many cases were they increased; in how many cases the judicial rents fixed by the Sub-Commission were increased and reduced respectively by the reports of the Court Valuers; in how many cases were the Court Valuers' estimated fair rents reduced and increased respectively by the Chief Commission; and whether in the Reports of the work of the Land Commission supplied to the House the amounts fixed by the Court Valuers will be also given?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There were in all 65 cases disposed of at the recent sittings of the Chief Commission at Belfast to hear fair rent appeals. In four of these cases the rents as fixed by the Court below were reduced, in 25 cases they were increased, and in 12 cases they were affirmed. In 14 cases the appeals were either settled or withdrawn, in eight cases judgment was reserved, in one case an order dismissing the proceedings of the Court below was affirmed, and the remaining case was adjourned. Of the 41 cases referred to, in which rents were fixed by the Chief Commission after hearing, 30 were fixed at a rent lower than that estimated by the Court Valuers, nine at a rent higher than that estimated by the Court Valuers, and in the remaining two cases the rents were fixed at the same sum as that estimated by the Court Valuers. It is pointed out that the Land Commissioners, with the reports of the Court Valuers before them and after hearing the evidence and considering ail the circumstances of the case, holding, and district, determine the fair rent. The Commissioners do not propose to insert in the Return referred to the Valuers' estimates of the amount of the fair rent in each case.

    WINTER ASSIZES IN IRELAND.
    MR. P. O'BRIEN: On behalf of the honourable Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he can say why John Reardon and Jeremiah Reardon, charged with shooting Patrick Connor at Waterville, and who were

    289
    returned for trial to the next following assizes for Kerry, which would have been the Winter Assize at Cork in December last, are detained for trial at the next Spring Assize in Tralee?
    MR. ATKINSON: The prisoners were on the 2nd of September 1898 returned for trial to the next assizes for the County of Kerry. An application for bail was refused by the committing magistrates. On the 19th of September 1898 the prisoners were by order of the Queen's Bench admitted to bail. It is not customary, unless under very special circumstances, to put on trial at the Winter Assizes prisoners who are not in custody awaiting their trial but out on bail.

    YANG-TSZE-KIANG VALLEY.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government are now prepared to define what territory is included in the pledge of the Chinese Government not to alienate the Valley of the Yang-tsze-Kiang?
    MR. BRODRICK: No further agreement has been concluded with the Chinese Government beyond that, which is upon the Table. The valley or basin of the Yang-tsze presumably includes, according to the ordinary meaning, the provinces of which the streams run into that river.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether the Foreign Office will present to the House a map showing the exact districts included in the pledge?
    [No Reply.]

    FUGITIVE SLAVES IN MOMBASA.
    MR. BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the judicial decision, in June 1898, of Mr. Lloyd in the British District Court of Mombasa, which was confirmed by Mr.
    290
    Sub-Commissioner Crauford, whereby three fugitive slaves were handed back to their former master, Salehe bin Husein; whether the girl Kombo (one of the three) had been for 10 years under the protection of the mission station at Ribe; and whether the Foreign Office has confirmed this decision or not; and, if not, whether the Foreign Office will give instructions for these three slaves being given their liberty to return, if they wish, to the mission station?
    MR. BRODRICK: On the 10th February I explained that the Official Report called for in this case had not reached Her Majesty's Government, and that instructions have been given that British officials should not assist in returning slaves to their masters.

    THE JUDICIAL BENCH.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any steps to give effect to the publicly-expressed opinions of the Lord Chief Justice of England and of the Incorporated Law Society that additional judges should be appointed, or would they be prepared to consent to the appointment of a Committee to consider the present state of legal business?
    SIR H. FOWLER: I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman whether his attention has been called to a statement which has appeared in the newspapers that Mr. Justice Darling, one of the Judges of the High Court, has been to the town of Merioneth to hold an assize, the only prisoner being one charged with attempting to steal a penny, and acquitted, and, in view of this loss of three days of judicial time, whether Her Majesty's Government, before considering the question of increasing the number of Judges, will consider whether a redistribution of judicial power and judicial time will not be more effective?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: If it should be found that arrears in the Supreme Court tend permanently to

    291
    increase, and cannot be reduced by more elastic arrangements for facilitating the dispatch of business, the Government would be prepared to consider an increase to the number of judges; but we are not satisfied that these conditions exist at present.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the right honourable Gentleman in the meantime ask for the loan of a few Irish Judges?
    MR. LOUGH: Will the right honourable Gentleman answer the last part if my question?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: No, Sir, the Government do not propose to do that.

    ENNIS ASYLUM.
    MR. P. O'BRIEN: On behalf of the honourable Member for East Clare, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the retiring resident superintendent of the Ennis Asylum has undertaken to act till his successor is appointed; and if, under these circumstances, the Government will leave the question of a fresh appointment till the Clare County Council is elected?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not aware that the retiring Resident Medical Superintendent of the Ennis Asylum has undertaken to act till his successor is appointed; but the Assistant Medical Officer is, I understand, a very efficient officer, and the Government are willing to postpone for the present the appointment of a Resident Medical Superintendent. It must be understood, however, that I cannot give an unconditional pledge that no appointment will be made before the new Asylum Committee is constituted.

    PROTECTION OF PLATELAYERS' LIVES.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he would invite the railway companies of the United Kingdom to make and enforce regulations on their respective lines to protect all platelayers in the discharge of their duties, by means
    292
    of scouts posted to warn them of the imminent dangers from trains which threaten them and lead to such lamentable loss of life in the absence of this precaution?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I understand that the general rules of the Clearing House as to permanent way and works have been under revision, and the Board of Trade will communicate with the Clearing House as to the point raised by the honourable Member.

    INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE.
    SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has under consideration the expediency of extending to retired officers of the Civil Service in India the privileges enjoyed by Military Officers of commuting a portion of their annuities; and whether, since in the case of covenanted civilians a portion of their annuities has been provided by deductions from their pay while in Service, there is any objection in principle to allowing members of the Civil Service to commute such proportion of their annuities as have thus been provided?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: It has been held that, as a portion of the annuity of a covenanted civil servant is provided by deductions from his pay while in the service, the recognition of a legal assignment of such an annuity cannot be refused; and, consequently, there is the less reason in his case for allowing commutation, which, as stated in a Treasury Circular of 1882, "exposes the State to the frustration of its policy for securing a lifelong provision for its servants." It is, therefore, opposed to the public interest, and I cannot hold out any hope of departing from the previous practice of the India Office.

    THORNTON JUNCTION STATION.
    MR. BIRRELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that no less than 50 passenger trains call at Thornton Junction Station (in the West of Fife) daily; that all the quick East Coast trains to

    293
    and from London and Dundee and Aberdeen stop there; that five branch passenger lines have their south terminus in Thornton Junction Station; and that more than 100 coal and goods and cattle trains pass daily through the said junction station, and as yet the North British Railway Company have omitted to make any mode of access or egress to it either for passengers, horses, cattle, carriages, etc.; and whether ho will direct one of the Board of Trade Railway Inspectors to go to Thornton Junction and make a report thereon to him, as President of the Board of Trade?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I am not aware of the circumstances referred to, but the Board of Trade will communicate with the Company on the subject of the honourable and learned Member's Question, and, if necessary, direct an Inspector to' visit the locality.

    POLICE COMMUNICATION IN LONDON.
    MR. COHEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why, in view of the fact that chief constables in the provinces have found that the connection of police stations with the telephone system has led to many arrests of persons who otherwise would have escaped justice, the same plan is not adopted in London?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The police stations in the Metropolitan District— numbering 182—are connected by an efficient system of telegraphic communication which is entirely under police control, and which meets police requirements. It has not been considered necessary or desirable to substitute any other arrangement.

    SULTAN OF OMAN.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is a fact, as reported by telegrams of the 21st February, that the Sultan of Oman has withdrawn his concession of a coaling
    294
    station to the French, under the threat of bombardment from Her Majesty's men-of-war; and that the Sultan has issued a proclamation to this effect?
    MR. BRODRICK: The lease which the Sultan proposed to give was contrary to treaty, and has not been proceeded with. For further details we must wait till dispatches reach us.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether it is a fact that the Seyd of Oman has revoked the grant that he proposed to make to France, under a threat from the British Admiral on the station of a bombardment of the forts of his capital: what was the nature of the contemplated grant; whether the French Government had been previously notified of the intended action of the Admiral; whether there is any treaty between this country and the Government of Oman by which the latter pledged itself not to alienate territory, or to grant a lease of territory to any Foreign Power without the previous permission of Her Majesty's Government; whether the relations of this country and of France towards Muscat are based upon the Treaty concluded between Great Britain and France in 1862, by which both countries reciprocally engaged to respect the independence of the Sovereigns of Muscat; and whether Her Majesty's Government claims any special right to control the exercise of full sovereignty by the Seyd of Oman within his kingdom, which is not possessed by any other European Great Power?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: (1) In answer to the first question, I reply that the grant which the Sultan proposed to make was contrary to treaty, and has not been proceeded with. Only brief telegraphic reports have been received, and the dispatches on their way must be awaited before I can give further details; (2) the grant referred to is understood to have been a lease to the French Government of Bunder Jisseh as a coaling station; (3) it was a question between the Government of India and the Sultan of Muscat, not between the Government of India and any other Power. It should be added that no hint was given to the Government of India of the transactions that were being com-

    295
    pleted at Muscat; (4) the Sultan is under a special obligation to the British Government in respect to the alienation or assignment of any part of his territories; (5) the answer to the last question but one is in the affirmative; (6) the Sultan of Oman has for years been in receipt of a subsidy from the Indian Government, and has on various occasions received the help and advice of that Government in maintaining his authority and quieting disturbances in his territory. The relations existing between him and the British Government are special, though they do not necessarily interfere with the exercise of any sovereign rights he may possess.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Will the noble Lord say whether this obligation not to alienate territory is by treaty?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: The arrangement alluded to between the Indian Government and the Sultan of Muscat was arrived at some time back.
    MR. WARNER: Can the noble Lord say whether there is any record kept of this arrangement?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: Yes, there is a record.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask whether the naval demonstration was made by order of the Indian Government?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: Her Majesty's Government and the Government of India have been in constant communication, but there is not complete telegraphic communication between Bombay and Muscat.

    FAIR RENTS IN COUNTY CORK.
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if ho will ascertain when a Sub-Commission will next sit to dispose of fair rent applications from Mallow Union (Cork County), some of which have been listed over two years?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A list containing cases from this Union will probably be issued before Easter.

    RUSSIA AT TALIENWAN.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have received any information relative to the collision alleged to have occurred at Talienwan between Russians and Chinese, with the result of 100 Chinese being killed; if so, whether he can give the House any information as to the cause of this collision, and in particular whether it arose from an attempt on the part of the Russian Government to levy taxes upon the Chinese?
    MR. BRODRICK: According to information received from a Chinese source a collision did occur near Talienwan on the occasion of a deputation of Chinese peasants to the Russian authorities to petition against the exaction of the land tax. The Cossacks are reported to have fired upon the crowd, killing and wounding some of them; the report does not give the exact number. It is understood that the Chinese Government are considering the steps to be taken.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman what was the Chinese source that he refers to; was it the Chinese Government?
    MR. BRODRICK: Unauthorised.

    RAILWAY FATALITY AT HARLESDEN.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the case of Albert Heath, of Willesden, platelayer, who was killed by a fast train at Harlesden, on the London and North Western Railway, on the morning of the 21st instant, a scout or look-out man was placed to give him warning of approaching danger?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I have communicated with the Company, and the reply is in the negative.

    THE MADHI'S BODY.
    MR. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the statement made in the public press to the effect

    297
    that not the whole of the Madhi's body was thrown into the Nile, but that it was dismembered, and that the skull and some of the bones are in the possession of officers who took part in the campaign; whether he' can state, or will take steps to ascertain, whether this statement is correct: and, if it be correct, by whose authority the mutilation took place; and whether he will cause the remains, so far as practicable, to be collected together and decently buried.
    MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's Government have no information of the character named in the Question. Lord Cromer has been asked to furnish a report.
    MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by whose orders the body of the Madhi was taken from its grave and thrown into the Nile; and, whether any sanction was given to this act by any authority from Cairo or London?
    MR. BRODRICK: I have no information beyond what I gave to the House on Monday last.
    MR. BARTLEY: May I ask whether we are to understand that no one will even be reprimanded for this horrible and ghastly outrage?
    [No Reply.]
    MR. SWIFT MacNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is true that Lord Cromer has expressed his approval of the demolition of the Madhi's tomb by Lord Kitchener of Khartoum; and whether an early opportunity will be given to this House of expressing its opinion on the subject?
    MR. BRODRICK: Lord Cromer has expressed his opinion, after hearing the facts, that, under the exceptional circumstances of the case, the Sirdar's action was justifiable.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I had intended to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has noticed a statement in the
    298
    "Daily News" of 22nd February that the embalmed head of the Mahdi was presented to Major Cordon; whether this statement is well founded; and whether, if so, the head was severed from the corpse and presented to Major Gordon, with the consent and approval of the Sirdar; and, if not with his consent, who was responsible for this act of mutilation' I understand the right honourable Gentleman has said he has no information on this point? Will he try to get it for me?
    MR. BRODRICK: Yes, Sir. I can only repeat that I have to state that a full report has been asked for by telegraph, and I must await its receipt before I can give any further information.

    BOYLE AND ROSCOMMON TOWNSHIPS.
    MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the case of townships like Boyle and Roscommon, which have town commissioners who are not urban sanitary authorities, it is proposed to have two district councillors elected for the urban portion of the electoral division and two for the rural portion of the division; and, if not, what provision will be made in case these bodies of town commissioners are constituted urban county districts?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The municipal towns of Boyle and Roscommon are not urban district councils, but they have been constituted separate electoral divisions, and will each return two rural district councillors.

    ANGLO-AMERICAN COMMISSION.
    MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is able to give any information to the House in reference to the present position of the Anglo-American Commission, particularly with regard to the report that its deliberations have not resulted in any agreement being arrived at?
    MR. BRODRICK: The Anglo-American Commission has adjourned until August 2nd. In certain points progress has been made towards a settlement, and it is hoped that further negotiations may resolve the questions still in dispute. Meantime, the Commissioners have requested that all which passed in the Commission may be considered confidential, so that it will not be possible to lay papers on the subject.

    CASTLEBAR UNION CLERKSHIP.
    DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, referring to the vacancy in the clerkship of the union of Castlebar, and to the vacancies in the clerkships of some of the district asylums in Ireland, he will suggest to the Local Government Board the desirability of deferring the appointment to such offices until the county and district councils have an opportunity of dealing with such appointments?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The appointment of clerk of the union ought not to be postponed, as the work of balancing the accounts and making all preparations for the completion of business up to the appointed day is exceptionally heavy, and should, if possible, be undertaken by a person who will continue in the office after that date. The appointment of officers of lunatic asylums is not under the control of the Local Government Board.

    NORTH SEA FISHERIES.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government will include in the terms of reference to the proposed Conference on Fisheries in the North Sea the desirability of the experimental closing by international arrangement of certain sea-areas, with a view to the preservation and development of special fisheries?
    MR. BRODRICK: It will clearly be open to the British or Foreign Dele-
    300
    gates to raise questions of this nature in Conference, and it, therefore, does not appear necessary to include specifically in the terms of the reference to the proposed Conference a clause in the sense suggested.

    WEST INDIAN FRUIT TRADE.
    MR. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will say what number of tenders have been received for the proposed lines of fruit steamers between the West Indies and Home ports; and whether there is reason to expect the steamers to be running on or before the 1st August next from Jamaica or any other islands?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have to say, on behalf of my right honourable Friend the Secretary for the Colonies, that the negotiations for the proposed fruit service from Jamaica to England are still proceeding, and it is impossible at present to name any date at which any such service is likely to begin.

    IRISH STATE PAPERS.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Government will now give to the honourable Member for South Donegal the permission, which was refused to him last December, of perusing, for purposes of historic research, the documents in the Record Tower of Dublin Castle, with reference to the spies and informers of the period of the Insurrection of 1798 and the Union of 1800, and more especially the memoranda of Leonard MacNally and the briefs held by him in defending the Irish political prisoners of that period; and will the facilities for the perusal of these documents be given to the honourable Member for South Donegal which were granted without difficulty to the right honourable junior Member for Dublin University when writing the seventh and eighth volumes of his "History of England in the Eighteenth Century," and

    301
    to Mr. Cæsar Falkiner, now an Assistant Land Commissioner, for the writing of a magazine article at a time when he was an officer of an Irish Unionist Association.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have already informed the honourable and learned Member that his original application, which was refused, was one for permission to peruse "State Papers till the most recent date up to which, in any case, permission has been given to see such documents," that permission was not refused to him to inspect the documents referred to in the first paragraph, and that, as a matter of fact, he never applied for such permission. If the honourable Member will make an application in writing for permission to consult papers, stating particulars, giving definite periods, and showing the special subject upon which he seeks for information, then there can be no objection to afford him the same facilities as were afforded to the gentlemen named in the second paragraph.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Then why did the officials inform me that I could not see any document of a later date than 1790?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No such information w*s conveyed to the honourable Member by my orders. We declined to give a general permission to sec documents of a later stage than anybody else.
    MR. J. MORLEY: Are the documents not in the Record Office?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes.
    MR. J. MORLEY: Then they are not in your custody?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I understand permission to see them has to be obtained from the Chief Secretary.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I went to the Record Office and only saw two papers after enormous trouble.

    IRISH JUDICIAL BENCH.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether two of Her Majesty's Judges in Ireland, the Right Honourable Christopher Palles, the Lord Chief Baron, and the Right
    302
    Honourable Mr. Justice Madden, have for the last six weeks been sitting, the Lord Chief Baron as chairman and Mr. Justice Madden as one of the Commissioners, on a Commission appointed by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to inquire into the working and administration of the system of Irish Intermediate Education; whether this Commission has sat during the period for the holding of the Hiliary Sessions of the High Court of Justice in Ireland; has the absence of these two judges from their judicial duties been productive of inconvenience and delay; and what steps, if any, have been taken for the relief of the inconvenience and delay caused by the absence of the learned judges from their judicial duties, and by whom have these judicial duties been discharged in such absence?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Lord Chief Baron and Mr. Justice Madden have been engaged for some time past as members of a Commission to inquire into the working and administration of Irish Intermediate Education. The Chief Baron and Mr. Justice Madden are chairman and vice-chairman of the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland. All the members of the Board were appointed to the present Commission. The inquiry is one of the highest importance, and the learned judges, so far as is consistent with attention to their judicial duties, have attended as frequently as possible the sittings of the Commission. Having regard to the well-known character of both the learned judges for zeal, energy, and painstaking care, it is in the highest degree unlikely that they would permit any inconvenience to arise in connection with the discharge of their judicial duties. No complaints have reached me on the subject.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the business of the Court of Appeal in Ireland and of the various Divisions of the High Court of Justice in Ireland was suspended, and the hearing of jury cases postponed, on the 31st January, so as to permit the attendance of the members of the Irish Judiciary at the Levée of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in Dublin Castle; and whether, having regard to the great additional expense and inconvenience

    303
    entailed on suitors by the delay of legal proceedings, and to the circumstance that the members of the English Judiciary do not suspend the business of their courts in order to attend Royal Levees, arrangements will be male to secure that the attendance of the Irish Judges at the Viceregal Levees will not be accompanied by the abandonment for the day of their judicial duties?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The course pursued by Her Majesty's Judges in Ireland on the 31st January last in adjourning their seven courts for the purpose of attending the Lord Lieutenant's Levée is one that has been usual for very many years. The practice being a well recognised and established one, known to both counsel and suitors, no public disappointment or inconvenience arises. The matter is, however, one for the judges themselves.

    INDIAN NATIVES IN NATAL.
    SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to a memorial, addressed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, from resident natives of India in Natal, who have been engaged in trade there for many years and have acquired considerable interests in land and in personal property, setting forth that, under the operation of the Dealers' or Traders' Licensing Act, allowed by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Colonial Office, the licensing authorities, consisting chiefly of rival traders of British or Foreign nationality, are refusing licences to trade and withdrawing licences from respectable natives of India; whether the Government of India have taken or propose to take any steps to protect Indian natives and fellow subjects from confiscation of their civil and legal rights in Natal; and whether, as Natal relies to a great extent for its supply of labour upon natives of India, under arrangements which are sanctioned by the Indian Government, that Government will be advised to stop all emigration of Indian subjects into Natal until the local laws are fairly administered to Indian subjects?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I have not yet seen the memorial referred to in my honourable Friend's Question, which has, I understand, only recently reached the Colonial Office. When it is referred to the India Office it will receive the fullest consideration from me in Council, both as to the nature of the grievances complained of, as well as the remedy suggested by my honourable Friend.

    ENGLISH SOLDIERS AT THE PASTEUR INSTITUTE.
    SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he would explain what were the circumstances under which nine English soldiers were sent, on the 8th October last, from Bombay to the Pasteur Institute at Paris, to be treated for hydrophobia; what is the evidence in the possession of the Government showing that the dogs which had bitten these men were rabid; under what official supervision these men were sent; and whether it is true, as stated by the Director of the Paris Institute, that these men arrived in Paris without any credentials or anything showing when or where they had been bitten?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I am aware that nine soldiers were sent from India, early in October, to be treated in Paris for hydrophobia, but I have no information as to the circumstances. Such cases occur not infrequently; and on this occasion the usual arrangements were made for their journey from Marseilles to Paris, and for their accommodation while under treatment. I have received no complaint, or representation on the subject from the Director of the Paris Institute, Mid I should have thought that the men themselves could have been capable of explaining to the authorities of the Institute when and where they had been bitten.
    SIR W. WEDDERBURN: Is the noble Lord aware that the Director of the Institute requested the correspondent of the "Daily Mail" to make it known that the men had been sent without any information?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: Then the Director is not a man of business, or he would have communicated with India.

    MILITIA CANDIDATES FOR ARMY COMMISSIONS.
    COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, with reference to the statement that, of the candidates who failed at the December examination of Militia candidates for Army Commissions, a number, according with the exigencies of the service, will be admitted to the further competitive examinations; and whether he can see his way to admitting all who may reasonably be considered could have qualified had the papers set in December been not more difficult than those set in April, when so many more qualified, either by an allowance in marks, say 1,000, or by admitting the same number of candidates as qualified in April.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Thirty-one candidates (making 60 in all) will be taken from those next below the last successful candidate. This decision is based solely on the requirements of the service, and not on the alleged difficulty of the papers set in the December examination. The Civil Service Commissioners have requested the Secretary of State to explain that the papers were similar in character to those in previous examinations, and that the failure of so large a number of candidates was, in their opinion, due, not to any difference in the standard of judgment, but to a difference in the work of the candidates themselves. The minimum was raised by 100 marks, but this affected the success of only four candidates. It has not been usual to announce the minimum in advance, although this was done on one occasion last year.

    MUZZLING ORDER IN ESSEX.
    MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if, in view of the partial application of the muzzling order in the county of Essex, and the freedom from rabies among dogs, he can see his way to further relax the present order?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. H. LONG,): The position in the districts still under Muzzling Orders is being constantly watched, and I shall be glad to find myself able to withdraw those orders. But I do not consider that I could safely relax the restrictions at present.

    THE KHALIFA.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information regarding the present whereabouts and forces of the Khalifa, and the reported retirement of the Egyptian forces sent in pursuit of the Khalifa; and whether the Khalifa is now advancing towards Khartoum?
    MR. BRODRICK: The Sirdar telegraphed on 5th February that Colonel Kitchener found the Khalifa and a force of apparently about 6,000 men in a strong position at Sherkeila, about 112 miles from the Nile. Colonel Kitchener, having completed his reconnaissance, retired, not being in sufficient force to attack. On February 21st, the Sirdar reported that a force of Dervishes was advancing with a body of cavalry north-east from their position. They defeated some, friendly Arabs on the 15th on the White Nile, and preparation is being made to check the advance.

    CRETE.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will, in view of the great distress prevailing among the Cretan Mussulmans who have been for two years deprived of their land and property, formally propose to the Great Powers that a sufficient sum should be raised, based upon Sir Herbert Chermside's estimates, to carry out the repatriation of the Cretan refugees.
    MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's Government have on more than one occasion expressed their readiness to consider

    307
    any suggestions for joint assistance towards the relief of Christians and Mussulmans in Crete, but proposals for the purpose must be initiated by the High Commissioner.

    LORD KITCHENER'S REWARD.
    MR. P. O'BRIEN: On behalf of the honourable Member for East Clare, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Bill to grant £30,000 to Lord Kitchener will be introduced?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I cannot give a definite answer to this Question, but I will undertake to give a week's notice before any steps in the matter are taken by the Government.

    POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK.
    MR. HARTLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will arrange to put down the Post Office Savings Bank Vote at an early date, so that the subject of the financial condition of the country in respect of the liability on these institutions may be debated, and especially the financial effect of a war, should such an event unhappily occur, when the country might be called upon to borrow largely, with the possibility or even probability of a simultaneous heavy withdrawal from the Savings Banks?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: In answer to my honourable Friend I have to say that there is a Supplementary Vote on which this question can be raised, as a Vote of this kind does not come under the Friday arrangement in regard to Supply. I think that will give my honourable Friend the opportunity he desires.
    MR. BARTLEY: Then do I understand that time will be given on the Supplementary Vote to raise the question?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Without giving an answer which might be twisted into a pledge on behalf of the Government, I do not see how the opportunity can be denied my honourable Friend, and I have no desire to do so.

    NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.
    SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary
    308
    of State for the Colonies when the Report resulting from the recent inquiry into French fishing rights on the Newfoundland shore is likely to be laid before Parliament; and whether the documents published will include any portions of the Annual Reports by the British Commodore on the station?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: My right honourable Friend is expecting to receive the Report very shortly, but is unable to say when it will be laid before Parliament, of what documents will be published with it.

    DOG MUZZLING ORDER IN IRELAND.
    MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will advise the abolition of the muzzling of dogs in Ireland; and whether he is aware that the carrying out of this Muzzling Order entails a lot of trouble upon the police in Ireland, and great hardships upon the people, owing to the unreasonable fines inflicted by some magistrates?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is not proposed, at present, to suspend the Muzzling of Dogs Order in Ireland. The total number of cases of rabies throughout Ireland in the 12 months ended the 31st December 1898 was 132, as compared with 162 cases in the last six months of 1897, whilst the number or cases in the first six months of 1897, before the Muzzling Order came into operation, was 335. The enforcement of the Order has consequently been attended, so far, with satisfactory results, and it would be premature, in the circumstances, to revoke the Order. It is quite possible that the enforcement of the Order entails some trouble to the police, but I have no reason to believe that the duty is not cheerfully performed by them. With regard to the fines inflicted by magistrates, I have no information before me that the fines imposed err on the side of severity. In rural districts the average penalty amounts to less than a shilling, and in the Dublin Metropolitan District the average penalty is half-a-crown.

    MILITARY HOSPITALS IN EGYPT.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State

    309
    for War whether he can state the average number of trained nurses, men and women, in attendance on the British officers and soldiers who were patients in hospital at Cairo and Alexandria between 20th September and 30th October 1898?
    MR. WYNDHAM: The average number of trained nurses between the dates mentioned was 226 men and 10 women.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can tell us the proposed business for tomorrow and next week?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: To-morrow we shall proceed forthwith with the Supplementary Estimates, and I anticipate that the greater part of Government time next week will be devoted to them. If not, it will be devoted to the introduction of Government Bills. If the right honourable Gentleman will put a. Question reminding me to-morrow, when I have seen what progress we make with the Estimates to-night, I shall be better able to answer him.

NEW BILLS.

  SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. LONG,): I beg to ask for leave to introduce a Bill to Amend the Law relating to the Sale of Food and Drugs. This Bill differs from the Measures previously introduced by the^ President of the Local Government Board, in the respect that, whereas it has hitherto been proposed to introduce two Bills, I now propose to deal with both subjects in one Bill. The Bill is divided into two parts, the first of which deals with certain dairy products, and its operation extends to cheese, as well as to butter and milk. It provides for the imposition of penalties upon the conviction of offenders, and we take power to deal with these articles at the port by means of inspection. We also take power to make rules for the regulation of analyses, we extend the Margarine Act to cheese, impose a limitation on the admixture of butter with margarine, and, in respect of offences under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, impose cumulative penalties for the second and third offences, and also provide that foreign warranty shall not be admitted as an excuse, unless it is shown that all reasonable steps have been taken to ascertain that the facts are as stated. The Bill also adopts certain other minor proposals of the Select Committee, which sat for three years, inquired exhaustively into the whole subject, and to whose labours I am deeply indebted for many valuable recommendations.
  Leave was given to introduce the Bill, which was read a first time.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTUREalso obtained leave to introduce a Bill to Amend the Enactments relating to the Improvement of Land, and the Lord Advocate (Mr. Graham Murray) obtained leave to bring in a Bill to Amend the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1858, and the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889, in regard to retiring allowances of professors in the University of Aberdeen.
  Both Bills were read a first time.

  EDUCATION (SCHOOL ATTENDANCE) (SCOTLAND).
  Bill to regulate the attendance of children at school in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Captain Sinclair, Mr. Birrell, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Crombie, Colonel Denny, Mr. Parker Smith, and Mr. Robert Wallace (Perth); presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon "Wednesday next, and to be printed. (Bill 94.)
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That so soon as the Committee of Supply has been appointed and Estimates have been presented, the business of Supply shall (until it be disposed of) be the first Order of the Day on Friday, unless the House otherwise order on the Motion of a Minister of the Crown moved at the commencement of Public Business to be decided without Amendment or Debate; and the provisions of Standing Order No. 56 shall be extended to Friday:
  "Not more than 20 days, being days before the 5th of August, on which the Speaker leaves the Chair for the Committee of Supply without Question put, counting from the first day on which the Speaker so left the Chair under Standing Order No. 56, shall be allotted for the consideration of the Annual Estimates for the Army, Navy, and Civil Services, including Votes on Account, the Business of Supply standing first Order on every such day:
  "Provided always that on Motion made after Notice by a Minister of the Crown to be decided without Amendment or Debate, additional time, not exceeding three days, may be allotted for the Business of Supply, either before or after the 5th of August:
  "On the last but one of the allotted days, at Ten o'clock p.m., the Chairman shall proceed to put forthwith every Question necessary to dispose of the outstanding Votes in Committee of Supply; and on the last, not being earlier than the twentieth of the allotted days,
  312
  the Speaker shall, at Ten o'clock p.m., proceed to put forthwith every Question necessary to complete the outstanding Reports of Supply:
  "On the days appointed for concluding the Business of Supply, the consideration of such business shall not be anticipated by a Motion of Adjournment under Standing Order No. 17; nor may any dilatory Motion be moved on such proceedings; nor shall they be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House:
  "Provided always that any additional Estimate for any new service or matter not included in the original Estimates for the year shall be submitted for consideration in the Committee of Supply on any day not later than two days before the Committee is closed:
  "Provided also that the days occupied by the consideration of Estimates supplementary to those of a previous Session, or of any Vote of Credit, shall not be included in the computation of the twenty days. Provided also that two Morning Sittings shall be deemed equivalent to one Three o'clock Sitting:"—(The First Lord of the Treasury.)
  *SIR H. FOWLER: I do not rise for the purpose of taking exception to this Sessional Order; in fact, I have always been a strong supporter of the Order. My object in interfering at this moment is to call the attention of the House, and especially the First Lord of the Treasury, to the mode in which the Order has been worked, and to one or two points where, I think, it has been weak. The first year of the right honourable Gentleman's experiment was a great success. I do not think that last year was so great, a success, and one or two figures will illustrate my meaning. The number of Votes altogether last year was 171, twenty of them being Supplementary, and 151 the ordinary Estimates of the year. Of course the application of this rule does not affect Supplementary Estimates. Those 20 Supplementary Estimates were very fully discussed, occupying, I think, six days of the time of the House. But, Sir, of the 151 which remained, when, the time for putting the Closure arrived on the 8th of August, there were 36 Votes which had not been brought before the House. Now that, Mr. Speaker, is a very large proportion of the 151 Votes. Sir, in the allocation of time I find that the Navy occupied five sittings of the House, and the Army four. I cannot give the exact figures as to the Irish and Scotch Votes, but at all events they occupied some considerable time, and therefore the

  313
  number of days or sittings left for the discussion of the general administration of the country under the Civil Service Estimates were very few. At five sittings of the House, I believe, no Votes were taken at all, which, I think, is almost without precedent in Supply. That may be an improvement or it may be a deterioration on former practices, but, at all events, it is a significant change in the procedure of the House, which deserves attention when the days to be appropriated to Supply have been limited, and, as I think, rightly limited, in number. I do not question the wisdom of the appropriation of a considerable amount of time to the Army and Navy, but, after all, these are questions, so far as the House is concerned, more of general policy than matters of detail; and I doubt the wisdom and necessity of devoting a large portion of the time of the House to purely administrative details, which must be left, to a great extent, to those who are charged with the administration of the Army and Navy. I am not in the slightest degree wishing to interfere with the complete control of the House over matters of administration, whether they be Army, Navy, or Civil Service, but at the same time, when we have only a limited number of days for Supply, we must have some system of fair allocation between the different Services, so that all may have a fair chance. Now, I will give one illustration. I think there are few Departments in which the general public are more vitally interested, or which require more completely the control of the House, and the business Members of the House, than the Post Office. The Post Office levies a large sum, something like £14,000,000; it spends something like £10,000,000 or £11,000,000, in earning it; and there is a margin of £3,000,000 of revenue. I do not say that any portion of that expenditure is wise or unwise, but what I do say, and what I desired to call the attention of the House to last year, is the anomalous and unsatisfactory state of the relations between this House and that Department. There is no responsible representative of the Post Office in this House. Now, Sir, I am not going, of course, to raise that question now. I wished to raise it upon the Post Office Vote last year, and I think it is one
  314
  which fully deserves the consideration of the House, totally irrespective of, but certainly in addition to, many questions as to the Post Office administration and revenue affecting the general convenience of the public. Sir, the Post Office Vote was last year taken on the 28th of July. It was taken after twelve o'clock at night—between twelve and one—and in less than an hour's time devoted to it, nine and a half millions of money were voted. I do not think that that is a fair way of allocating the time of the House, nor do I think that it enables the House of Commons to exercise that control over the Post Office that it ought to exercise. I may be asked, What is my remedy? I do not hesitate to say that I think the source of the evil is that the responsibility of allocating the time of the House, and controlling the business of Supply, has been, from the best of motives, shifted from where it ought to be. I remember my right honourable Friend the Member for West Monmouth, when the First Lord of the Treasury first announced that he would virtually leave the allocating the time for Supply to the Opposition, remarking that it would not work. I recognise that the right honourable Gentleman has been most considerate of the wishes of his political opponents; he has endeavoured, as far as possible, to meet all legitimate applications that have been made to him; but, while it is necessary that there should be constant communication between the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the House as to the question of the allocation of time, in which a large number of Members take, and justly take, an interest, it is impossible for any one individual, even the Leader of the Opposition, to undertake the burden and responsibility of deciding what is the best mode of allocating that nine. Somebody, for instance, interested in some special subject, presses that it shall be taken on a certain day, and the light honourable Gentleman, with characteristic good nature, yields at once. Thus, what one man obtains another man loses. What I want to impress upon the right honourable Gentleman is that the

  315
  responsibility of allocating the time—subject of course, to the elasticity which the daily course of business requires, and subject, of course, to the consideration of all parts of the House, English, Scotch, Irish, and Welsh, and also of the several departs ments—must rest with the Leader of the House, and nowhere else. I think we ought to have some statement from him— say, at the commencement of Supply, or at all events at some considerable intervals—of how he proposes to allocate the time of the House, what Votes he proposes to take, and when he proposes to take them. The working of the present arrangement is this—those who are importunate and eager to get their special questions discussed; and so, almost like the ridiculous results of the ballot with reference to Tuesdays and Wednesdays, the House is practically deprived of all control over its own business. I think we ought to take more care of our time, and I think the Leader of the House should undertake the responsibility of allocating that time. I am quite sure that he will, in consultation with other sections of the House, endeavour to meet their convenience, and in that way, and in that way only, we shall get an effective supervision of all branches of adminstration—for, after all, lit is the administration of the country with which the Committee of Supply is primarily charged. Sir, while I believe the Rule is a most valuable reform in the procedure of the House, I think the right honourable Gentleman has done wisely in not proposing to make it a Standing Order, because I think he ought to be thoroughly satisfied as to how it will work; at the same time, I claim the privilege of making these few suggestions as to how the working of the Order can be improved.
  *MR. DILLON: Sir, I have listened to the urgent appeal of the right honourable Gentleman who has just sat down with astonishment and consternation. I had always held that the Leaders of the Opposition ought to be the champions not only of the private Members who sit behind them, and support them, but also of the rights of all private Members, even if they do not belong to their own Party. Sir, what have we listened to? We have listened to' one of the Leaders of the Opposition actually requesting the Government to make the operation of the existing Rule more oppressive and stringent than it has been. I
  316
  hope we shall be able to convince the House, or a considerable section, of it, that the Rule has operated, as some of us foresaw when it was first introduced, most oppressively on private Members. But, Sir, if the views of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton are accepted, it will operate still more oppressively. What does he appeal to the Government to do? He appeals to the First Lord of the Treasury to ignore the representations of private Members who have grievances and are eager to get them discussed. By way of illustration, the right honourable Gentleman referred to the working of the ballot, and maintained that the whole business and time of the House should be allocated absolutely by the Leader of the House—that is, the Government of the day.
  *SIR H. FOWLER: I mentioned the ballot simply as a casual allusion; what I meant to convey was that the House itself should settle the question.
  *MR. DILLON: How is the House to settle it? We know perfectly well what that means—it means that the Government will settle the question. They have a large majority, and consequently are able to carry any proposals they submit. I say that this proposal tends to' the extinction of the rights and privileges of private Members. Now, Sir, the right honourable Gentleman also brought forward another proposition, which appears to mo very strange. He complained of the amount of time which had been given in recent years to the discussions of the Army and Navy, and said that the Post. Office and other departments were more worthy of consideration. In my opinion the great evil of the principle laid down by the right honourable Gentleman is the utter lack of elasticity in the working of the Rule. Why has the administration of the Army and Navy made such large demands on the time of this House during the last three or four years? It is because the expenditure of the Army and Navy has been going up by leaps and bounds, and I maintain that the Debates on the Army and Navy have not been sufficiently prolonged. The opportunities for discussion are being curtailed, and meanwhile the taxpayers are heavily saddled and the prosperity of the country threatened. Sir, under the old practice of this House those items of Supply which,

  317
  according to circumstances, were really of burning importance, would have occupied a great deal of the time and attention of this House, and minor, matters would have been relegated to the background. The suggestion of the right honourable Gentleman is an illustration of the absurdities to which we are being driven by this Rule. How is it possible, for instance, for any Government, at the opening of a Session, to map out and measure as with a tape throughout the whole Session the amount of time which shall be devoted to- each particular item in Supply? I certainly would be as pleased as any man in this House to add my voice to the tributes paid to the fairness and courtesy with which the present Leader has conducted the business; but no man, not even an archangel, can resist the temptation, under this hard-and-fast Rule, to curtail the time to be devoted to the criticism of those departments where he thought the Opposition criticism would be damaging and inconvenient. Members ought to have the utmost freedom during the time given up to Supply in selecting the questions of administration they desire to criticise, and the privilege ought to be given not merely to Members of the Government, but to independent Members as well as the Opposition. I therefore say it would be impossible to expect the Leader of the House, at the opening of a Session, to map out the time to be devoted to each department and draw a hard-and-fast line. Sir, I think the method which the Leader of the House has adopted during the last three or four years is one much more likely to give this Ride a fair chance of success, and I hold that if it were possible to make it a success the method adopted was the best. What was that method? The Leader of the House endeavoured to obtain from the Members their views as to the subjects they desired to take, and, as far as possible, he arranged—certainly with much more success during the first two years than the last year—for certain subjects, so as to meet the convenience, of various groups of the Opposition, or of other Members who had certain grievances they desired to ventilate. That, I conceive, is the only method which could be adopted with any prospect of success. But, Sir, this Rule has now been in operation for three years. I have been a constant attendant during those three years, and I venture to say, speaking from the
  318
  point of view of an independent Member that it has been a dreadful failure. Now, when this Rule was first introduced we had a new House of Commons; nearly 250 Members came into the House of Commons for the first time, with no experience whatever in the working of the House. A man must be a pretty regular attendant in the House before he appreciates the opportunities and privileges, or realises; the disabilities, of the private Member. When this Rule was first introduced I said I thought it was ill-advised to ask the House of Commons, composed, as it was, to the extent of nearly one-third of its Members of new and untried men, to take what I do not hesitate to describe as the most revolutionary step taken during the last century in the procedure of the House. If this application of the clause upon the voting of money in Supply had been, brought forward in the days when I first entered this House it would have met with a universal howl of disapprobation from every quarter of the House; indeed, I venture to say no Minister would have dared to propose it. Now, Sir, we have the experience of three years to' guide us, and I am not the least surprised—in fact, I fully expected —that after that experience both Front Benches are very much enamoured of this Rule because it is a Front Bench Rule. It is one of the most skilful devices that I have seen in the course of 15 years for shielding Ministers from criticism, gagging private Members, and rendering debate on Supply innocuous and not in the least degree formidable to any responsible Minister. Of course, there is always a temptation to the Leader of the Opposition to acquiesce in any Measure which will ease the position of the responsible Minister. But closure, limited by the discretion of the Speaker, is a great revolution in procedure. Those of us who came into this House before the closure was known, and remember the old days when private Members, had great powers and privilegees—they have since been taken away—remember how slow the House and the Ministry were, even under the most extraordinary provocation, to reconcile themselves to1 the introduction of the closure in ordinary debate. Well, Sir, the provocation came to such a point that Ministers, supported by a majority of the House, introduced the closure. It was, however, hedged round by various safeguards designed to pro-

  319
  tect minorities from oppression. Now, Sir, we have brought into the procedure of the House an automatic closure without reference to the circumstances of a particular debate—a closure which may operate, and which has operated, as we have abundantly seen during the last two or three Sessions, to remove absolutely from all possibility of discussion the policy of great departments of the State, as well as events connected with foreign and colonial policy. But what is the automatic closure in reference to questions of legislation as compared with the automatic closure in reference to the voting of money? I say that I challenge contradiction, that the great function of the House of Commons is not legislation. This nation could exist and flourish for some years if the House of Commons never passed a law at all. The great function of the House of Commons, without the exercise of which this nation would wither and perish, is to hold the national purse and to criticise the conduct of Ministers. Sir, this Rule strikes at the first principles and the most vital function of the House of Commons, and, as I shall show presently, when once you admit a principle, that, principle goes farther than you imagined for a single moment at the first. We were told by the First Lord of the Treasury when he was, with his well known powers of persuasion, trying to force the Bill down our throats, that it was a choice between the guillotine and the rack. He said that under the old system it was within the power of private Members to stretch Ministers upon the rack—sometimes that is a, rather good thing to do in discussion—and that in making his choice between the guillotine and the rack he preferred the guillotine. In the old days we had the rack; now the First Lord of the Treasury has deprived us of the rack and taken the guillotine himself. The guillotine, however, is not used against him—it is used against us, and I think everybody will admit that private Members have come off second best in that arrangement. I remember very well, and honourable Members who were present probably remember, the tremendous exhibition of wrath provoked by the then Opposition, now the Members of the Government, when the guillotine was used to pass the Home Rule Bill in 1893. But the guillotine., as it was called, was
  320
  nothing more than the automatic closure which was used when, in the opinion of most of the honourable Members, the subject under discussion had been worn threadbare. I warn honourable Members who support, the Motion now before the House that the day of adversity may come, when they may be seated side by side with the Irish Members on these Benches, and when this principle of automatic closure may be applied to legislation by a Radical Party. Some years ago one day, or part of a day, was quite sufficient to discuss the affairs of the Foreign Office. I remember years when the Foreign Office Vote passed after an hour's discussion; but a great policy—in my mind a most detestable policy—has been instituted since—a policy which goes under the name of Imperialism. Under this policy the old traditions of this country are torn to pieces and cast away, and we are invited to extend the limits of what is called the British Empire by slaughtering thousands of blacks in the Soudan and other parts of the world. These affairs of the Foreign Office naturally take much longer discussion, and I say that the attempt of Ministers to shorten discussion in Supply is an attempt to' put upon the limbs of the House of Commons shackles which they will not tolerate, in the lone run. Sir, we have had around us in every Session for the last three years superabundant evidence of the spirit which animates Ministers now in their desire to shut the mouths of private Members, and gradually to tighten the grip of the Government upon the whole body of this House. We had the other day a statement from the First. Lord of the Treasury absolutely, I venture to say, without precedent in the annals of this House, when casually he stood up at that box at the opening of the Session and announced that he himself had forbidden the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to answer any supplementary question—a condition of things surely without parallel in this House. That statement was not protested against at the time, but I allude to it for the purpose of showing that when restrictions of that or any other character are placed upon private Members the grievances of those private Members will burst out in some other direction; and when Ministers complain, in a year like this, of the Debate on the Address occupying 10 or 11 days,

  321
  then I reply that it is because a system of squeezing and pressure has been brought to bear on private Members, and human ingenuity being infinite, they have discovered some other method of airing their grievances. Therefore I say, Sir, that in a year like this, and in the years that are before us, it must not be wondered at if, on questions with regard to the Foreign Office, the Army, the Navy, and the Colonial Office, the debates should be extensive, and consume a great deal more time than in previous years. At all events, Sir, as regards these great matters, what I claim is this—that there should be elasticity, and there should be an effort made to adjust the amount of time given to the circumstances of the year. Now I turn to another aspect of the case altogether. We are more interested in the affairs of Ireland, and I am entitled to speak on the effect of this Rule upon the convenience of Irish Members, and upon the possibility of Irish Members not being afforded an adequate opportunity of bringing to the attention of the House the affairs of their constituencies and of their own country, and of subjecting the Minister for Ireland to such criticism as they are sent here to make. Now, Sir, I wish to' direct the attention of the First Ford to his speech delivered in 1896. When he introduced this Rule on the 20th of February, J 896, he saw quite clearly the point, which was afterwards emphasised by myself and others, that the Rule might operate, and would operate, with the greatest inconvenience to Irish Members who lived so far away from home and have to cross the sea. Now, here is what the First Lord said bearing upon that particular point—
  "Some honourable Gentlemen have supposed that we intend to devote Fridays alone to Supply, so that in the case of the Irish Estimates, Irish Members would be put to the inconvenience of coming over on successive Fridays, and going back to Ireland, it may be, in the interval. That is not a necessary part of our scheme at all. There is nothing whatever in the scheme to prevent a week or fortnight being continuously devoted to Supply. Of course, in the ease of the Irish Members we should take care in the future, as in the past, to see that out of the 20 days' time was allotted to them in the manner most convenient for their attendance and the continuous discussion of the questions in which they are interested."
  I hope the First Lord will remember those words, because I think they
  322
  amount almost to a pledge that the convenience of Irish Members would be consulted, and that we should have, when we so desired, a continuous I hue allotted to the discussion of Irish Supply at such a, season of the year as well meet our convenience. I will direct his attention to the fact that ho said
  "There is nothing whatever in the scheme to prevent a week or fortnight being continuously devoted to Supply."
  Now, in spite of that statement, we never got, as far as I can remember, two nights successively, and we were kept systematically hoping from Friday to Friday, to the enormous inconvenience of some of the Irish Members. Of course, the Chief Whip of the Government and the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House were most, courteous on this matter, but they did not give us that privilege which I think we were entitled to suppose the First Lord of the Treasury had pledged himself to give us, because he was addressing himself to this very objection of the inconvenience to the Irish Members. Well, in 1896–7 the Government assigned four Fridays to Simply, and endeavoured to meet our convenience as far as possible. In 1898, however, a marked change came over the conduct of Government business; a marked change came over their temper and spirit—I won't say temper—over the spirit of the arrangement for Irish Supply, because while adhering to the Friday arrangement, which on the face of it was monstrously unjust to the Irish Members, they refused to give us even the Fridays that would have been convenient to us, and finally they put off Irish Supply with only three days, with the results to which I have drawn attention. I say that this is not fair play, and I do not think it is even consistent with the speeches which were made in introducing this Rule. I ventured myself to say before, and I repeat it now, that speeches from Ministers —no matter how much we are prepared to rely on their honour, and everyone believes and admits that we never had a more courteous and absolutely honourable Leader of the House—giving us general assurances as to the manner in which Rules will be interpreted are of no more value than, mere waste paper. Time goes on, and those assurances are forgotten, and they pass out of memory;

  323
  and what we are bound to do, if we have any common sense is this—when we are examining Rides of Procedure we are bound to anticipate and calculate that that Rule will be interpreted by Ministers in the manner most adverse to private Members that it is possible that the letter of the law will admit of; because the pressure of business operates all the time to make them use the Rule as far as they can against private Members, who get as bad treatment as the Rule admits. Therefore, in considering these Rules, you have to examine them most carefully to see what Ministers can do under the Rule. Well, this has been our fate, that we have not got continuous discussion of Irish affairs. The conduct of Irish business under these Rules has been disastrous—absolutely disastrous. In the first year, 1896, attempts were made to meet our convenience, though by no means up to the promise contained in the speech of the First Lord, but, at all events, four Fridays were allocated to Irish Supply, with some reference to the convenience of Irish Members. In the second year we had four Fridays, but in the third year— 1898—we were put off with three days. We were again and again disappointed. One day the Colonial Secretary made up his mind to make a Statement, and another day some other Minister had something important to state and bring forward, and, as I knew perfectly well, inevitably the convenience of the Irish Members was pushed into a back seat, and the Ministers' convenience naturally dictated a date on which these things could be discussed. That is a condition of things against which I think we are entitled to protest and certainly it has reduced our position in this House to a very much lower state than it was ever in before. Now, I desire to draw the attention of the House to some observations made by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Liskeard, who is a great authority on the conduct of business in this House. Speaking in 1896, he said it was impossible to exaggerate the value which should be attached to the functions of the Committee of Supply, and pointed out that in any alteration which might be made in their procedure machinery, they should take some steps so as to secure that the different branches of the admin-
  324
  istration should be brought in a convenient way under the consideration of the House. Then he went on to allude especially to the case of Ireland, and pointed out how true this was in the case of Irish Administration. That statement from the right honourable. Gentleman is our experience during' the last Session, and what has happened has conclusively proved the truth and the wisdom of his statement. What has been the history of Irish experience in this respect"! In the year 1896, the first year of the application of this Rule, I find the following votes were debated: The Chief Secretary's Vote, the Irish Land Commission, Law Charges, the Local Government Board, National Education, Public Works and Buildings, Queen's College, and the Royal Irish Constabulary. Those are, with very few exceptions, the chief Votes of Irish Administration in the year 1896, and they were debated, and debated in a fair way. In 1897 the following Votes were not debated, but were closured: The Constabulary, the Lord Lieutenant's Household, Resident Magistrates, Police Establishments, General Prisons Board, Queen's College, Pauper Lunatics Vote, and the Hospitals Vote. All these were closured in 1897, and were not debated. In 1898 the Local Government Board (Ireland) Vote, Public Works, County Courts, Police Establishments, Royal Irish Constabulary, General Prisons Board, Pauper Lunatics Vote, Reformatories and Industrials Schools, Public Buildings, Chief Secretary's, Queen's College, and Endowed Schools Commission. These Votes were all closured, without debate, in 1898, and that shows, as years go on, how the condition of Irish Supply became infinitely and unspeakably worse, until last year. I have no hesitation in saying that the discussion of Irish Administration and Irish Supply was reduced to a perfectly ludicrous farce. And now we are brought to this point in the admirable Government of Ireland—no doubt an extremely convenient situation for the Minister for Ireland—that the Government of Ireland is centred in one individual, and that one individual is rapidly achieving for himself a position of immunity from all criticism as regards his conduct of Irish Government, Talk about improvements

  325
  in the Government of Ireland! I say that if this condition of things goes on, the fact of our being in this House means nothing more than a perfect mockery, and we might just as well all remain in Ireland. Some years ago there was a great deal of clamour about retaining the Irish Members here, and one great Home Rule Bill was defeated almost on the one ground—namely, the necessity of retaining Members here. Now, we have just as good a right to take an interest in foreign and colonial affairs as any other Member of this House— every bit as good a right—but when any of us interfere in a foreign debate we are treated as outlaws and strangers, and treated as interlopers. ("No, no.") Well, that is my experience, and we do break in occasionally. The general tone of the House is, if we take in foreign or colonial debates we are considered as interlopers, and concerning ourselves in matters in which we have no business. Under this new Rule we are practically being deprived, slowly but steadily, of all opportunity of even criticising the Government of our own country. Now, because we are a permanent minority in this House; because we never have any desire to share in the councils of any Government; because we never can be Members of any Party which is in power in this country; our claim to a full and direct opportunity of criticising the Government of our country ought to be recognised by all Parties in this House. It is a monstrous injustice that, instead of fully recognising that claim under this Rule, we are being strangled, and by its use, if it goes much further, the whole Irish representation in this House will be reduced to a perfect mockery, and that is the state of things against which I protest. I have objected to this Rule from the very outset, and I object to it as a gross departure from the good traditions of this House; and I say again that it is steadily reducing discussion in Supply to a mere mockery, so indifferent have Ministers become to discussions in Supply since this Rule has been in operation. It would be just as good if you got an organ man and a monkey, and made him turn his organ for go many hours, at the end of which the Vote would be taken. When Ministers know that the discussion will end by 10 o'clock or 12 o'clock, they know that if they ore in a tight corner they will get out of it
  326
  when the closure falls. One of the strongest objections I have to the operation of this Rule is that its operation has worked, not as the First Lord led us to expect it could be worked, but it has been worked by hopping from Friday to Friday, no matter how important the debate may be, or how eminently desirable it may be that the debate should be continuous. I say the debate on a, great subject is very often rendered utterly futile when it is curtailed by an interval of a fortnight or three weeks. It often happens—
  *MR. SPEAKER: I see that the honourable Member has an Amendment down upon this subject, and I think he will agree with me that, if he proposes to move, he ought not to discuss the same matter now on the main question.
  *MR. DILLON: Then I will not pursue my remarks any further.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Objections have been taken to this Rule of two very different kinds. In the first place one is against the Rule itself, and in the second place objection has been raised as to the manner in which the Rule has been used. Sir, I hope at this time of day it is not necessary for me to deal at length with the first point in a House which I believe from experience has come generally to the conclusion that this Rule ought in one shape or another to be made a permanent part of the Rules of the House. The honourable Member who has just sat down says that under the Rule the criticism of private Members directed against the Government may be slowly and effectually strangled. I take precisely the opposite view of the effect of the Rule. Under the old system the Government had absolute control as to the time at which Supply should be brought on. It was for their interests as legislators, and for their interest, possibly, as the subject of public criticism, that the time of the Estimates should be deferred to a very late period in the year. The result was that Government business was taken early in the Session, while Supply was put off until July, August, or even September, and the criticism which is now, we are told, so futile, in the old time was crammed in after midnight hours on a hot August night. Sir, that

  327
  is not the case with the Rule at present. I agree with the honourable Gentleman in thinking that this House exists, at all events, as much for the purpose of acting as a check and critic upon the Members of the Administration as for legislative purposes, although I confess that I think it comes with an ill grace from, the Members of an Opposition who have spent the last 14 days in moving Amendments to the Address, which chiefly took the form of Votes of Censure, complaining that the Government had not a larger programme than that which it laid before the country. I concur with the view which the honourable Gentleman laid down. But, Sir, what does the present Rule give us in exchange for the extremely inconvenient practice of former times? It gives us an opportunity, week by week, of calling public attention to any matter of importance in which it may be that the Government are failing in their duty. Formerly this valuable privilege of criticism was thrust away into the odd corners of the prolonged Session. Now, they must come on at frequent intervals, at short intervals, and at convenient intervals, and from the point of view of criticism I feel bound to say that I think the Government suffer much more under this Rule than they did under the system before this Rule came into operation. Last year I believe that, including Supplementary Estimates, 33 days or thereabouts were given to Supply—or, at least, that is the calculation which my right honourable Friend near me has hastily made. Now, are these 33 days to be devoted to criticising the Government in a year? If the House really thinks so, I do not wish to say that the present number of days ought not to be extended. I have no desire to escape criticism, nor have any of my colleagues. I confess myself that we have an opportunity once a week, from almost the beginning of the Session to the end, to criticise and call attention to any Government laches, and that is quite as much as any Opposition ought to desire to possess. It is supposed that our memories are so short that we forget the real facts of the case, and it is alleged that under the existing Rule more Votes are disposed of without discussion within a given period than under the old system. But that really is not the case, for there are fewer Votes passed
  328
  without discussion now than was the case formerly under the old system. I believe, on the last day in 1894 of Supply, which was the 20th of August, there were 66 votes outstanding, as against 36 mentioned by the right honourable Gentleman, and those 66 Votes amounted to nearly 22 millions. So that if we look at the substance and reality of things, and not merely at the form and outward show, it is evident that under this system not only is there fair and more convenient criticism than under the old system, not only is there criticism at a much more suitable time of the year, but actually the number of Estimates which pass under the new system without discussion is less than the number of Votes passed without discussion under the old system. Sir, I hope that these few general observations will be quite sufficient to persuade the House, which I do not think requires much persuasion, that we ought not to depart from the practice which is now in operation of setting apart one day a week for Supply. I pass now from the general remarks to the particular complaint that has been made as to the method by which the Supply Rule is worked. Sir, I do not mean to go into the details of the Amendment of the honourable Gentleman, but so far as the Government are concerned, we have not the slightest objection to the days allotted to Irish Supply being taken continuously, but not one request of such a character has ever been made, either by the honourable Gentleman or any of his friends through the Whips, and it never occurred to me that the honourable Gentleman had any wish of that kind. The honourable Member talks of the monstrous tryanny exercised by the Government against the Irish Members. Well, Sir, I will not dwell upon that matter any further except to say that if the honourable Member makes his request for continuous days for the discussion of the Irish Estimates I see no reason why it should not be granted. Now, the right honourable Gentleman opposite has raised rather a different kind of complaint against the manner in which the Rule had been used. He seemed to think that I had been much too weak—I think he calls it good nature, which is a nicer way of putting it —in the manner in which I had allotted

  329
  the days. He said that an unprecedented and an improper amount of time was taken up by the discussion of unimportant Votes, and that great Votes like the Post Office had been thrust off, and had not received adequate discussion. With regard to the Post Office Vote, I would remind the right honourable Gentleman that that Vote came on almost first in the year of 1897, and it was because it came on first in that year, and because it was then fully discussed, that I thought there would be no objection to putting it off rather late in our programme of last year. It has been the view of the House for some time that it is not necessary to repeat criticism on a Public Vote every year when those Votes from year to year are very much the same. The honourable Member talked as if the Government spent the 100 millions of Government Revenue in a manner peculiar to itself, and that there was no opportunity offered for criticising the Vote.
  *MR. DILLON: I fully agree that it is not a question of how the money is spent so much as how the Ministers behave.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Then I understand the honourable Gentleman regards the Estimates as a series of possible Votes of Censure on individual Ministers?
  *MR. DILLON: It is an opportunity of criticising the conduct of the Ministers responsible for the Government of the country.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: If that is the view of the House—
  *MR. DILLON: It is the view of the honourable Member for Bodmin.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: If that really is the view taken by the House—and I think there is a good deal in it—the proper course to take is to put down Amendments to reduce the salaries of Ministers, and give up 21 days to dealing with each Minister in turn. I rather agree with the honourable Gentleman that there is a good deal to be said for this argument, if instead of at the end of the Session spending three or four nights discussing Irish
  330
  Supply, and going over these matters in turn, the Irish Members were to spend that time abusing my right honourable Friend, for everything he had done in Ireland for the last year. That would no doubt be an improvement. My right honourable Friend would be satisfied, and they would be satisfied, and we should get the Vote for Supply through satisfactorily.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEIL: Why, we have not discussed the Chief Secretary since 1896?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I think the honourable Gentleman's memory has rather failed him, as the Irish Estimates are always taken at a time most agreeable to the Irish Members. It must be because my right honourable Friend, probably somewhat to his own surprise, finds that he has not become an object of personal animosity. Of course, I admit that the arrangement of business under this Rule is a matter of great difficulty—in fact, the only great difficulty of carrying it out. I have always had a weakness for a plan which I am afraid the House would not readily agree to, but which I hanker after, and it is that a Committee should allocate the days, and on that Committee the Opposition should be in a majority. I do not, of course, in the least wish to deprive the followers of the Government of the day of legitimate opportunities of criticism, nor do I think they would be deprived of them. But no doubt as the one great object of Supply is to criticise Ministers, we expect—and we always find, in fact—that that criticism comes chiefly from the Opposition Benches. Though I do not think that we have yielded to the temptation which the honourable Gentleman thinks is so overwhelming—namely, of allocating the time so as to escape inconvenient criticism, I confess I should like that the allocation of these days should be left to a Committee, and on that Committee there should be a distinct majority of the Opposition. I only throw that out for the consideration of the House. I know that it is so far an innovation of our established practice, that perhaps it will not receive favour. There is, however, much to be said for it, and, at all events, it would relieve me from the very onerous and rather disagreeable task which

  331
  now devolves upon me. That is only one way of escaping the difficulty. Another was is to make the Rule work smoothly by diminishing, as I think we ought to do, the actual number of Votes to be taken, without interfering in any way with the time to be devoted to them. It is quite unnecessary and most inconvenient, I think, that there should be so many Votes, because what we want is that there should be great blocks of subordinate Votes. Take, say, the Foreign Office Votes, which should be dealt with in connection with the policy of the country abroad, and not fritter away time upon petty details raised by successive Votes. If I carry the House at all with me in this suggestion, it might be very well worth while to see if we cannot diminish the number of Votes, while leaving the time to be devoted to them quite unaltered.
  *SIR H. FOWLER: The Select Committee recommended that.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I should like it to be even more drastic than the Select Committee was. I think they reduced the number about one hundred. That would be a great improvement, and I think something of the kind might very well be carried out. When the right honourable Gentleman opposite tells us that we spent five nights in Supply last year without actually getting a Vote, I agree with him' that that is not a very convenient practice. I have not been able to look back and refresh my memory as to exactly how those five nights were expended, but part of them, I think, were wasted. I was very unwilling to apply a special closure to Votes. When the whole time is limited it goes against the grain to do it. But I am not quite sure that, in the interests of the House as a whole, I ought not to have limited the discussion on some of the important Votes in order to give more time for some of the Votes still to be taken. I will do what I can in that respect to allocate more suitably the time devoted to Supply. But I am sure that part of those five days were spent upon Foreign Office discussions, and the reason no- Vote was taken was that the Leader of the Opposition desired that the salary of the Secretary of State, or whatever was the peg on which the Foreign
  332
  Office discussion was hung, should not be finally disposed of at that time. The result was that the salary of the Secretary of State went over from, Friday to Friday, and whenever any honourable Gentleman wished to raise a discussion as to China or Crete, of course that came in very conveniently for the purpose. At any rate, I am not sure that I was not rather too yielding to the Leader of the Opposition in this matter, and that I should not have said that if there is so much to complain of in the foreign policy of the Government he ought to ask for a day for a Vote of Censure. That would, of course, have been outside the 21 or 23 days, and would have given more time for the discussion. But, after all, I do not think that the business, of this House can be properly carried on unless the Leader' of the House for the time being studies and does his best to meet the views of the Leader of the Opposition for the time being in all questions concerning the criticism to be passed by the Opposition on the Government of the day. Although I am sorry so much of the time of Supply last year was expended in these foreign discussions, and I should have preferred that the time should have been taken by a Vote of Censure, still, I yielded in this matter to the wishes of the then Leader of the Opposition, and I am not seriously repentant that I did my best to meet those wishes. I do not know that there is anything more that I have got to say, except that I will do my best this year, as in other years, to arrange both the order of the topics and the times at which the topics are to be taken so as to suit the greatest body of public opinion in the House. I cannot hope to please everybody—I cannot even hope, perhaps, to please the majority of my critics; but I will do my best, and when any communication on the subject is addressed either to myself or to me through my right honourable Friend (Sir William Walrond) who sits near me, it will, of course, receive the sympathetic attention of the Government. I shall endeavour this year to take early the more important Votes that came late last year, and the House must not criticise me too closely if I take late some of the more important, Votes that were taken early last year. In that way I. hope we shall best meet the wishes of all parties concerned.
  *SIR F. SHARP POWELL: I hope the House will allow me a short space of time to refer to one point in this discussion on the new scheme of procedure. Those who have, as I have had, 20 years' experience of the old system and,' the limited experience of the new method will, I am sure, agree with me that the latter is a most valuable reform. But what my right honourable Friend the Leader of the House must bear in mind is the importance of giving am opportunity for discussing—I do not say every year, but in most years—subjects which are relatively of secondary importance, although they have great effect upon the welfare of the people of this country. The department, to which I wish to refer is the Local Government Board, and on that I think it is desirable that we should have a discussion this Session. That department has1 more intimate relations with the domestic life of the people than any other. There is none which has a more important bearing upon the happiness of the great industrial classes than the Local Government Board. It deals with public health, with the Poor Law administration, and the like, and I am sure that all honourable Members who had the opportunity of being present at the debate which took place yesterday afternoon must have felt how deeply the minds of the public and the mind of this House is devoted to that, most important subject. In the year 1897 the Local Government Board had a most inadequate discussion, and in 1898, so far as I remember, there was no discussion at all. My object, Sir, in rising to>-night is to ask my right honourable Friend the Leader of the House to take care that the Vote on the Local Government Board is taken at such a time and under such circumstances that that most important subject can be debated.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: When first I became a Member of this House private Members had certain rights. At that time we had Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Occasionally a day was taken away from us under exceptional circumstances, but as a matter of bargain, when a day was taken away another day was given to us instead. That was nut an end to after a short time. Then we had an opportunity, on particular questions arising, of moving the Adjournment of the House
  334
  and of discussing it to our hearts' content. That right also was taken a way from us. Then we were able, in going into Committee of Supply, whenever Supply was set up, to move a. Resolution before Mr. Speaker left the Chair. That likewise was taken away, so that we remain without any of these sort of rights. Sir, already, before the limitation of the days of Supply in the House, independent private Members were practically squelched. There remains to us the question of Supply. When we were in Committee and sat late we aired such grievances as we believed our constituents had, and if we did not raise any great questions of policy, at any rate we discussed at some length the minor Votes. I fully admit that we pushed discussion on the minor Votes sometimes too far, but still it was a sound system that all the money voted by this House should be fully discussed by this House. The question is really one of time. We have not the time to do two things—to legislate and criticise expenditure. I do not agree with the honourable Member for East Mayo when ho says that the chief function of the House of Commons is to criticise expenditure. I think it is legislative. I have myself about 20 Bills to bring in when I get the chance, every one of which would benefit, the country. We do legislate, but the time is limited. Well, I have always found that there is a, general feeling in the House at a, certain period of the year that we should all go away, and no man ever resists the feeling. There have been occasions when other honourably Members of the House and I have said that we would die on the floor of the House rather than allow the Session to finish. But we feel we must go away, and the Session almost invariably dies out unless there happens to be some great Bill before the House. The reason why we have not the time is the institution of the Twelve o'clock Rule.
  AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: A very good Rule.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: If my honourable Friend is in favour of it he knows that with that Rule it is impossible to give the Government their share of the time of the House and private Members time to discuss their grievances. What happened when I first entered the House? We had Fridays and we had Supply. Some-

  335
  body generally moved a Resolution in going into Committee of Supply, and the Resolution generally died at nine or ten o'clock. We then came on to the Estimates, when we talked indifferently on every species of subject till three o'clock in the morning, when somebody would suggest that it was getting a little late. A Minister would then get up and say, "Perhaps it is a little late; let us agree to take five or six Votes, and when we have finished them, we can all go home to bed." Under that system, we had the time to talk and to express our views. Our views may have been perfectly unimportant, but we en this side of the House are modest persons; we did not want our eloquence to be wasted on the entire country. It was very much on a question of accounts. When an honourable Member wanted his speech reported the report was sent, down to his constituents, who said, "What a noble fellow he is! but the general public did not care at all for these past midnight speeches. Now, this is all a, question of advantages and disadvantages. I fully admit that there are considerable disadvantages in the present rule, but I am inclined to think that they are outweighed by its advantages. I believe the Rule is for the convenience of the House, and, therefore, I shall vote for it. There are two points on which I should like to have an expression of opinion from the right, honourable Gentleman. One is whether he will put down the salaries of each head of a Department during the 21 days. We can always raise a good deal of discussion on the salary of the Minister at the head of the various Departments, and I do not think these Votes should be passed without an opportunity for discussion. The right honourable Gentleman said that when the Leader of the Opposition approached him he would be willing to give a day to the discussion of some important matter, but I should like to Bay that it sometimes occurs that a number of Members of this House want a day when the Leader of the Opposition does not particularly want one. I do not think this ought to be such a very happy family arrangement between the two Front Benches. What I contend is that if 50 or 60 Members want a day to discuss a matter of real importance, it ought to be granted independently of
  336
  any arrangement between the two Front Benches.
  MR. SETON-KARR: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a word or two on the principle of this-Order. I do not agree with the views which have been expressed by the honourable Member for East Mayo and the honourable Member for Northampton. The honourable Member for East Mayo-said that Ireland had not had her fair share of the time of the House. I contend that Ireland has had a great deal more than her fair share. The honourable Member for Northampton said he was in favour of private Members' legislation. While I desire to oppose any curtailment of the time of private Members for discussion, I am altogether opposed to any further facilities1 being given for private Members' legislation in this House. I hope no opportunities will be given to the honourable Member for Northampton at any time to bring in the 20 Bills which he says he is ready to introduce. I have always looked upon this Rule as to Supply with suspicion, and although I listened very attentively to the remarks of the right, honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House, I must say he has not altogether dispelled that suspicion. I am willing to acquiesce in the Order because the present Government, with whom I absolutely agree, are in power, but I do think that if ever we get a Radical Government in office again, this Rule may be put to a very different use. It is quite possible, also, that the honourable Member for East Major may, under those circumstances, make a very different speech to the one he has made this afternoon. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton has said that this Rule is too weak. I protest against it being made any stronger. I shall always look with a great deal of suspicion on any agreement between the two Front Benches with regard to the exercise of the rights of private Members. There are a great many weapons in the hands of the Government which they have used during the past 10 or 15 years, and which have almost extinguished the rights of private Members. For instance, there is the suspension of the 12 o'clock Rule.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I should like to remind the honourable Member that the

  337
  Question before the House is not the time private Members are entitled to occupy, but that of the time to be given to Supply.
  MR. SETON-KAER: I bow to your ruling, Sir. The point of my argument is that the Government, under this Rule, have a great deal of power, which ought not to be increased. I would suggest that the Government should so frame their legislative programme — at any rate, up to Whitsuntide—that they would not be compelled, by the size of that programme, to take away the Tuesdays of private Members. I hope this Rule will remain a merely Sessional Order, and will never become a Standing Order.
  MR. DALZIEL: Mr. Speaker, I desire to associate myself with the honourable Member for East Mayo in his objection to this Rule being adopted as a permanent part of the procedure' of this House. It is evident, after the declaration of the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, that if the Rule is agreed to it will become part and parcel of the Standing Orders of the House. This Motion was first brought forward as an experiment immediately the present Government came into office. So far as I was concerned, bearing in mind the very prolonged addresses we had in the last Parliament with regard to certain Votes, I agreed that any reasonable reform in the direction of the limitation of the Debates on Supply would be acceptable, but experience has proved that the Rule is a bad one. The right honourable Gentleman to-night quoted the year 1894, and said that in that Session Votes of many millions were passed in a particular night. In 1894 we were practically on the eve of a General Election. We had made up our minds that the General Election was at hand, and there was a tacit understanding on both sides of the House that we should finish the Session as soon as possible. Consequently, the Votes were allowed to go without practically any discussion, and that year is, therefore, no criterion to go upon as to the amount of discussion that was necessary under the old Rules. I object to this Rule because it has resulted in many important Votes not being discussed at all. I submit that it
  338
  is a very bad state of things when you have the Votes of huge Departments, with enormous staffs, going through year after year without the slightest opportunity being given for discussion. Any Rule which allows, as this one does, nine and a half millions of money to be voted in a quarter of an hour, without any discussion, is a bad Rule. What did we do last year? We passed £8,000 for the House of Lords without a single word of discussion. We passed £17,000 for the Officers of this House without the possibility of asking- a question. We passed £59,000 for the Treasury, and not a single opportunity was given for criticism. We also passed £29,000 for the Colonies, £7,000 for the Privy Council, and £129,000 for the Board of Trade, one of the most important Departments in the State, and presided over, we are willing to admit, by a very excellent President. But, however good the President may be, we ought to retain the power of asking questions upon the Vote and discussing the work of this great Department. Every branch of industry comes under the Board of Trade, and yet we passed £129,000 last year without the possibility of any discussion whatever. I contend that a Rule which brings about that result is not a successful Rule. If it had been possible under this Rule for the Votes of every important Department to have been discussed, the right honourable Gentleman, would be justified in saying the Rule had proved a success and in asking us to support it. But as it is, we miss two or three very important Departments every year, and I contend that that is an argument against the operation of the present Ride. My object in rising is to ask the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House to say whether or not the operation of the Rule up to the present time does not justify an extension of the number of da3rs to be allotted to Supply. It is proposed to allot, 20 days, with the option of another three, but in view of the fact that there are many important Departments which We have been unable to discuss at all, I think the right honourable Gentleman might with advantage extend the number of days to 25, with three extra.
  MR. COURTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the honourable Member who has just sat down in the ex-

  339
  pectation that the Resolution we are now discussing has come to stay, and I think we are spending time uselessly in raising opposition to it. The honourable Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs, like the honourable Member for East Mayo, appears to forget the inexorable conditions of Parliamentary business and the facts in relation to Supply before the Rule was adopted. Large Votes were then, as now, passed without discussion, and night after night, as a compromise, what were called non-contentious Votes were allowed to pass unchallenged, and these Votes accumulated and made a very substantial sum in the Session. In respect to the Post Office Vote, which has been referred to, I remember perfectly well that Vote, at the time Mr. Fawcett was Postmaster-General, going through in five minutes. In spite of the observation of the honourable Member for East Mayo that the primary work of the House is to watch the administration of the Government, and that legislation should be a secondary matter, there will always be a necessity for legislation, which cannot be avoided, and which will occupy a considerable part of our time. The fact must be faced that within the limits of an ordinary Session only a certain proportion of time can be given to Supply. Experience of the last three years shows that there has been more discussion of Votes in Supply than formerly, though there has been a habit of discussing Votes and delaying passing them, so that in the end there is a large accumulation of Votes submitted to closure. To the suggestion of the right honourable Gentleman, the First Lord of the Treasury for dividing Votes into classes and getting a certain number of days allotted to each class, there is the grave objection that it will destroy an often useful elasticity in arrangement of business. Experience of the Rule shows that, though it has produced better discussion in respect of time, it has tended to1 produce more negligent discussion. Formerly Ministers: had a hard time, and were severely worried night after night and far into the morning in the endeavour to get Supply voted, but now they have no trouble at all, and Members, too, will probably admit that they have now lost the zest and pleasure they used to feel in worrying Ministers, and sometimes in obtaining concessions they are now slow to receive. The offer of the First Lord of
  340
  the Treasury of a Committee on which the Opposition shall be in majority is a self-sacrificing offer, but it is also an illustration of the truth that the business of Supply is no longer a worry to Ministers. The proposal, though it will be an interesting experiment, does not appear to ma to promise success in giving a fair allotment of time to every section of opinion, and I would suggest the appointment of a small Committee, who could work out a solution of the problem.
  MR. BARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I have always been a strong supporter of the rights of private Members, and I certainly think the general spirit of this Sessional Order in allocating Fridays will give private Members a, chance of speaking and of bringing questions up which they otherwise would not have. I listened with some apprehension to the remarks of the Leader of the House, and I fear that under the Committee scheme which he suggests those Members who' are independent supporters of the Government will be in a position rather worse than now. I think that, in arranging the allocation of time for the Estimates, the right honourable Gentleman should certainly bear in mind that a great number of his own followers require time, which is not very often accorded to them, while it is given at once to the Opposition. I hope that in any fresh arrangements private Members on this side of the House will have their fair share of time allotted them.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Line 4, leave out 'Friday' and insert 'Tuesday' instead thereof."—(Mr. Beckett.)
  MR. BECKETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move this Amendment on behalf of my honourable Friend the Member for the Egremont Division of Cumberland, with the object of fixing Tuesday as the day on which Supply should be taken instead of Friday. This Amendment is a very innocent one, and I think the arrangement it suggests would be found to be a very substantial gain from the point of view of the general convenience of the House. In spite of what has been said against the Rules now in force, I think the changes which have been introduced of late years by the right honourable Gentleman the

  341
  First Lord of the Treasury have proved most successful, and the Amendment I now propose would give greater freedom to honourable Members at the end of the week when their freedom could be more usefully employed. I was reading just now the admirable speech delivered by the First Lord of the Treasury when he introduced these Rules, and in that speech he said that the end he had in view was to improve the discussions on Supply. That improvement has certainly been realised to some extent, but under the change which I now propose it will be realised to a greater extent. It has been said that Supply is the main business of the House, and that it is imperative upon the Government Whips to keep a majority which must be of sufficient importance to enable them to apply the closure if they see fit to do so. Surely it would be easier for the Government Whips to keep a majority in the House on Tuesdays than on Fridays, when everyone is anxious to get away. It is said that under the arrangement which I propose "counts out" would be more frequent. Well, that is possible, but I do not think it would be an unmixed evil. It would be welcomed, certainly, by Ministers, Secretaries, and other hardworking Members of this House, and Parliamentary officials. I now come to the only serious objection to the proposed change, and that is that when it is necessary to divide on a mischievous Motion the Government might find it difficult to keep a sufficient number of Members in the House on Fridays. Honourable Members on the other side of the House will be as anxious to get away as honourable Members on this side, and in the event of a dangerous Motion the Government would have less difficulty, in my opinion, in keeping a majority than a private Member. The Government Whips can always make sure of a majority, and they need have no greater apprehension of being defeated on a Friday than on a Tuesday. When the Government takes the whole time of the House, the change which I suggest in the Rule will make no difference; but until then the alteration will prove of immense convenience, especially to those Members whose homes and constituencies lie far away from London. Under the proposed change honourable Members would practically have from midnight on Thursday till
  342
  four o'clock on Monday at their own disposal or at the disposal of their constituents. When the Government business, which requires the attendance of honourable Members, is taken together, instead of being scattered over the week, it will be easier to secure regular attendance. The objections to this proposal are not strong and the advantages are great, and I hope the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury will be able to see his way to embody it in his Resolution.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Mr. Speaker, I rise to second the Amendment because I think the matter is worthy of the consideration of the House and of the right honourable Gentleman. It would be better to take the business of Supply on Tuesdays, as you would be more likely to get a good attendance of Members on that day than on Friday. I imagine, however, that it is impossible for the First Lord of the Treasury to accept this proposal now, as it would involve, certain changes in the Standing Orders which could not at the present time be made. This is a matter which cannot be decided to-day, but which will have to be kept over till next Session.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: As my honourable Friend has just pointed out to the House, it will be impossible under any circumstances to accept this Amendment, because it will involve consequential Amendments in the Standing Orders. For my own part, I am, quite ready to admit that there is a good deal to be said for the plan. I am not quite sure that I think Tuesday ought to be given for Supply. I should prefer to say that the most promising way of distributing the week would be to have Monday and Tuesday for Bills, Thursday for Supply, and Friday for private Members. The reason I say that is that now, if an important Bill is introduced on a Monday and Tuesday for Bills, Thursday course that private Members must be deprived of their Tuesday. If, under the arrangement I have indicated, two days prove insufficient for the discussion of a Bill, no private Member can complain if Friday is also taken in order to finish the Debate. I therefore do think there is a good deal to be said for some change of the kind proposed, and that the existing

  343
  system by which the Government, unless they interfere with private Members, are restricted to Monday and Thursday for their Bills, is not convenient for the continuous discussion of important matters. I hope, in the meantime, my honourable Friend will not press his Amendment. If honourable Gentlemen will think over the suggestion it might be possible, should it meet with general approval, to' introduce this modification into the Sessional Order nest Session, together with the consequential changes.
  Question proposed—"That the word 'Friday' stand part of the Question."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Line 8, leave out 'twenty' and insert 'twenty-three'"—(Mr. Dalziel.)
  MR. DALZIEL: My object in moving this Amendment is to secure that 23 days instead of 20 days should be allotted to the consideration of Supply before August 5th, and I think a case has been made out for this extension. We have had evidence, in the first place, of the enormous number of Departments the Votes of which it has been impossible to discuss. I also desire to ask the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consent to the appointment of a, Select Committee in reference to this matter, because I think a case for inquiry has been made out.
  *MR. DILLON: I beg to second the Amendment, which is substantially the same as the one standing in my name.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I understand that the desire of the honourable Gentleman is to make the minimum 23 days and the maximum 26 days, instead of 20 days and 23 days respectively, as proposed. I confess I do not think a case has been made out for that change. Looking at the statistics, I find that last Session we devoted 31 days to Supply, including the Supplementary Estimates, and not 33 days, as he stated in the earlier part of the evening. The average number of days devoted to Supply from 1888 to 1894 was less than 31 days—it was 30 days and a fraction. I do not think a case has been made out for increasing the number of days. The honourable Member asked whether I would assent to the appointment of a Select Committee. I have not the slightest objection to a Select Committee, except that it will throw a great deal of work on the members of the Committee, who have other work to do, and I doubt whether any fact will be elicited with which the House is not already acquainted. I will, however, consider the matter.
  Question pat—"That the word 'twenty' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 246; Noes 92.—(Division List No. 16.)

  AYES.

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Brown, Alexander H.

  Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.

  Asher, Alexander

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Crombie, John William

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert H.

  Burt, Thomas

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Butcher, John George

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Bagot, Captain J. FitzRoy

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Caldwell, James

  Curzon, Viscount

  Baird, John G. Alexander

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Dalbiac, Col. Philip Hugh

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

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

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

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

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

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Denny, Colonel

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Beach, Rt Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Drucker, A.

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Egerton, Hon. A. E. Tatton

  Bethell, Commander

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas

  Bigwood, James

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Ellis, Thos, Ed. (Merionethsh.)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Colston, Chas. Edwd. H. Athole

  Evershed, Sydney

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Colville, John

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Mnc'r)

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Kemp, George

  Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

  Finch, George H.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Kenyon, James

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Kenyon-Slaney, Colonel Wm.

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Keswick, William

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Fison, William Frederick

  Kimber, Henry

  Rutherford, John

  Fitzgerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Kitson, Sir James

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Knowles, Lees

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Lafone, Alfred

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Fry, Lewis

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. Edw. H.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.

  Garfit, William

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Gedge, Sydney

  Leighton, Stanley

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Leng, Sir John

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond

  Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset)

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

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swansea

  Souttar, Robinson

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Spencer, Ernest

  Gold, Charles

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Long, Rt.Hn. Walter(Liverpool

  Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Lowles, John

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

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

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Strauss, Arthur

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

  M'Killop, James

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Valentia, Viscount

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Milton, Viscount

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Hardy, Laurence

  Monk, Charles James

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

  Hatch, Ernest Fredk. Geo.

  Morley, Rt Hn. John (Montrose

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

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Heath, James

  Morrison, Walter

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptfd.

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton-under-L.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Henderson, Alexander

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

  Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm.

  Hill, Sir Edw. Stock (Bristol)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Wills, Sir William Henry

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Pease, Herbt. Pike(Darlington

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

  Houston, R. P.

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

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

  Howell, William Tudor

  Pilkington, Richard

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

  Hozier, Hn. Jas. Henry Cecil

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wyndham, George

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Plunkett, Rt Hn Horace Curzon

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Priestley, Sir W. Overend (Edin.

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Purvis, Robert

  Sir William Walrond and

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  NOES.

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

  Cawley, Frederick

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Harwood, George

  Allison, Robert Andrew

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

  Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Holden, Sir Angus

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Commins, Andrew

  Joicey, Sir James

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Birrell, Augustine

  Daly, James

  Kilbride, Denis

  Blake, Edward

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Davitt, Michael

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid(Cumb'rlnd

  Burns, John

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow)

  Duckworth, James

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lloyd-George, David

  346

  347

  Lough, Thomas

  O'Kelly, James

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

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham

  Tennant, Harold John

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Price, Robert John

  Warner, Thos. Courtenty T.

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Maddison, Fred.

  Roberts, JohnH. (Denbighs.)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Maden, John Henry

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

  Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

  Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Scott, C. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Woods, Samuel

  Morley, Chas. (Breconshire)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Spicer, Albert

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Steadman, William Charles

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

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

  Strachey, Edward

  Mr. Dalziel and Mr. Dillon.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Main Question put, and agreed to.

  Another Amendment proposed, in line 17, after the word "August," to insert the words,—
  "Provided always that this Rule shall not be interpreted to mean that Supply may not be taken on consecutive days when a continuous Debate may appear desirable, or the convenience of any considerable number of Members requires such procedure."—(Mr. Dillon.)
  *MR DILLON: I am disposed, after what has been said by the First Lord of the Treasury earlier in the evening, not to press this Amendment. The object of it is to confine the interpretation of the Rule so as to provide against a very great abuse1—namely, that it seems to be getting the practice in the case of an important debate, either in connection with the Foreign Office or the Colonial Office—and there are so many burning questions which are likely to arise within the next few years—that we are always compelled to cut short Irish debates on Fridays, with the absolute uncertainty as to when that debate will be resumed. We all know that in a large debate it is absolutely destructive, and renders it utterly futile, if it is cut off very often when it has reached the most acute point of interest, without any consideration for those taking part in the debate, and adjourned to some distant day. All I want in this Amendment is that the Rule shall not be interpreted in that sense. Earlier in the evening the First Lord said that there was nothing in the Rule or in the practice, so far as he understood, to preclude us from having for Irish Supply several continuous days. Well, if that is true of Irish matters, I suppose it is true in connection with the Foreign Office or the Colonial Office, if
  348
  the circumstances of the debate demand it. I beg formally to move this Amendment.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The honourable Gentleman is perfectly right in supposing that there in nothing in the Rule as it stands which would preclude two or more consecutive days being devoted to one Vote, and I do not deny that the circumstances might arise when such a continuous discussion, would be desirable. I must say that I do not contemplate discussion in Committee of Supply occupying more than a single night, although the continuous discussion contemplated by the honourable Gentleman is a possible one. In the case brought forward—namely, that Irish Supply should have three consecutive days devoted to it for the Irish Members—that, I think, is not only perfectly possible, but also desirable. If that is for the convenience of Irish Members, and if such a request is advanced from the honourable Members from Ireland, it shall have the fullest consideration from the Government.
  *MR. DILLON: Under the circumstances I shall not pursue my Amendment, because it was only a question of degree. It is, under ordinary circumstances, I know, the custom, that one vote of Supply should not take more than one night, but some great question having arisen, and it being recognised that the debate cannot be completed in one night, it would be far better that it should be continued on the next Monday than on some uncertain date.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Another Amendment proposed, in line 20, after the word "Supply," to insert the words—
  "Except the Votes for Departments which have power to issue Orders or Regulations having statutory effect without being laid for the usual period on the Table of this House for confirmation."—(Dr. Clark.)
  DR. CLARK: After what has fallen from the right honourable Gentleman I will not press my Amendment, otherwise I should have done. It is clear that under the present system the Votes of certain Departments cannot be discussed. Now, there are two classes of Votes: there are Votes where it is merely a question of administration, and others where it is a question of legislation. As far as the custom is concerned, the Votes may be required to be finished without discussion. But there are certain Departments which are not only administrative but they are also legislative, and under the old condition of things those rules or regulations of those particular Departments required their proposals to lie on the table of the House for 40 days, and we had an opportunity of considering them before they became Acts of Parliament, and before they came into operation. Now a number of Departments have got power to make Orders without laying them on the Table at all, and during the last two years we have been unable to discuss, not only Acts of administration, but also Acts of legislation brought in by certain Departments. Last year we had the Vote for the Local Government Board, and we had to press certain Members not to move their Amendments, and not to discuss their Votes, in order to consider the legislation of the Local Government Board. There was one Act promoting certain things which gave the Local Government Board power to determine the method of carrying out the Act. The same thing was done the year before by the Board of Agriculture. The Votes of this Department gave the Board power to make Orders and Regulations—in fact, an Act of Parliament—which did not lie on the table of this House and which could not be considered by honourable Members. We have given the Board of Trade also power, practically, to give concessions in private Bills affecting railway companies, and we are now having it
  350
  proposed to give the Scotch Secretary power, without coming to this House, and, in fact, without this House knowing anything at all about it, to grant private Bills. Under the present conditions, it was quite possible for the Scotch Secretary to grant those concessions on condition that he was appointed a director afterwards. All those Departments which can make laws without the sanction of Parliament, and which, without discussion, perform acts of administration as well as legislation, will be affected by this Amendment. This is only one of the very many important questions that have arisen which ought to be threshed out by a Select Committee before this system is adopted finally, and if the right, honourable Gentleman will give me a pledge that we shall not have the same trouble at the end of this year as we had last year on the Local Government Board and the Board of Agriculture Votes, and that all those Boards which have power to issue Orders which will have statutory effect—if he will give me an assurance that such Votes shall be considered, I shall be perfectly content not to move my Amendment at the present time.
  MR. WEIR: I beg leave to second this Amendment.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Sir, I understand that the point of the honourable Gentleman is this: Certain Departments under our existing system have issued Regulations which, have come into force, and which did not lie on the Table of the House, and, therefore, there was not an opportunity allotted for their criticism, I think, however, most of the Regulations and Orders referred to by the honourable Member were of a non-contentious character. I hope it will meet the honourable Gentleman's view if I say that should it come to my knowledge that my Department, has issued Orders, calculated to arouse public, feeling or calling for public criticism, I should certainly regard it as a very good reason for putting that Vote down at such a time that it could be adequately discussed. But as I said before, most of these Regulations are

  351
  of a non-contentious character, and no one could desire their discussion in this House. But when exceptional cases occur they might be treated exceptionally, and if ever such cases occur, I hope to be able to give sufficient opportunity for their full discussion upon the Estimates.
  DR. CLARK: Do I take that as an un-understanding that the Votes of these Departments will come on before the last days?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I quite agree that if any Department asks for any powers in which public feeling is aroused they ought to be discussed, but if they are merely non-contentious subjects, I do not think it matters.
  DR. CLARK: Then I will withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Ordered, That, so soon as the Committee of Supply has been appointed and Estimates have been presented, the Business of Supply shall (until it be disposed of) be the first Order of the Day on Friday, unless the House otherwise order on the Motion of a Minister of the Crown moved at the commencement of Public Business to be decided without Amendment or Debate; and the provisions of Standing Order No. 56 shall be extended to Friday.
  Not more than 20 days, being days before the 5th August, on which the Speaker leaves the Chair for the Committee of Supply without Question put, counting from the first day on which the Speaker so left the Chair under Standing Order No. 56, shall be allotted for the consideration of the Annual Estimates for the Army, Navy, and Civil Services, including Votes on Account, the Business of Supply standing first Order on every such day.
  Provided always, that on Motion made after Notice by a Minister of the Crown to be decided without Amendment or Debate, additional time, not exceeding three days, may be allotted for the Business of Supply, either before or after the 5th of August.
  On the last but one of the allotted days, at Ten o'clock p.m., the Chairman shall proceed to put forthwith every Question necessary to dispose of the outstanding Votes in Committee of Supply; and on the last, not being earlier than the twentieth of the allotted days, the Speaker shall, at Ten o'clock p.m., proceed to put forthwith every Question necessary to complete the outstanding Reports of Supply.
  On the days appointed for concluding the Business of Supply, the consideration of such business shall not be anticipated by a Motion of Adjournment under Standing Order No. 17; nor may any dilatory Motion be moved on such proceedings; nor shall they be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.
  Provided always that any Additional Estimate for any new service or matter, not included in the original Estimates for the year, shall be submitted for consideration in the Committee of Supply on any day not later than two days before the Committee is closed.
  Provided also that the days occupied by the consideration of Estimates supplementary to those of a previous Session, or of any Vote of Credit, shall not be included in the computation of the 20 days. Provided also that two Morning Sittings shall be deemed equivalent to one Three o'clock Sitting.

LONDON GOVERNMENT.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Mr. Speaker, the Bill which I rise to introduce is intended to complete, as far as may be, the edifice of Local Government for the metropolitan area, which was commenced and carried very far in the Bill of my right honourable Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Ritchie). The whole history of municipal government in London is, I think, one of the most interesting and curious studies in the development of political institutions with which I am acquainted. It seems hardly credible, but it is nevertheless the fact, that prior to 1855—that is to say, prior to a period well within the recollections of many honourable Gentlemen to whom I am

353
now speaking—there really was no organised attempt made by Parliament to confer urban organisation upon the great metropolitan area. At that time, when that Bill was passed, London already had a population of 2,500,000, and for more than two centuries had been the largest city in Europe. And yet before the date of which I speak, before 1855, the organisation of London—if it can be called organisation—was in the main left to a series of local Bills, passed very much at haphazard, and, apart from those local Bills, depended upon the local organisation of the vestry, which was the same for the most thinly-populated parish in the moors of Yorkshire as it was for the crowded streets of the metropolis of the Empire. Sir, though it is true that there was no organised attempt to provide municipal government for London, nevertheless, in the inchoate condition of things which existed before 1855, the very necessities of the case had brought into being the germs of two institutions, two sets of institutions, two kinds of institutions, which are, I think, necessary to the government of London, and certainly find their place in every organised attempt to govern London, and which, I think, must always be an essential part of the government of London. There was some kind of central authority dealing with matters common to the whole of the metropolis, and some kind of local authority dealing with matters which could not with advantage or with propriety' be confided to the care of any central body which had so vast an area under its control. Well, Sir, the central authority before 1855 was the Commissioners of Sewers. The local authorities were the products of those various local Acts of which I have been speaking. But in 1855 a considerable development upon those lines took place. The heir-at-law of the Commissioners of Sewers was the Metropolitan Board of Works, and in place of those areas constituted by the various local Acts of which I have spoken—in place of those were established administrative vestries, or groups of parishes forming district boards, which had conferred upon them the same powers which the administrative vestries were endowed with. So that after 1855 the constitution of London was of this kind: There were administrative vestries, of which the governing body was directly elected;
354
there were groups of parishes, of which the governing body was indirectly elected; and there was the Metropolitan Board of Works, itself the product of a double election, in so far as it was elected by representatives of the administrative vestries, and there was a treble election in so far as it was elected by the groups of parishes or district boards. And, Sir, that reform was a very great reform, and is practically the germ of everything which has been done since. But that must not blind our eyes to the greatness of the change introduced by my right honourable Friend in the Bill of 1888. The Bill of my right honourable Friend in 1888 may be said to have done two things. It handed over to the London County Council the administrative work done by the three Quarter Sessions of Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent, and it made the central authority no longer the product of double or treble election, but directly representative of the metropolitan ratepayers. And, Sir, I confess that that change was so much in consonance with the traditions of English municipal government that it is likely to be permanent, and, whether it works ill or whether it works well, is likely for all time to represent the central body, dealing with those matters in which all the parts of the metropolis are alike interested, and which cannot possibly be dealt with piecemeal by the various subordinate and local authorities which rule over the subordinate and smaller areas. Now, Sir, while my right honourable Friend may be said to have settled on a broad and solid basis the constitution of this central authority, he left practically untouched the vestries and district boards which have subsisted since the Bill of 1855 called them into being. Nor have those boards, nor have those authorities, practically changed since the Bill of 1855. I think the Bill of the right honourable Gentleman opposite slightly altered the franchise.
SIR C. DILKE: Absolutely.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Well, absolutely altered the franchise.
SIR C. DILKE: And altered the qualification.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes, and the qualification, and

355
certain additional powers have from time to time been given. Broadly speaking, the administrative vestry and the district board exist now as they were framed in 1855, and slightly modified, I think, in 1856, by a second Bill. It is with these administrative vestries and district boards that the present Bill proposes to deal. It is with the subordinate areas, not with the central area, that we are now concerned. I may say at once, in order to save further explanation at a later stage of my exposition, that we do not propose to touch the organisation of the City of London. The City of London is already a highly organised local authority. It already possesses the dignity which we desire to increase in the case of the vestries, and to give to the new authorities we propose to create, and, therefore, it naturally falls outside the scope of this Measure, and, except in one single minor particular, which I shall not trouble the House with at this stage of our proceedings, it may be said to' be altogether outside the scope of the Measure. Well, Sir, we are, therefore, engaged with that part of the administrative County of London which lies outside the City, and the first question is, Are we to deal with this vast area at once, and by one Measure, or piecemeal? Are we, in other words, to divide it by an Act of Parliament or by the immediate consequences of an Act of Parliament, into a series of areas each endowed with the same powers, constitution, and government; or are we to proceed more gradually and more tentatively, as we do proceed usually in the case of boroughs called into existence outside London—to wait, that is to say, for the application of the locality itself, to have an examination into its needs and into its proposals by the Privy Council, and give each locality in turn as it applies, by charter, the powers which it desires, or which it is thought right it should possess? There is a good deal to be said for that proposal, Sir, and at one time, I confess, I rather inclined towards adopting it; but, on the whole, we have determined that, by the appointed day, it would be desirable that all London should be divided into areas for Local Government, and that every area should be simultaneously provided with all the necessary machinery for government of its local affairs. If there was no other ground for that decision than the fact
356
that it is almost impossible to settle the areas piecemeal, because you would not know what other areas, are going to be called into existence—if there was no other reason but that, that reason is, perhaps, by itself sufficient. I ought to add that almost every authority I have consulted who is practically acquainted with the administrative work of London government has taken the view which is now embodied in the Bill which I propose to introduce. Well, Sir, that being decided, then, that the whole area of London outside the City shall be divided into areas to be called into existence, to be supplied by the appointed day with their proper organisation, the question which next arises is, how these areas are to be determined upon. Now, there are three possible courses open. We might fix all the areas in the Bill; we might leave all the areas to be determined by a Commission; or we might adopt a Commission, with power to hear what the various persons interested have to say; or we might adopt a combination of those two courses, schedule some areas as obviously fitted, as they now stand, for the additional powers which we propose to give them, leaving the more doubtful districts—the districts where it is not obvious what the area should be— to be determined, after a careful hearing, by Commissioners to be appointed. Well, Sir, we have determined to adopt the last of these three courses. We propose to schedule a certain number of areas in the Bill. We propose to leave the other areas for subsequent determination—a determination which must, of course, take place before the appointed day. I am well aware that there is probably no more ticklish question to be dealt with in this Bill than this question of areas. It invariably arouses jealousies, feelings, local passions, and local rivalries in a way which has proved very embarrassing to every Government which has endeavoured to deal with the complexity of our existing local areas, and which has, I am afraid, stood in the way of many important and useful reforms. But I hops, by adopting the plan which I have sketched to the House, we shall at all events avoid a great deal of that feeling and friction which it has been so difficult to deal with in the past. I do not know whether the House will desire me at this stage to read out the list of areas which, as the Bill

357
is drafted, will appear in the schedule, and will therefore, with no more than comparatively small modification of boundaries, be regarded as areas under this Bill of future municipal government. The following areas are at present under the administration of vestries known as Schedule A vestries, and these will be scheduled in our Bill as areas for municipal government. All that I am going to read now are separate areas. All in the first list are taken from existing areas, but they do not cover the ground of existing areas. I will read them in alphabetical order: Battersea, Camberwell, Chelsea, Fulham, Hammersmith, Hampstead, Islington, Kensington, Lambeth, Lewisham, Paddington, St. Marylebone, and St. Pancras. The areas now under district boards which, I think, are ripe to be introduced at once unmodified into this Bill are only two Poplar and Wandsworth. Then there is one other area which is neither one of the administrative vestries nor one of the existing district boards which I have introduced into the schedule, and it is what I may describe as the Larger Westminister. The existing vestry of Westminster is, as the House knows, but a small fragment of the ancient city of Westminster, and the ancient city of Westminster, though it never had municipal organisation, has played a great part in English history, and is, I think, worthy of being reconstructed and given a great municipal constitution. Though I am well aware it is quite impossible to make a change of such magnitude without offending some susceptibilities and injuring some interests, I am still of opinion that the reconstitution of a great area like the Greater Westminster and the conferring on that area a municipal organisation will be of incalculable benefit, not merely to the area of Westminster so dealt with, but to the whole dignity and authority of the new municipal institutions themselves. I hope, therefore, the House will consent to support me in adding this new area, without detailed local examination, to the other areas which already exist, and of which, I think, we may safely say they are now fit, without important change, to be added to the list of our great municipalities. The Larger Westminster embraces the vestries of St. Margaret's, St. John, St. George's, Han-
358
over Square, St. James's, St. Martin's and the Strand District Board.
MR. BUXTON: Will the right honourable Gentleman state what is the population of Greater Westminster?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: It is, I think, about 200,000 with a rateable value of £5,000,000. The question of areas being dealt with as I have described, the next problem which meets us is the constitution that is to be given to the governing bodies in these areas. We propose that that constitution shall be practically identical with the constitution which our great municipal boroughs already possess. It is true that the Bill does not proceed by adopting the Municipal Corporations Act. We do not work on the Municipal Corporations Act. It is not convenient so to do; it would make the Bill longer and more complicated, and it would have this particular and special defect. The franchise of the existing London local authorities is not the same as the franchise of our existing boroughs. In addition to the ratepayer and to the rate-paying man and the rate-paying woman, there is in our vestries a franchise for the occupier and a franchise for the lodger. If, therefore, we were to adopt the Municipal Corporations Act as the Act governing our procedure in regard to these new institutions, we should have to begin either by a disfranchising proceeding or make very complicated exceptions, which in themselves are quite unnecessary if we adopt the alternative method of using as our basis the Metropolis Management Act. I am quite sure the House would be reluctant now, as it always has been, to adopt any measure of disfranchisement. Without the least discussing whether the borough or the parochial franchise would be the best franchise—I, personally, prefer the parochial—we find one in existence and not the other, and we cannot change it in this Bill. At all events, we cannot change the wide and substitute the narrow franchise. We are, therefore, practically bound by convenience not to take the Municipal Corporations Act as our basis, but to proceed on the basis of the Metropolis Management Act. But, although we proceed on that basis, there is really no difficulty in basing upon that Act

359
a constitution practically identical with that which now exists in the boroughs, and that is what we propose to do. We propose that there should be mayor, councillors, and aldermen, and we propose that the aldermen should bean the same proportion to the councillors as they do in municipal boroughs, and should be elected in the same manner and hold office for the same term of years. We even propose that the elections should not be as they are now, in May, but that they should be, like other municipal elections, on November 9. I am perfectly well aware that there is an objection felt in some quarters to instituting aldermen in these new municipalities. But on the whole, though with some exceptions, I am inclined to think that the institution of aldermen has worked well in other boroughs. It certainly adds dignity to the councils; it certainly constitutes an office of honourable ambition, though honourable Gentlemen opposite seem not to think so. It constitutes an office of honourable ambition which may be well sought for by persons interested in local affairs, and it enables those who have, as councillors, shown their competence to deal with and their interest in local affairs to retain practically for life, without the constant labour of triennial elections, the important offices which their colleagues have bestowed upon them. On the whole, therefore, we have come to the conclusion that the new municipal institutions we mean to found shall not merely consist of mayor and councillors, but also of aldermen. I now come to a proposal which I think at first sight has a great deal to recommend it; the proposal, I mean, that these new municipalities should, in some wav or other, by their constitution, be linked with the central authority, the London County Council.
MR. COURTNEY: Are the councillors to be elected triennially?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes; one-third annually.
MR. LOUGH: Are the aldermen to be for life?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, no. The aldermen will be appointed on exactly the same
360
system as in boroughs, but practically I am informed that an alderman who shows his thorough competence goes on from term to term so long as he wishes to serve his borough. The next point to take up for consideration is whether these new municipalities should be linked by any machinery to the central authority, namely, the County Council; whether by the fact that the mayor should be an ex officio alderman of the County Council, or by some other similar machinery. At first sight I confess I think the suggestion is tempting. The London County Council and these great municipalities—for great municipalities they will be—have to deal with the interests of the same population, and it seemed natural and plausible that there should be an official bond between them. On the whole, after giving the matter our most careful consideration, the Government have determined to reject this plan; and they have really determined to reject it, not in the interest of the London County Council, but in the interest of the new municipalities. I may say that, apart from the point of view which I shall come to directly, it would be a revival to a certain extent of the principle adopted, tried, and finally rejected, in the case of the Metropolitan Board of Works. It would introduce into the London County Council an element of secondary election, and although I think that there are many cases in which secondary election works extremely well, still it has not a very good record behind it in the case of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and on that account alone it would excite, not unnaturally, prejudice in the minds of the London ratepayers. But that is comparatively unimportant. The, reason why I am unwilling to adopt this plan is that, in the first place, it would inevitably drag those councils into the political vortex in which the London County Council appears to flourish.
AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Whose fault is it?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The fact that, owing to the manner in which the London County Council is elected, political interests intervene, after all, only brings it into line with the great mass of the municipal boroughs in the country.

361
I do not know whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, but I confess my own inclination is that it is a bad thing. Personally, I prefer the non-political atmosphere which the county councils of most of our counties have succeeded hitherto in maintaining. But whether that be so or not, at present I think it would be a great pity to dedicate these new boroughs from their very birth to their political future, so that their election would have a direct effect on the constitution of the London County Council. It is evident that, from the politics which animate the electors of the London County Council, they would feel bound to intervene in the same way and from the same motives in the election of the members of the new municipal councils. There is another reason, and a still stronger reason, which guides me in this matter. I look forward to these municipal boroughs having a great and most legitimate influence with the London County Council. I cannot think it would be otherwise, and I believe everyone will agree with me in hoping that it will not be otherwise. But if you give to each of these councils a single representative on the London County Council the inevitable consequence will be that he would be regarded as representing his council, that the new municipality and the London County Council will not meet, as it were, to discuss matters more or less on equal terms, but the London County Council will listen to the speech or representation of the official representative of the new municipality, and he will have the weight, and no move than the weight, of a single speaker find a single voter out of the 138 members of which the London County Council is composed. I therefore think that the new municipalities would lose rather than gain in authority with the London County Council by confining their relations to that council to the single thread of one member officially sitting on the London County Council without even having behind him the authority of direct election by the ratepayers. It must be remembered that if the analogy of the existing vestries gives us any lesson for the future, there will be no lack of persons who will serve both on the vestry and the London County Council, and, therefore, really, though not formally, there will be persons as much interested
362
in their own special municipal affairs as they are in the affairs of the London County Council. For these reasons we have not thought it desirable to introduce into this Bill any formal machinery for officially linking together the new municipalities and the London County Council. Well, Sir, so much for the areas and the constitution of the new municipalities. As regards their powers, I have not much of importance to say to the House. The vestries already possess, excepting so far as police matters are concerned, the great urban powers possessed by other municipalities, and probably any other powers that will be added to them by this Bill, or will be added to them in the future, must be in the nature of the case of less importance than the great administrative powers of which they are already the possessors. But we do under this Bill propose to give to these new authorities all the powers which have been agreed upon between the vestries and the London County Council at certain recent conferences held between these bodies. I do not know* whether, at this stage of the I Bill, it is worth while to give a general account of these agreed powers. I rather think not, for honourable Members who take an interest in the subject must be sufficiently acquainted with them already. Well, then, of course, in addition to the agreed powers, the new authorities, like other municipalities, will have the power of promoting or opposing Bills in Parliament, subject to the Borough Funds Act, and we propose to transfer to them the powers existing under the adopted Acts—baths and wash-houses, libraries, and burial boards. I suppose that this brief account of what we intend to give the new authorities will be thought sufficient by the House. While these are all the powers we actually transfer in the Bill, we do in the Bill provide further machinery by which new powers may be granted by the London County Council to these municipalities. We propose that if any muncipalities agree with the London County Council for the transfer of a power, that power shall be transferred subject to the revision of the Local Government Board. But we think that this privilege should be safeguarded, for the following reasons. It might be that the London County Council were asked by a particular municipality—any one

363
you like—to hand over certain powers to it, and that the terms agreed upon were financially too favourable to the council to whom the new powers were granted. In other words, the rest of London would have to pay to enable this particular locality to exercise the powers which the London County Council are prepared to hand over to it. We, there fore, give a locus standi to the other municipalities to object to the terms on which the powers are to be transferred by the central authority to the new municipalities. We further provide that, when a power has been granted by the London County Council to a new municipality, any other municipality may acquire the same power on the same terms, and in order to prevent the London County Council being left with the administration of certain powers over a comparatively small area, we give the London County Council the right to require that, when a new power has, under the provisions I have just described, been transferred to more than half the existing municipalities or boroughs—it shall have the right to require the minority to take over that power also. That, I think, provides machinery sufficiently elastic, and in its main outlines sufficiently just, to enable any future transfer of the powers from the central to the local authority as the circumstances of the case justify. There is only one other point that I will at this untimely hour bring before the House, and that is the simplification of rating.
MR. STUART: Will the right honourable Gentleman state the machinery by which the areas are to be fixed?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I think I did indicate the machinery, but I will describe it a little more fully. I have told the House that a certain number of areas are fixed by the Bill. The remaining areas will have to be examined by a Commission, and the Privy Council will issue an order confirming or modifying the recommendations of the Commission.
MR. STUART: Will the Commission settle the number as well as the boundaries of these areas?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes, of course, it will settle the number, because it will
364
settle the boundaries The one follows the other. I ought to say that I have introduced into the Bill, as a guide to the Commissioners, a superior and an inferior limit of population and rateable value. The limit is that no place is to be constituted a municipality which has not a population above 100,000 or below 400,000, or a rateable value above £500,000. It is an alternative.
MR. BARTLEY: About how many municipalities does the Bill contemplate?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have formed my own idea as to the number that will probably make up the area of London; but it would be rather inexpedient for me to give an indication of that, because I have not made the local inquiries, without which I do not think it would be possible in justice to suggest anything. May I add on this question of machinery that the Commissioners will have the duty thrown upon them of making schemes under the Act, which schemes will be laid on the Table of the House, for adjusting such local questions as rating and other matters of that kind, where different interests are affected. Now, beyond this question of rating, I think I have really gone into all the machinery of the Bill. I have mentioned the question of rating, for I think it of great importance, and the proposal in the Bill a great reform. We propose henceforth that no ratepayer shall be asked for his rates except on a single demand note, and on that demand note all the objects for which he is asked for the rate shall be clearly set forth. We further propose that for each municipality there should be but one single rating authority, and that that single rating authority shall be appointed by the municipality. In other words, the municipality shall appoint the overseers who are responsible for the making of the rates. And we further propose that, through its rating authority, every local body which has the right to spend the rates shall send its precept direct. In other words, we sweep away the system by which the County Council sends its precepts to the overseers through the medium of the guardians, while the School Board sends its precepts to the overseers by means of the vestries. We

365
sweep all that away, and enact that wherever the local authority has the power of spending the rates it shall send the precept direct to the overseers. Further, we abolish the lighting and sewer rate, which is now in many districts obliged to be a separate rate, and the making out of which in the rate books of the vestries is, I am informed, not only a very costly and laborious process, but so complicated that it sometimes leads to clerical and other mistakes. That, Sir, very briefly, but, I hope, sufficiently clearly, explains the outlines of our Bill.
MR. STUART: Does the system of audit remain?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes, we leave the system of audit the same as it is in the municipal boroughs of the country, and in the vestries at present.
MR. BOULNOIS: May I ask how it is proposed to fix the number of aldermen?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am glad my honourable Friend reminded me. The number of aldermen and councillors will be fixed by an Order in Council, but will not exceed 72.
MR. KNIGHT CAUSTON: Will the City area remain as it is?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes, the City area remains as it is, and for this reason —namely, the extreme difficulty there would be in altering the City area without making many other great changes which we should be reluctant to make. The first difficulty is that the City has a lower or more restricted franchise than the outside areas, and, therefore, we could not extend its areas without doing one of two things: either altering the existing franchise or restricting the franchise of the new areas; and, in the second place, there is the consideration of the administration of justice in the City, with which we do not intend to interfere, but there seems no reason for extending it beyond the existing boundaries. My right honourable
366
Friend thinks it may be desirable—I hope it is unnecessary—but, in order to avoid misconception, to say that this Bill affects in no respect the equalisation of rates which has been established by previous Acts.
AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Will the new municipalities be divided into wards?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes, the municipalities will be divided into wards by a Commission, and the result given in the Order in Council, which fixes the number of aldermen and councillors.
*SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLE: What date will be fixed for the coming into existence of the new municipalities?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: My hope is by next November year; that by that time all the local inquiries will be brought to a close, and that by November year these new municipalities will be launched on their career. I think it will be admitted that by this Bill we have established bodies of adequate dignity, and of sufficient size and with sufficient powers. We cannot, of course—no legislation can—provide that public spirit which alone can make the most perfect system of Local Government a success, but I have every reason to hope that, though London, from its constitutional peculiarities, which differentiate it from every other urban district in the world, has special difficulties to contend with, nevertheless, it has within its borders a sufficiency of worthy and able men to carry on the laborious work of local administration. At all events, I feel confident of this, that we are proceeding on safe and permanent lines, because we are taking full advantage of the experience of the past. We recognise to the full that there must be a great central authority in London. We recognise to the full that there must be these great municipalities, subordinate in point of area, but not subordinate in point of dignity. We think the whole lesson of the past points to this as the true method of dealing with this enormous aggregate of human beings, unequalled in the whole history of the world, and we believe that

367
no other constitution, whether more centralised or less centralised, could so adequately meet the grave problems with which we have to deal—problems increasing in gravity as time goes on, and which make the government of our great city almost the most perplexing theme for the reflection or parties and of statesmen.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The subject dealt with in this Bill is of such obvious complexity that it is undesirable that a definite opinion should be expressed upon it too freely at this stage. I have the more reason to say but very few words on this occasion because I am one of those who are very little conversant with the details of either the present position or the past history of the component parts of London. But there are one or two considerations which stand out in the forefront of the right honourable Gentleman's statement on which I would like to touch. The right honourable Gentleman has made his exposition with all the clearness we expect from him, and he has left us in no doubt on most points; but, of course, it is impossible to judge of the effect of the provisions of the Bill until we see them in print. The first thing that occurs to me to notice is, in fact, that which he himself took first, namely, the circumstance of the City of London being entirely left alone in this reform.
MR. COHEN: Hear, hear!
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The honourable Gentleman opposite is delighted to find that it is so. But I do not think that even he can doubt that sooner or later the City of London, like all the other parts of the metropolis, must fall into line with the neighbouring districts. There can be little doubt that it cannot be regarded as a permanent arrangement that there should be this great dignity and importance centred in one part of the metropolis—a dignity and importance almost overshadowing the dignity and importance of the London County Council itself. But we on this side of the House are pleased to find that there is nothing in the proposals of the Government which can preclude, on some future occasion, a better arrangement being made
368
in that respect. As to areas, the right honourable Gentleman has wisely enough referred the whole question of areas to a Commission, but he still leaves rather large and delicate powers to any Commission that can be appointed. A Boundary Commission we know; it has only to do with small things, simply to adjust the rival claims of different districts with regard to the boundaries. But where a Commission has the power—as this Commission seems to have—of determining the number of the new areas and their size, there is an element of difficulty, and also, I am afraid, of controversy, which the Commission, without the assistance of Parliament, will hardly be able to determine. Well, another point is that the right honourable Gentleman appears to intend, as I understand his speech, that the new City of Westminster should have an importance beyond that of the other areas into which the metropolitan area is to be divided.
SEVERAL HONOURABLE MEMBERS: No, no!
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not know whether I am right or not. The right honourable Gentleman spoke of the Larger Westminster—of the new Westminster which is to be created, including some of the smaller parishes; but from the way he spoke I gathered it was intended to invest this new Westminster with a higher prerogative and dignity than we shall Chelsea or its neighbours.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I must have expressed myself badly. There is no such intention; they are all on an absolute equality.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: With regard to the question of the new municipalities, the right honourable Gentleman expressed something like a horror of the political vortex into which the new bodies might be drawn, and his idea apparently is that they are to be purely non-political bodies, serving in their proper capacity, either side by side, with or under the great London County Council, which is, in the view of the right honourable Gentleman, a political body, or acts according to political ideas and prejudices. I am one who rather shares the right honourable Gentleman's view that the less politics have to do

369
with Local Government the better. But we must take human nature as we find it, and I am afraid that it will be discovered that politics will concern themselves with the elections in these new municipalities just as we find that political considerations cannot be excluded from the London County Council itself. Then with regard to the powers to be given to the new municipalities; that is another point on which it will be found that a good many honourable Members will have suspicions—suspicions regarding the transfer of powers, the stripping of the London County Council of powers in order to give them to these smaller areas. It is true that this is to be under the supervision of the Local Government Board, and with the consent of the London County Council. Still it is a matter in regard to which there will be doubt expressed. Then as to the power also given to the smaller areas of promoting and opposing Bills in Parliament, although I admit that on the face of it there may be a plausible case for giving these powers, it may yet give rise to conflicts between two authorities which may be very undesirable. On the whole, I confess that we have heard the statement—I am speaking for myself— of the right honourable Gentleman with considerable relief. Looking back not many months we can remember particularly one speech which was made by the most important person in Her Majesty's Government, and I think we may "look on this picture and on that." We find what an empty onslaught that speech turns out to have been. To all those of us who have looked upon the London County Council as a body to be supported and encouraged in the discharge of its duty, and not to be laughed at and opposed, it is with great pleasure that we discover that those dreadful thing's that were threatened against it last year have after all come to naught. The London County Council is a body which can defend itself and speak for itself. I believe there is no desire among the members of the County Council at large, whether they call themselves by one name or another, whether they be more advanced in their views or more quiet and deliberate in their views —there is, I believe, no desire in any quarter to do anything to disparage the efficiency of the London County Council. It is only at certain political meetings
370
and sometimes in the House of Commons that we see shafts levelled against that body. The public of London are much indebted to the members of the London County Council for the labour they have bestowed on their duties, and I hope we shall be able—I hope with confidence after the statement of the right honourable Gentleman that we shall be able to pass this Bill in a manner. which will not deprive the London County Council of any power and authority which they at present possess.
On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval,
*MR. W. F. D. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I rise with the object of expressing the view which seems to be held on both sides of the House that the Bill 'which has been explained to-night by the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury is likely to be of considerable use in the metropolis at large. The Bill is not in any sense one which may be called a strong party Measure, but it is one which both sides of the House will, I hope, help to make as useful as possible. Some time will elapse before the local bodies will get into working order, and the results of the Bill may not be felt at once. The effect which the work of the local bodies, will have will depend not a little on the action which the County Council may take with regard to it. This Bill, as explained by the right honourable Gentleman, appears to me to follow very largely the Report of the Royal Commission of 1894, which, the House will remember, recommended, very largely at any rate, that greater powers and greater importance should be given to the various local bodies of the metropolis. That Commission pointed out very strongly, giving New York as an example, the danger of over-centralisation, and in London there appears to me to be an extra reason for guarding against the dangers of over-centralisation. The Report of the Royal Commission also pointed out that the work of the County Council is almost too great for their powers, and is likely to increase. The danger connected with that possible increase appears to me to be that in the end you would be very likely to get a class of county councillors of whom we, at any

371
rate on this side of the House, should not be desirous to see the County Council composed—at any rate, not wholly so. I think it is important that the members of the County Council should be men who by business training and habits are able to properly administer the affairs of a great centre like London. My right honourable Friend, in the course of his speech, touched upon the question as to whether the municipalities should be created simultaneously or at their own option. I am very glad the Government have taken the course they have. I do not think that provincial towns provide a parallel case, for London is a collection of towns, and the areas which it is proposed to create into municipalities are not entirely independent areas, but they are areas which for many purposes must continue to exist under the London County Council. Although London is a collection of towns, it is also one big town, and I think the remark which Sir B. Hall made in introducing the Metropolis Management Act in 1855 applies almost as much to this Bill as it did to the Bill he was then introducing. He said—
"It is necessary to take a connected view of London's different parts, and arrange the boundaries and size of each district with reference to the other districts concerned, and in the interests of the whole scheme."
That, I think, is the course which the Government have rightly taken. They have endeavoured, so far as they can, to arrange the boundaries of the municipalities which they have fixed upon in the interest not only of particular areas, but of the whole of London. I do not wish for a moment to minimise the difficulties which the Government will have to encounter in finally distributing the areas, but the difficulties are by no means so great as they were in 1855, when, for instance, there were no less than seven Paving Boards between the east and the west ends of the Strand. I am particularly interested, of course, in the City of Westminster, and I am glad that Westminster has been included in the Bill. There are some of my constituents who do not agree in this view, but I think the reasons for including Westminster, historic and others, are so strong that I shall endeavour to get my constituents to take the same view as
372
I do in favour of the Government proposal. After all, Westminster has not long been divided, for up to 1883 or 1884 my father represented the old Parliamentary Division, and it does appear to me that the fact that the name of Westminster has been associated up to a comparatively short time ago with all those divisions which it is proposed in the Government Bill to unite in the new municipal area of Westminster, provides a very strong argument in favour of the proposal of the Government. There is one more detail to which, perhaps, I might refer, and that is the question of local bodies sending up a representative to the County Council. I agree with my right honourable Friend that, at first sight, there is no doubt something to be said for the idea that these Councils should send up representatives, or a representative, to take the place of the present aldermen on the County Council. There is something also in the idea that by so doing you would provide for the increased representation of the various districts in the metropolis. But at the same time, I do not see how it is possible for the local bodies to send up their mayors. In the first place, the mayor would be elected only for a year, and it would be very unfortunate if the municipalities had to change their representative on the County Council every year. In the second place, as I have already said, the present members of the County Council say that their work is so extremely hard that it takes up nearly all their time, and it does seem rather absurd to send up a man to do that work in addition to the work of his own municipality. Of course, if anybody else other than the Mayor was sent up some of these difficulties would be done away with; but, at the same time, you would be destroying the element of continuity which the present Aldermen give to the County Council, and although the system has so far worked to the disadvantage of those who agree with me, as far as municipal politics are concerned, after all, it may in time to come work as much in our favour as it has worked against us in the past. There is one body of men which my right honourable Friend did not mention in his speech, and it is a body to which some reference should, I think, be made, because I have no doubt they will be heard of to a considerable extent

373
in the future—I mean those local officers of the present existing vestries and district boards, who will certainly be disturbed by the operation of the Bill when it becomes law. Everybody, I think, must be ready to recognise the manner in which these officers have so far carried out their work. There is no doubt whatever of that, and, of course, it is natural that, to a certain extent, they should feel sore that after having done so much good work their position should be assailed, and in some cases their situations destroyed. But I hope, and we have every reason to believe, that the compensation given under the Bill will be fair and lucrative, and if that turns out to be so, I am sure that these officers, far from endeavouring to do all they can to oppose the Measure, will give us that assistance, without which even the Government may find some difficulty, at any rate so far as minor details are concerned, in carrying this Bill into law. I think now I have said enough upon this occasion. The Bill is not a sensational one, possibly not quite so sensational as honourable Members on the other side might wish. But, at any rate, I think it is likely to be satisfactory and useful, and I am sure that I am expressing the opinion of all on this side of the House when I say that we are grateful to the Government for having introduced it, and I believe those feelings of gratitude will be enhanced if the right honourable Gentleman can tell us that he intends taking the Second Reading before Easter.
MR. STUART: It is always a difficult matter, Mr. Speaker, to criticise a Bill which we have not seen in print, and there are so many complicated points in the Measure that a complete opinion cannot be pronounced upon it on the present occasion. Everything connected with the Government of London, as the right honourable Gentleman, I feel sure, has by this time found out, excites the greatest possible interest. Of course this fact creates a great difficulty in all our dealings with such a Bill as this. But having said that, let me now most frankly say that it will be my object in dealing with this Bill in the future, when we come really to deal with it, to do so in no Party spirit whatever, but
374
to deal with it from the point of view of securing, or endeavouring to secure, the best scheme for the Government of London that can be secured in connection with this Bill, and I am sure that the Friends of mine, if they will allow me to call them so, on the other side will give me credit for absolute sincerity in this matter. Now, there are various good points and bad points in this Bill. It is a Bill which has to be dealt with in detail, and it is not a Bill about which a sweeping assertion can be made. But there are, in many respects, many reasonable points in this Bill, such, for instance, as the devolution of those powers to the local bodies which the County Council and those local bodies have agreed upon together, and other matters of that kind. I do not want to touch, for the moment, the question of the number of councils, or anything of that kind, because there is a very wise provision that they should be reduced in number, and the method of election follows really upon the foundation of the Bill more or less. The question of the connection with the central body I should never contemplate for a moment from the point of view of placing on the central body delegated persons from the local bodies; but I think it is quite right, while contemplating the other method, to consider the view that was taken by the Royal Commission, of which the Member for Liskeard was chairman, where it was suggested that those who were County Councillors might very well sit upon the local bodies. But there again, perhaps, it is a matter more of a minor kind. Let me also mention the question referred to before, which is that of the rating authority. I am not sure whether the right honourable Gentleman said that assessments as well as rating were to be included. I wish it had been, and I wish greatly it had been, because they both go together a good deal, but so far as the rating is concerned I rather presume that what is meant is practically the levying of the rate. They are admirable improvements, and they are improvements which everyone connected with London Government must appreciate. The only difficulty that we have been under for many years has been that of getting an opportunity for debating these matters, and this is an opportunity which I am

375
glad has been taken. I do not blame the right honourable Gentleman for not introducing the complicated question of assessments into the Bill, but I should like to remind him that the same general consensus of opinion as to what are the main lines about assessments does exist, and I think he will find if lie will inquire further into the matter in London, that the Report of the Royal Commission, of which I have the honour to be a member, is connected with the question of assessments, and it has been really founded upon suggestions that have come from London, and from a source which the House will see is not influenced by Party considerations when I say that it was introduced by the honourable Member for Islington, who sits on the other side of the House, and myself. That is good so far as it goes, and it will tend to a clear understanding of what the rates go to and what is spent upon them. Now, passing from that for a moment, let me criticise one or two points in the Bill—I think I shall only criticise three which have occurred to me on the first blush of the matter. The right honourable Gentleman can see from the attitude I am taking that I am not criticising from any Party spirit, but from a point of view of the best Local Government which I am sure many Members in this House are no less deeply interested in than myself. Now, the first point that I do not like in the Bill is the reference to a Royal Commission. Now, I wish the right honourable Gentleman had been able to see his way to deal with this matter in the House. I know it is a very complicated and thorny question, and I know it is a very difficult question, and I am not inviting the right honourable Gentleman to adopt this course from the point of view of the spider inviting the fly to walk into its parlour. It is not on account of its complicated difficulties, but it is because I do not believe there will be general satisfaction with anything short of the decision of this House upon the matter, and I would very much desire that whatever Commission or inquiry, or anything outside this House is adopted, that its decision ought to come back to the House to be embodied by Parliament in the Bill itself. That is why I feel very strongly on this matter. I do not like to see that one part of London has
376
been provided for in the Bill and another part has been left out to be carved up outside of this House. I speak for my own constituency in this matter. Many honourable Members of this House know that the parish of Shore-ditch has been extremely forward in all matters connected with the Poor Law, and in all matters connected with general municipal work, and I say this quite apart from any politics in connection with the matter. There it stands with a rateable value of about £650,000 and 120,000 inhabitants, and it seems to me to have everything connected with it which ought to make it a separate entity. It is one of those districts in London in which the Poor Law and the Vestry area are co-terminous, and there is one community all throughout 'he whole. There are other districts in the same quarter of London which are just as harmonious and just as singularly situated as the parish of Shoreditch which certainly I do not like to see left in the position in which they are left in this Bill. Well, I think that is an unfortunate thing in the Bill, and a matter which will have to be dealt with by the House, and no amount of opposition will make me alter the line that I am now laying down before the House in this matter. There is another point in the Bill about which I have very great doubts indeed, and that is the clause that was referred to where there is to be a certain devolution and demutation of power to the local bodies from the London County Council. That will cause and bring about, so far as it is carried out, irreglarities before the larger method of correcting these irregularities can be availed of, and it will create an irregularity as between one district and another in London. You will observe also that it will act always in one direction, for there is only one direction in which it must act. Now, I am not at all certain that that is the necessary line in the future in which we should go. I think it is just likely that there may be, and ought to be, a contrary influence. Then, there is the third point, which is a very grave and practical difficulty, and that is the placing in the hands of this new body the power to promote and oppose Bills in Parliament. I know this is regulated under the Bill, and it will be mitigated by the application of the Borough Funds

377
Act, but you may have, indeed I fear you will have, on many occasions a great expenditure of public money in this House—in the Committees of this House—owing to the varying views of these local bodies in connection with Parliamentary business, and I think if there is anything that should be very carefully considered in the Bill, und which requires the most serious consideration from the point of view of the future of London government, it is that point to which I have just referred. If I am right in doing so, I should very much like to form a conception of what was to be the number of these authorities in the Bill. I think, as far as I can gather, that there are 16 created in the Bill, with a population of about 2,750,000, and as the total population is 4,400,000, that would leave 1,750,000 to be provided for by the Commission. Now, calculated at the same proportion as the others, that would give something like 25 or 26 municipal bodies in London. I do not know whether that accords with the calculation which the right honourable Gentleman may have made, or the view ho may hold about it, and I merely throw that out to get a definite statement upon it. I must say that I do not think that number should be left in any way under the control of a Commission external to this House, and without revision before the Bill is passed into law by the House itself. I am sure the remarks I have made will show that I do not want to approach the Measure in any hostile spirit. On the contrary, I want to join hands in improving the Government of London, and being determined for my part to maintain that the London County Council shall not be interfered injuriously with, regarding the transaction of its important business. I am sure in speaking from my place, and saying that I desire to treat this question not from a Party spirit, but with a view to securing the best interests of the Government of London, that I am expressing the views which are generally held by the members of the London County Council itself.
*SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLE: We on this side of the House welcome heartily the words of the last speaker. Sir, this question is one of vital importance to this great metropolis. The right hon-
378
ourable Gentleman who introduced the Bill to-day has held forth to us that it is a Measure which looks like putting the various districts of London into order. But there are a great many rocks ahead. I do not myself believe that when we come to deal with the question of these boroughs which are to be created we shall find that they are so complete as we are led to believe. There are in the midst of these boroughs many different parts running into the other. For instance, my own constituency, which belongs to Camberwell, has a most extraordinary area, for it includes a district called Penge. That district occupies a very peculiar position. It is in the Parliamentary division of Dulwich; for School Board purposes it is in Greenwich, for Poor Law purposes it is ill Croydon, and it is connected with the Lewisham Board of Works. Then, again, Wandsworth has a division right in the middle of Norwood. Now, these are difficulties which we shall have to attend to when we come to deal with the Bill. I did hope that the Government would have treated this question of areas, and would have dealt with the subject as a whole. I am afraid that there will also be a difficulty in mapping out the remainder of the metropolis. Questions have been asked as to the number of the new municipalities, but it would be advisable to know whether these municipalities are to overlap the present divisions for Parliament. Are those divisions for the municipalities to be the same as the Parliamentary areas, or will they overlap the different Parliamentary areas? I have studied this question of areas, and I feel convinced myself that we shall have something like 40 municipalities in London if we are not very careful. I think, therefore, that it would have been much better to have left the whole question to the Royal Commission, to be inquired into by them. But, Sir, I come to the very much more important question which has not been dealt with by any previous speaker in this House tonight, and that is the question of giving over and taking from powers now carried out by the London County Council and giving them over to the new municipalities. I have attended the different conferences upon this Bill, and one of the great difficulties we have

379
had always to deal with has been what powers could be given over to these new municipalities from the London County Council. We all know that the supplies of the London County Council for their expenses come from the Common County Fund, and therefore when any question of giving over work to be done by the new municipality arises it must be also settled how much money is going to be given. We heard the right honourable Gentleman just now state that there are certain questions which have been settled between the London County Council and the different vestries. Now, I happen to be on the London County Council, and I have made inquiries, and I believe I am right in saying that even these subjects are not agreed upon as to what should be taken over. Now, although it may be agreed upon that these powers may be given over, we ought to know what money these new municipalities are to have for the duties they are going to be called upon to perform. That is a most difficult subject. I have contended before, and I contend again, that the London County Council, before it gives over to the new municipalities any power to do work which is now carried on by them, must agree with the new municipal boroughs as to what money is going to be allowed from the Common County Fund to the new borough for doing that work. The right honourable Gentleman said that when power is given over to one district on certain conditions, those powers should be given over to another on the same conditions. That is all very well in theory, but when you come to examine it there are very great difficulties in the way. One difficulty is that the different municipalities are of a different size. For instance, in some places you can do with perhaps three or four inspectors, but in another district where the taxation is just the same amount you want 12 inspectors. Take, for instance, my own division of Camberwell; there we have a park, and it would be very nice indeed if the new municipality of Camberwell could be allowed to manage that park. Well, under certain conditions, the County Council might arrange to allow that park to be managed by the new municipality of Camberwell. But, still, it would be right and proper to first agree as to how much money from the Com-
380
mon County Fund is going to be given over for carrying on the park. But there are other municipalities which have no parks at all. Then, take those parishes in the North of London where they are much larger and much more expensive. It is always a question when you hand over powers from the London County Council to be carried out by the new municipality that it should be a matter of agreement between them as to the amount that is to be paid. If you do not do so, the new municipality may find itself burdened with a very heavy expense. There is no doubt that this question is a very wide one. We know that all the powers that are now carried on by the different bodies outside the Loudon County Council are very easy of adjustment, but the whole cost of carrying on the work of the London County Council comes entirely out of the Common County Fund, and we must maintain the equalisation of the rates. It is very important that that should never be done away with. The London County Council must be the custodians of this common fund, and any expenditure the burden of which is now borne by the London County Council, when it comes to hand over that power to the new municipalities, particular arrangements should be made with the London County Council. Then, there is another point on which I agree with the previous speakers, and the right honourable Gentleman who introduced this Bill. I do not like the idea of aldermen. I say I do not like the idea, because we have aldermen on the London County Council, and, therefore, I do not understand why we require aldermen in these new boroughs. They are not at all under the Municipal Corporations Act, and I don't think aldermen are necessary. I disagree on another point, for I think it would be most advisable that the different new municipalities should each return a representative to the London County Council, and I will explain why. There would then be sitting on the London County Council somebody who would be able to answer any question relating to his particular district. I am sure that London, as a whole, will welcome the Bill, and I trust that it will stimulate more local interest in the Government of London. The members

381
of the London County Council will welcome the Measure, because it will relieve them, of a great deal of committee work which it is impossible for them to do satisfactorily at the present time. The delegation of work to the new municipalities will certainly be to the advantage of the ratepayers and to the satisfaction of the inhabitants of London.
*MR. PICKERSGILL: I fear I shall only be able to give my first impressions of this somewhat intricate Bill, but in listening to the very lucid exposition of the First Lord of the Treasury there were one or two features which must provoke immediate criticism. The right honourable Gentleman described the Bill as completing as far as could be the edifice of Local Government in London. Well, Sir, if that represents the opinion of the Government, I think it is all the more to be regretted that this Bill does not, as I understand, except in one important particular, touch the City of London at all. Of course, no one expected the Government to introduce into this Bill any scheme of amalgamation, but apart from that there are existing anomalies arising from the exceptional position of the City, which I think we had a fair right to expect would be removed by a Bill of this description. For instance, the London County Council exercises certain powers in the area outside the City which are arrested as soon as you reach the threshold of the City, and with regard to bye-laws and so on, considerable inconvenience results from this exceptional position of the square mile area. I think, even making full consideration for the character of this Bill, that an anomaly of that kind might have been removed. Then, Sir, there are certain matters, for instance, the housing of the working classes, to which the area of the City does not now make any contribution, and it is felt in the poorer districts of London that that is an unfair exemption. I think you have it within the scope of this Bill to remedy this grievance. The fact is, however, that the Bill will make existing anomalies all the more particularly striking. May I give one single illustration of that? This Bill proposes, and I think very rightly proposes, to reduce the number of local representatives. It is felt that in London at large the number
382
of representatives of the local bodies is far larger than necessary, and, indeed, stands in the way of prompt and effective despatch of public business. But, Sir, the most flagrant example of over-representation upon these bodies is the Corporation of the City of London itself. It is proposed by this Bill that you shall have no local authority with a number of members exceeding 72. But the Corporation of the City of London consists of 232 members! Two hundred and thirty-two members to administer the affairs of a single square mile, whereas the London County Council has only 137 to administer an area which is over 119 square miles. Then, Sir, the next point which attracted my attention, and which I think must also come with some surprise to many honourable Gentlemen in this House, is the small dimensions of the First Schedule of this Bill. I do not stand alone in my opinion in thinking that the number of areas to be fixed by Parliament and included in the Bill will be considerably larger than has been indicated to-night. Now, there is one feature, and a very peculiar feature, about that schedule. I understand that there is only one newly-constituted area, and that is what the right honourable Gentleman calls the "Greater Westminster." Sir, he said, in answer to some observations which were made by the Leader of the Opposition, that there was no intention to give to the Greater Westminster an exceptional position. But I say that Greater Westminster is treated in a manner which is exceptionally favourable, because it is the only new area which is to be carved out by the House itself; all the other areas are to be left to the tender mercies of a Commission. Then, Sir, I think it will be felt—it will be felt in my quarter of London—a little invidious that the only new area for which this House itself provides is the City of Westminster, an area of enormous rateable value and of low rates. The right honourable Gentleman said that there was no intention to interfere with the Equalisation of Rates Act. Of course, there is no intention to interfere with the Equalisation of Rates Act, but I do submit that you are now constituting a very strong bulwark, by carving out this new Greater Westminster, against the extension of the principle of the Equalisation of Rates. Then, Sir, I feel some misgiving with

383
regard to the enormous powers—I don't think I use an extravagant word—with which the Commissioners are to be trusted. So far as I gathered, they are to be left absolutely without guidance except the guidance of the inferior and superior limits to which the right honourable Gentleman has referred. As I have said, I anticipated that a far larger number of areas would be included in the Schedule of the Bill. When you have an area already existing which is the area of local government, and which is also either a Parliamentary division or a combination of Parliamentary divisions, and where, furthermore, you have had for some years people working together in such area, both in Imperial and in local affairs, it does seem to me a pity to throw those areas into the melting pot, and to give to the Commissioners absolute power — because within the limits to which I have referred they are absolute—of carving out new areas. Then, Sir, there is one feature of this Bill to which I very strongly object, and which I venture to think London at large will regard with grave misgiving, and that is the inclusion of aldermen in the local bodies. Sir, it is true we have an infusion of aldermen in the London County Council, but when you created your aldermen in the London County Council you did not provide that one-third of the Council should be aldermen. You were timid, and you proposed that one-sixth only should be aldermen.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): The honourable Gentleman is quite wrong. The original Bill proposed one-third, and it was only by the introduction of an Amendment that that was altered.
*MR. PICKERSGILL: Exactly; the House was not willing to have the name infusion of aldermen in the London County Council which exists in the municipalities throughout the country. And yet you are going to introduce aldermen in the proportion of one-third in these smaller bodies. Sir, I see opposite my right honourable Friend the Member for Bodmin, who was responsible for the report of the Commission which I hold in my hand. The honourable Member for the Strand a
384
few moments ago claimed that this Bill followed the lines recommended by the Royal Commissioners. But in this matter of the aldermen you are acting directly contrary to the recommendation of that Commission over which the right honourable Gentleman opposite presided. May I just read two or three lines on this subject?—
"We have not suggested that aldermen should form permanently a part even of the new governing body of the Old City. We have had in view the other parts of London, and while it would be easy and for many reasons desirable to confer on these governing bodies the name of Council, and to enable them to elect Mayors of their respective districts, no element analogous to that of Aldermen is found in their present composition, nor have we met with any desire to adopt such an addition."
Sir, that is a very strong expression of opinion, and although I do not want to assume the rôle of a prophet, yet I do feel that there will be a very strong feeling against, these aldermen, and I am almost disposed to say that your provision with regard to aldermen will not receive the approval of the House. Then, Sir, there is another feature of the Bill to which I desire to allude, and which I confess, like my honourable Friend the Member for Shoreditch, I regard with considerable doubt and misgiving, and that is the machinery by which the London County Council is to be enabled to transfer its powers to the local authorities. If, for instance, owing to casual circumstances, there happens to be a particular majority at one time on the London County Council, and a particular majority of the same complexion on the local bodies, it will be possible under this Bill for the London County Council to part with all its patrimony just as a circus performer throws off his outer garments. I don't think that that is a proposal which we can regard as safe. And then, Sir, I noticed that the machinery is to be used all in one direction—the machinery is to be used all in the direction of transferring powers from the London County Council to the local authorities. Surely the machinery ought to be equally applicable to the transfer in the other direction from the local bodies to the central authority. May I give just one illustration of what I mean? At present the Adulteration Acts are administered by the local authorities,

385
very unsatisfactorily for the public, and one can see that it is very desirable that those officers who have to administer a penal statute should be disassociated from local influence; and I think, therefore, that it would be very salutary that the administration of the Food and Drugs Act should be transferred from the local authority to the central authority. I give that as an illustration for my view that machinery which is applicable to transfer powers in one direction should be available to transfer them in the other. Then with regard to rating. The references of the right honourable Gentleman to the question of rating were, I am sure, received with great satisfaction, with almost universal satisfaction. We are glad—at least, I am heartily glad—to hear that there is to be one demand note, and I agree also that it is well that the precept should be sent direct by the spending authority to the authority which is to levy the rate; and you are to have one rating authority for each municipality. Well, all this is to the good, and of this I am sure that we on his side most heartily approve. But, after all, you may have the best system of rating in the world, you may have for London the best possible system of rating, but the effect which you desire, which, of course, is uniformity, fairness between man and man, and between one area and another—the effect which you desire will be nugatory unless you have also a uniform system of assessment; and I hope—I am afraid it is not in the Bill, but I do hope—that in the discussions in Committee we shall be able to induce the Government to act upon a suggestion which is contained in this Report of the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission says, and rightly says, that local knowledge and experience are necessary in making your assessments, but they add that the local body should be associated with some representation of the central authority. It is only by some representation of the central authority that you can possibly secure that uniformity which we desire. Mr. Speaker, this Bill has some good features. It has also, I venture to think, some features which are very bad. I hope we shall be able to keep the one and eliminate the other.
MR. BARTLEY: Of course, one can only look at this Measure from a general view. Certainly those of us who have not had any previous knowledge of it listened with great attention to the very lucid statement we have heard. Now, Sir, of course the details are matters which we shall have to go into, and which will require very great and very careful attention at later stages of the Bill. But, looking at it from a general standpoint, what seems to strike me is, that the great feature of the Bill is really what we desire—a glorification—an increased honour and dignity—of the vestries that now exist. Now, Sir, that is an idea that many of us have always had, that these bodies, which are of very great importance—which, if they existed anywhere but in London, would be considered as some of the largest Local Government bodies in the world—should have greater power and greater dignity and greater position. But, Sir, looking at the details, it seems to me that we give them another name, but I cannot quite see that we give them any very much greater power or position.
"A rose
"By any other name would smell as sweet"—
And I suppose the vestry, when it is dignified with the name of Corporation, if it has only the same powers, will really be very much what it was before. I myself was rather disappointed to think that this Bill was not going to take the opportunity of rearranging more precisely than it does the different functions of the London County Council and these various bodies. Of course, the fact remains that we did in the year 1888 create the cart rather before the horse, because we ought to have created these smaller bodies before we made the central body, which we made in the first instance. It seems to me it would have been very much easier if we had started our Local Government system by forming these corporations, and then, when we had seen how they worked and developed, making a sort of connecting body to bind them all together, for those overlapping purposes which, after all, are very important, but which, it seems to me, will not be arranged very satisfactorily by the present system. Sir, of course, in this glorification of the

387
vestry, and the making of the vestry a municipality, there is one feature that we must consider very carefully, and that is its effect upon the local burdens in each district. Of course, you cannot have dignity and power without increased expense, and we must remember—certainly those of us who represent not the richer districts—that the rates are at present extremely high, that many persons are only able to get on with considerable difficulty, and although we may be very glad to see these local bodies have the glitter and position which we wish to give them, yet it must be very carefully seen into that we do not add so materially to the rates as to inflict a very great, hardship upon the many hundreds of thousands of ratepayers who are making a living, a hard living, in these various districts of London. Sir, as regards these areas: I agree with the honourable Member who has just spoken. I am sorry to think that we are going to put London into the furnace and rearrange the areas. Of course, Westminster I take to be in an exceptional position altogether. The ancient City of Westminster, I agree should be restored, if possible, to somewhat its old position; but in other districts it seems to me a pity if we do not abide by the areas which now return Members to this House. Of course, this does not affect me individually, because my own district is left in the Bill: it would hardly do to separate Islington, which is a very largo and populous place. But we are getting these fresh divisions of London to work more and more as units for the various places, we are getting individual Members to take more and more interest in them, and it seems to me that if we are now to make another section and cut up these divisions to a certain extent in an arbitrary manner, which any Commission must do, we shall be making a mistake, and adding further complications to the already complicated condition of the divisions of London. I myself should prefer—this, of course, is all within the scope of the Bill—that the divisions which now exist should be in some way worked into the various corporations that are to be made. Well, then, Sir, concerning the number. My honourable Friend behind me said he considered that 40 municipalities would be created
388
under this Bill. I cannot think that is really the number, because that, I think, would be a great many too many to have. I was given to understand while the Bill was being discussed that the number would be something like 30. I myself think that even 30 is almost too many. London, it is true, is a very large place, but I think we must not go to the other extreme—creating these municipalities beyond reasonable bounds. I think they ought to be sufficiently large to be important, and that we must not, even under the pressure of individuals, go so far as to make them small and retain the local vestry idea. Sir, as regards the system of rating, no doubt everybody will agree that the present mode of collecting the rates has been most unsatisfactory, and I certainly do agree also with the honourable Member who has just spoken that there must be at the same time some revision of the system of assessment, which, unless it is uniform, really does lead to very serious and very great hardships. The only point which seems to me to require considerable attention is the connection between these municipalities and the London County Council. So far as I can see from the statement we have heard, there is now no connection whatever. They are all separate bodies, and there is no representation from one to the other, and I can quite understand the reasons which have induced the Government to object to that. There is to be some connection between the two bodies, and I think we shall have to consider with very great care and attention the details of the Bill which indicate how those two bodies are to work together. There has been friction between the County Council and some vestries, and if you make these bodies more important there is a possibility that, unless it is very carefully attended to in the Bill, you might increase that friction, and I think great evil might ensue to London if these bodies do not work quite smoothly together. A great question, of course, which comes between them is the matter of finance. I do not gather from the right honourable Gentleman's speech that these local authorities are to have any financial powers, in the way of raising money for their own purposes. I do not know whether that is in the Bill or not, but I do not gather

389
that the corporations are to have the right to raise money themselves. I sup pose they will have, but that, again, requires to be very carefully looked at, because if we are going to have 25 or 30 municipalities raising money, it be comes a very serious question for the ratepayers and also for the stability of finance of this great metropolis. I was a little disappointed that we did not hear more of the financial aspect, because, after all, that is a very vital matter in connection with such a Bill as this. And, of course, there is the question referred to by the honourable Member for the Strand Division concerning those officers that, will be got rid of; their rights must be very carefully preserved. I do not understand from what he said that many officers will be dispensed with. It seems to me that one function of the Bill ought to be not only to safe guard the interests of the existing officers, but to see that care should be taken that these officers should continue in the new machinery. It is quite obvious that the municipalities will require practically the same sort of officers, and I think we should take care not to en courage the idea of getting rid of existing officers, of course, giving them liberal compensation, because that, after all, means further cost to the unfortunate ratepayers, but that we should take every possible precaution to safeguard the interests of the individual officers and also to secure the interests of the rate payers, by carrying on the officers from the vestry or the existing machinery to the new machinery. I sincerely hope, Mr. Speaker, that this Measure will tend in improve the local government of London. I have always taken very great interest in that subject, and I trust that we shall adopt the view of the honourable Member for Shoreditch, and consider these matters as they concern the welfare of London rather than as they serve Party purposes. And if we do that, although I am not sure that this Bill will satisfy everybody, still I think it will do away with some of the anomalies of the present government of London, and it will bring forward the interest of different individuals of all ranks in the community, so that we make this great metropolis, without enormously increasing the expense to the unfortunate ratepayer, a far better
390
governed city than it is at the present time.
MR. BUXTON: I do not propose to detain the House more than a very short time, because although we have listened to the speech of the right honourable Gentleman, and recognise the admirable lucidity with which he dealt with a most complicated subject, after all the matter itself depends very much on the terms and the details of the Bill that is to be produced. Perhaps he will allow me to recognise the very conciliatory tone with which he dealt with the whole subject. I entirely endorse what was said by the honourable Member for Shoreditch, as far as I am concerned as a London Member, that we desire that this question of completing the edifice of self-government for London should not be turned into a Party question, but should be dealt with on broad and general lines, with an endeavour to work out and complete the very great question of London government, in which two steps have already been taken in advance. I am quite sure that the right honourable Gentleman will recognise that this is the spirit in which we shall endeavour to deal with the Bill, and I hope that he will be prepared not to deal with us as he dealt with us, some of us thought not quite justly, on the Education question, but that when we propose Amendments he will receive them in the spirit in which certainly we desire to tender them. My honourable Friend the Member for the Strand Division said that this Bill was not so sensational as the Opposition would wish. What I think I may say to him with much greater truth is, that we are glad to find that it is not so sensational as some of us had feared it might be, because we have had intimations last year and the year before, and even this year, that the question might be dealt with in a totally different manner to that with which we recognise that the right honourable Gentleman intends to deal with it. I am not now going into the past history of the question, or to detail again the speech of the Prime Minister, or the proposals which we certainly thought might possibly be made with the fantastical idea of cutting London up into half a dozen or a dozen municipalities, or even the proposal that appeals to the

391
honourable Member for Camberwell, to reduce the London County Council again to the position of a Board of Works. Well, we had our London County Council election, we had the matter placed before the ratepayers of London, and they gave such a decisive verdict, that I am glad to think the Government have thought better of the matter, if they did really intend to deal with it in a different spirit, and are now dealing with it in a spirit in which we are able to meet them half-way. I notice some very good points, as it seemed to me, in the Bill, and in the speech of the right honourable Gentleman. In the first place, I am glad to recognise the fact that he proposes to deal with the matter, not by giving grants and charters here and there, but simultaneously and compulsorily to deal with the whole area of the metropolis as one; and instead of, as he would otherwise have done, making confusion worse confounded, really doing something to simplify our local government throughout the metropolis. I am quite sure that the House generally, with the exception, perhaps, of the honourable Gentleman the Member for Camberwell, also recognises that it is a good feature of this Bill that there are to be no secondary elections, and that the County Council is to be complete in itself as representing the ratepayers, and the local bodies are to be complete in themselves as representing their local affairs, and that, such connection as there must be between the two bodies will be the indirect connection of members sitting upon both the County Council and the local bodies, and also the fact, which, of course, cannot but be recognised, that there are a very large number of duties in which the powers of the two bodies must necessarily intermingle and overlap, and which must bring them into direct connection one with another. Another point upon which I may say that we on this side rejoice to find ourselves in accord with the right honourable Gentleman was that the powers and duties and responsibilities of the London County Council were in no sense of the term to be diminished or interfered with, and that so far as there would be a connection between the central body and the new municipalities, the local bodies, it would be one in which their authorities might, to a certain extent, overlap, and in that case the County Council would
392
be the supreme authority for all matters pertaining to the metropolis as a whole. But I am sorry to say that even by the speech of the right honourable Gentleman—without waiting for the Bill in detail—there are one or two points raised respecting which it will be necessary for us to endeavour, either on Second Reading or in Committee, to give the House of Commons an opportunity of discussing their merits. In the first place, there was the question—the very enormous question, the enormous blot on the Bill—of the total omisson to deal with the City, either wholly or in the partial way such as my honourable Friend behind me proposed. Well, the honourable Member for the Strand, in his speech, said that this Bill was practically founded—so I understood him to say—as regards these local bodies, on the report of the Royal Commission of a year or two ago, over which the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Bodmin presided. Well, but the whole gist and the whole spirit of the report of the Royal Commission was that the time had come—they said so emphatically—when London ought to 02 treated as one unit, as one whole, and that not only ought the local bodies to be brought into connection with the London County Council as the central body, but that the County Council and the City ought to be amalgamated under certain conditions, so that the metropolis might in the future be treated, not as two bodies, but as one whole.
*MR. W. F. D. SMITH: That matter had been decided for them in the reference.
MR. BUXTON: No doubt, in a sense, that had been decided for them in the terms of the reference, but I think, if my honourable Friend says this proposal is carrying out the Report and the suggestions of the Royal Commission he is not quite accurate. Though the matter was decided for them by that reference, they themselves most emphatically argued, most emphatically decided, in favour of the general amalgamation of the City with the other parts of the metropolis. That is a point with which, no doubt, we shall have to deal in the later stages of this Bill, and, therefore, I will not labour it at the present moment. But I think many of us regret very deeply that the Government did not

393
see their way on the present occasion to deal with the question as a whole, and to get rid of such an anomaly as the un-reformed Corporation of the City of London is, situated in the centre of this great metropolis, and preventing in many ways the real, proper self-government of this great population. Well, there is a second point which, I confess, I thought rather a blot on the Bill: that was the creation of what I can hardly help feeling will be in the future the City of the West, this great new municipality of the old City of Westminster. It is true the right honourable Gentleman interrupted my right honourable Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and said that the City of Westminster would be on the same basis and on the same terms as the other municipalities established in London. That is perfectly true, but it has this great distinction, surely, that, in the first place, it is to be created by the House of Commons, instead of being created by the Royal Commission, because it is an amalgamation of areas; and, in the second place, it is of far greater financial importance than any other municipality created under the Bill as it stands, or which can be created by the Royal Commission when it has to create these new municipalities. In the Tower Hamlets, for which I sit, the only municipality which is to be created is Poplar. To that I do not object, because it is a natural area, and it is one which, in all probability, under any Bill would be created into a municipality. But I find that the large municipality of the City of Westminster represents a population considerably larger than that of Poplar, and a rateable value no less than seven times that of the municipality of Poplar; and if you take any other municipalities created by the Bill as it stands, or those to be created by the Royal Commissioners, you will find that the rateable value of Westminster exceeds that of the most influential of them as much as two and a-half times. And, therefore, I say that, while you are not proposing to give to Westminster additional powers over those given to other municipalities, you are, nevertheless, giving to Westminster very great weight in regard to the municipal government of London, and I am rather afraid that the whole of its influence will go to support the influence of the City, and that, while you leave the City in the centre, you will be creating
394
a new city and a city against progressive feeling and against the proper Govern ment of London—in the West as well. Well, there is, to my mind, a very serious blot on the Bill in the very extraordinary powers which are to be left to this Royal Commission. The Bill creates, as I understand it, something like—
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: There is nothing exceptional in this Bill. Whenever we have had to deal with a question of this sort, precisely the same kind of Commission has been adopted. It is not a Royal Commission—
MR. BUXTON: I am not objecting to the machinery. I have no doubt that the Gentlemen who will be placed on this Commission—
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: It is a body of Commissioners.
MR. BUXTON: Well, on this body of Commissioners will be men eminently suited for the purpose which we have in view; but what I am objecting to is not the men themselves, but the very large liberty which will be given to them for cutting and carving up the metropolis in regard to these new areas. I must say I think that, taking into account the fact that in many parts of the metropolis there are natural limitations, natural associations of local feeling and local life already existing, it would have been much better to have taken these 16 areas which could at once be grouped into municipalities, and I am quite sure that almost any member of this House who has given the matter any attention could have added another eight or nine to these municipalities which the Government themselves, on their own initiative and responsibility, might have created in the Bill. This Bill leaves very large powers to these Commissioners—I think I have got that term right now—to cut and carve out the municipalities in a way which, while they themselves may think it is best, the House of Commons and those interested in the metropolis might ultimately not think was the right and proper system. As I understand the right honourable Gentleman, the Commissioners are practically not to be limited at all—they are limited by populations of 100,000, and they can go up to 400,000, but that is practically no limitation at all. And the rateable value

395
must not be less than half a million; but that, of course, is a very small rateable value compared with the other municipalities which are created by the Bill. And looking at it from the point of view of the Tower Hamlets, in which I am especially interested, I find that one portion of that area, namely, Bromley-by-Bow, has already been taken away and created into a municipality by the Bill, but it will be a very serious matter for the proper government of the Tower Hamlets whether the rest of the Tower Hamlets is divided into one, or two, or three other municipalities. I think we are entitled to say that the Government ought by this time to have had such a well-considered scheme, in regard to the vast bulk of these municipalities, that they could have come down to us and said that, at all events in principle, they would define them. Of course, nobody objects for one moment to leaving mere questions of boundaries to these Commissioners, but I think we ought to have had some indication, either in the Bill or from the Leader of the House, as representing the Government, as to the directions or instructions which will be given to these Commissioners. Sir, as I understand from the right honourable Gentleman, practically the only instructions to be given to these Commissioners is that they are to create a certain unknown number, an undefined number, of municipalities, that they are to be within the limit of 100,000 population on the one hand, and 400,000 population on the other, and practically otherwise the whole matter is to be left to them; and, in my opinion, far too great discretion is being left to these Commissioners. Well, then there is the question already alluded to, of the transfer of powers. Not one of us, I am sure, on this side or in any part of the House, can object to the transfer of powers from the London County Council to the municipalities in regard to those powers which were agreed upon, unanimously agreed upon, by the conference a year or two ago between the London County Council and the local vestries and district boards. Of course, there can be no possible objection to that. No doubt there are other matters, other powers, which might be, and properly might be, ultimately transferred to these new municipalities when they are created. I am entirely in accord with the right honourable Gentleman in thinking that
396
where the London County Council and the local bodies come to an agreement with regard to these affairs there should be some power in the Bill to transfer such affairs. But I do not altogether like the idea, the proposal of the right honourable Gentleman. What did he say? He practically said that if the County Council by a majority agreed with some of these new municipalities in regard to their powers, those powers may be transferred, subject to the assent of the Local Government Board. What does that mean? We have—unfortunately, as the right honourable Gentleman says—introduced politics into the London County Council, and although, at the present moment, I am glad to say we have a Progressive majority upon that body, at any moment it may be captured by the Moderate, Party; no doubt, some honourable Members only hope that it may be. But what will be the result, what might be the result I We should have, not a Moderate, but an immoderate Moderate majority, a majority which might want, as Lord Salisbury desired, to smash the County Council, to drive the County Council to commit suicide, as he himself said, and transfer some of their most important powers to the local bodies. Suppose the Moderate majority decided to transfer some of these important powers to the local bodies, and that the powers are transferred, when the Moderate majority disappears and a Progressive majority comes in they will find themselves absolutely hampered with regard to this matter. They have lost these powers for ever, and the London County Council—I will not use the word "smash," because some honourable Members object to it—is for ever impaired and rendered an ineffective body.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The honourable Gentleman shows the objection to discussing the details before the Bill is printed. I stated that there would be Provisional Orders required in the case of every transfer of powers, and, therefore, the assent of Parliament must be obtained before the transfer takes place.
MR. BUXTON: When we have a Moderate majority in the County Council we always have a Conservative majority in the House of Commons; I

397
want to suggest a practical proposal, because I am entirely at one with the right honourable Gentleman in regard to the general principle that where there is an agreement between the London County Council and the municipalities with reference to certain powers, those powers ought to be transferred. I propose, and I will move an Amendment with reference to it, that there should be a check. I do not think that I have stated a very extragavant case, but it seems to me that where we have a proposal to transfer powers, those powers should not be transferred except by a two-thirds majority of the County Council. There will be no possibility of the. County Council obstructively objecting to any transfer which they thought would be to their advantage, while such a check would prevent abuse. There is one other point which must get some attention; that is the question of allowing the municipalities to promote Hills in the House of Commons. I am afraid it may lead to considerable Parliamentary expense and to considerable friction between the central and local bodies. I was very glad to hear what the right honourable Gentleman said with regard to the rating authority, because I think any way in which the rating system of London can be simplified or economised would be a very great advantage. There are one or two other points to which we shall have to give attention in Committee. I do not believe there is any desire throughout the metropolis to have aldermen on these new municipalities. They have never been liked on principle on the County Council. In fact, the name has entirely disappeared off the Council, and I do not think there is any desire to have it on the new bodies. With regard to elections, I hope the right honourable Gentleman will give favourable consideration to the matter when we come to consider it in detail. As I understand, the Bill as it is is practically as regards elections founded on the Municipal Corporations Act, namely, that annual elections must be held, a third of the Members going out every year. I should like to consider, if I may, whether one of the evils of our present day system is not a multiplicity of public elections, and whether it would not be better, as in the case of the School Board and the County Council
398
instead of a third going out every year, which would necessitate an annual election, that there should be an election only once in three years. There would be much more public interest in the matter, and that after all is one of the objects of these municipalities. I believe you would get better men to serve, and save a great deal of trouble and responsibility. That is a point which I think the House of Commons will deal with on entirely non-Party lines. I apologise to the House for detaining it so long, and I can only say that as regards myself, and I am sure also my honourable Friends behind me, we shall give the Bill a most cordial consideration, and meet it in the same spirit in which the right honourable Gentleman was good enough to introduce it, with the desire to make it a really complete Measure, and, except as regards the City, the crowning edifice of the government of the metropolis.
*MR. COHEN: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House has listened with very great pleasure to the words of the honourable Gentleman who has just sat down. The honourable Gentleman the Member for Bethnal Green was the first in this Debate to use the terms Progressive and Moderate, and other Party designations. He did not follow the example of my right honourable Friend, who introduced this Bill without making any references which could wound the susceptibilities of the most extreme Progressive or most reactionary Moderate. The right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition began his speech by saying that he heard the speech of my right honourable Friend with great relief. I am glad some relief has been brought to honourable Gentlemen opposite from the anxiety which they felt, but which I believe was never anything more than illusionary. I find it very difficult to suppose that honourable Members opposite really believed there was any ground whatever for the apprehension that this Government or any other Government would ever attempt what I believe to be the impossible task of diminishing the powers or altering the privileges of the London County Council, which is my opinion has always exercised its powers creditably, honourably and effi-

399
ciently. Therefore I do not see for myself what anxiety there could be with regard to the County Council, and I think it is remarkable that the principal criticism urged against the Bill has come from honourable Gentlemen opposite who are not members of the County Council. The honourable Gentleman the Member for Shoreditch, who is not only a member of the County Council, but a very distinguished and influential member of that body, gave an absolutely friendly criticism except as regards the City. Of course he objects to the City part of the Bill. We all expected he would, and in his turn he will not expect I should. On the contrary, I welcome it, and I believe that in saying that I am speaking not only as one of the representatives of the City in the County Council. I believe, on the contrary, I represent the opinion of the majority of London at large, and perhaps of Englishmen at large, when I say that I rejoice that Her Majesty's Government have left the City exactly as it has been for the last eight centuries. The honourable Gentleman the Member for Bethnal Green found fault with this Bill, not, as he said, because it did not touch the City, for he was good enough to say that no one expected this Government would destroy the City, but lie did expect that they would make some provision for the removal of what he calls some small anomalies in the regulation of the City. The honourable Member has forgotten, if he ever knew, that section 47 of the Local Government Act of 1888 specially provides for tire adjustment of various matters by agreement with the Corporation of the City of London, so that the Measure, which expressly leaves the City unaltered, could not touch any matters already provided for by statute. The honourable Gentleman the Member for Poplar says Her Majesty's Government have not touched the City, as was decided by the Commission of my right honourable Friend the Member for Bodmin I must remind him that that question was just the question not decided by the Royal Commission at all. That was decided by Her Majesty's late advisers. They decided that the City should, as they called it, be amalgamated with the County Coun-
400
cil, and they asked my right honourable Friend and his Commission to decide how it could be done. Whether it was to be done or not the Commission never decided, because they never considered, it being specially excluded by the terms of their reference. So much for the "emphatic decision," as the honourable Member called it, of the Royal Commission on a vital point never considered by that Commission. To the details of this Rill it would be premature to refer at any length at present. Personally, I do not see why honourable Gentlemen opposite should have such misgivings regarding the power given to the local bodies to promote Bills in this House. Possibly they may have in their minds the very heavy cost of that sort of proceeding when undertaken by the County Council. I think that cost is extravagant, and I think, therefore, that as these local bodies will have to bear the whole cost of any such action, they will be much less likely to indulge in extravagant expenditure than another body. I myself do not in any way apprehend any danger, because I believe the way to promote economy is to make certain that those who indulge in extravagance will have to bear the cost. The honourable Gentleman the Member for Shoreditch did not object to the non-existence of a bond between the County Council and the local bodies. He rather complained that no member of the London County Council could sit as such upon any of the local bodies. I think, myself, that the arrangement whereby the two bodies are kept distinct is calculated to promote cordiality and good relations between them. I am glad to know that every year greater cordiality is shown between the County Council and the Corporation of the City of London. I thank the House for having listened to me, and I will not retain it longer, but I should like to tender on behalf of my constituency, which will be one of the first to derive benefit from the Bill, my thanks to the right honourable Gentleman for this long-expected Measure, which will be heartily welcome, and will be cordially received by all parts of London.
*MR. BURNS: I join with Members on both sides of the House in congratulating the right honourable Gentleman on the tone, character, and, may I add, temper with which he intro-

401
duced this Bill; but, notwithstanding that one must agree even at the first survey of its main provisions, there are points of criticism that may be appropriate even on the First Reading. But I welcome the speech of the right honourable Gentleman in one very important particular, because he gives London a final opportunity of hearing from him on behalf of his Party the last of any desire to smash the County Council or in any way to impair or undermine its efficiency. As a Councillor from the very first, I am pleased to know that London recognises that whatever may have been the defects of the Council, from the point of view of devotion, honesty, capacity, and, may I add, the disinterestedness of its Councillors, very few bodies have exceeded it in the history of England, and I trust the spirit which actuates the right honourable Gentleman will extend to the whole of his supporters during the passage of this Bill. I rise to say a few words of a critical character. The Bill is open to criticism on several points. I would have wished that the right honourable Gentleman had amplified the relation of this Bill to the probable development of the Equalisation of Rates, and the maintenance of that equalisation as we now understand it with the logical and inevitable development of that principle. I do appeal to him not to allow anybody to interfere with the Council, as it now is with the Common Poor Fund, as the collector and distributor of the Equalisation of Rates, and I trust if anything is done it will be rather in the direction of developing the theory of equalisation than of diminishing it. I am very glad that the Bill has simplified rating, and if the right honourable Gentleman can provide a uniform and better system of assessment than now prevails, I would urge him to do it, and if that cannot be done by the local authorities, then the next best thing is to make the Council the central assessment body, which, perhaps, many of the local bodies would agree to. In any event it could be made the court of appeal. The right honourable Gentleman must look forward to some of the smaller vestries very strongly criticising this Bill. I hope this Bill will tend to increase interest in local life in the 16 municipalities that will be created, but I am under the
402
impression that some of the smaller areas will regard this Bill as an instrument for diminishing local life, and for increasing the apathy of their citizens and destroying that incentive to public spirit which now prevails in those small areas. The right honourable Gentleman has made, as I suspected he would, the chairmen of the new local bodies mayors. If this title will attract better men, I would be in favour of it, but I am not particularly enamoured of the gentleman who takes part in the local life of his district because he hopes some day to be a mayor. You will generally find that the men who are dissatisfied with the simple title of Chairman and want to be mayors are very often snobbish and incompetent, and are frequently bores. I hope the title of mayor will not attract those ornamental, but not very useful, persons. If the title will stimulate a dormant sense of duty and attract better men to the Council, then I will be pleased to see it. I am, however, doubtful. Now I come from mayors to aldermen. I am very sorry indeed that it was necessary to create aldermen in the new bodies. Our experience of aldermen in the County Council is not eminently satisfactory. There are a few of them who attend to their duties, but a large number stay away. If these new aldermen are to be created, may I respectfully suggest that they should be elected as aldermen are elected in the County Council, by the councillors of the Council, not by the aldermen. That will be an improvement. The main point that I want to criticise is the power given to the local authorities to promote Bills. In my opinion this is fraught with great danger to the metropolis as a whole, including the districts which will have the superficial advantage of promoting Bills. What will happen? On the face of it it appears good to give the new Councils power to promote and oppose Bills, but really I believe that power will be used against the metropolitan life and power of London by such monopolies as water, gas, electric light, and possibly tramways. We all know what happens now. At the present moment these local authorities have not the power to promote Bills, but the Council on their behalf does undertake that duty. We know what monopolists do towards the Council when it promotes Bills. They attack and confront it at every opportunity, and

403
possibly these monopolists will now use these local bodies as a means of gaining their own ends in certain districts, and in so doing to fight the County Council on great metropolitan questions affecting the vital issues of all bodies local and central. I would prefer that one body had the power of promoting Bills for metropolitan purposes, and if that is not carefully watched, on the principle of divide and conquer, the monopolists will use the local authorities to fight the Council and damage London as a whole, and possibly the local authorities themselves. There is also another point. Provincial Members object to the House of Commons being used for the discussion of minor maters affecting London. But what will the House of Commons say if when the County Council promotes a Bill, 14 or 15 other bodies appear to oppose it, or promote Bills in an opposite direction. It would possibly make the House of Commons sick of London questions altogether. In this respect, the new bodies may play the game of the monopolists, but they will not conduce to the interest of the metropolis as a whole. I also view with suspicion the power of the County Council to remit, but not to acquire, certain powers which the local authorities may want or not. It seems to me it ought to be reciprocal. I can conceive occasions when a local authority would be anxious and willing that the County Council should have certain powers, but under the Bill it will not have the power to acquire them. One other point. The honourable Member who spoke last twitted the County Council with being extravagant, and for its large expenditure in opposing Bills. What will happen if all these local authorities have the power to do the same? It will, of course, add to the expense, needless extravagance overlapping, and might act to the ultimate detriment of the Council and the local authorities. They ought to be at least confined to their own area. With regard to the question of loans, I am not so sure that it would be wise to let the local authorities have power to raise them. The financial system of the County Council is excellent. I believe it stands well on the Stock Exchange—I am rather sorry to hear that for one reason—but, as a matter of fact, its finance is much respected, and its credit is very good. I believe that if the local
404
authorities have the power of raising loans, it may lead to insurance companies and banks coquetting with them for raising loans at a higher rate of interest but at shorter periods than the Council could secure them. I would like the right honourable Gentleman to have dealt with the financial sides of these new Councils, but he has not said a word about audit.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYdissented.
*MR. BURNS: Are they to be audited by the Local Government Board?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir.
*MR. BURNS: I hope, then, the right honourable Gentleman will favourably consider the advisability of subjecting these new Councils to the same audit as the County Council, namely, of the Local Government Board. We do not complain of the audit of the Local Government Board. I hope also that the right honourable Gentleman will give the new Councils the powers of the Boards of Guardians. I would have welcomed that because it would take the administration of the Poor Law out of the hands of Bumble and of clergymen of every denomination, and have invested it with a dignity it does not now possess and brought it under the criticism and administration of more businesslike men than are now returned to the Boards of Guardians. I am exceedingly sorry that so much is left to the Boundary Commission. I think it would have been wiser had we all known our respective areas and what was going to happen to the districts. I trust, at any rate, that the report of the Boundary Commission will be subject to the veto of the House of Commons, and that the Commissioners will not have it all their own way, as Boundary Commissioners too frequently desire. This is not the time or the occasion for going into this Bill in more detail. I trust that the right honourable Gentleman will remove one illusion from his mind which his language seemed to indicate that he held—namely, that this Bill can be regarded as a final settlement of London Government. I regard this Bill, like the Act of 1888, as only an instalment of the claims of London to self-government. Whether honourable Members opposite like it or not the

405
City has got to be dealt with some day.
HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
*MR. BURNS: Yes, the City has got to be dealt with some day, and I believe that day is not so far distant as many so-called representatives of the City are apt to think. We hear about the Corporation being the embodiment of the highest civic traditions, of historical continuity and all that sort of thing, but there are some of us who think that where it is not a municipal mausoleum asylum it has a tendency to become a glorified Bucket-shop. There are some of us who believe that it ought to take a keener and closer interest in the life of poor and struggling citizens than it does. And when the City is to be dealt with amalgamation must take place. Nor can the Metropolitan Asylums Board be left in its present anomalous and extraordinary position. We all know that this Bill, good as it may be in a few points, is but an instalment of a far deeper and wider reform, and only as such I welcome it. I trust it will rouse a sense of duty in our young men who do not take a sufficient interest in the affairs of the community. I trust it will stimulate the civic life of London, which at present is too conspicuous by its absence. I trust that it will bring order and good administration where now is extravagance, waste and reactionary ideas, and in so far as it leads in that direction I heartily welcome it. The right honourable Gentleman may rest assured that this Bill is going to be subjected to criticism and serious change that will have a tendency to strengthen and improve it in the directions I have indicated.
*MR. COURTNEY: It is impossible to criticise at length a Bill the details of which we have only heard from the speech of the right honourable the Leader of the House. But perhaps I may be allowed to say a word or two at this stage. The Bill is founded on two principles: it will not touch the London County Council, and it will not touch the City of London. Well, these two negative qualities are perhaps set off, the one against the other. Those who were alarmed lest the Bill would
406
touch the London County Council will think that they have got something, and those who were afraid that the City was to be interfered with are now assured that it is not to be touched. Experience has shown that it is practically impossible to reduce the importance of the London County Council. I am afraid that in its first years it was regarded with suspicion, and apprehension existed as to its being interfered with. At that time there was a, good deal of random talk inside the County Council, and this was followed by equally random denunciation outside the Council. But those who have spoken most strongly about limiting the powers of the London County Council now recognise that that is impracticable. The truth is that from the very nature of things the London County Council cannot be substantially reduced in importance; rather that importance will go on increasing. My right honourable Friend the First Lord of the Treasury proposes to create a certain number of municipalities in London, and everybody is agreed on the expediency of that. Honourable Members may differ as to the value of the suggestions as to what should be altered and what should not be altered. You are going to create these new municipalities, and we are willing to give them the glory of mayors and aldermen, but I confess I have a strong feeling that, do what you will, you cannot make the functions of these bodies very important. Whatever arrangements are made in the future about the police, they will not get anything to do with that subject or with the supply of water or gas, although they may do a little with electric lighting. The trend of opinion and the nature of things is in the direction of uniform action in the matter of administration outside and inside the limits of these subject municipalities. The demand is made, "Why do not the London County Council do this or that?" The answer is, "They have not the power to do it; the power is vested in the vestries and the boards of guardians." The trend of opinion is that these powers should be in the hands of the London County Council. Consider, for example, the condition of the roads. Every now and then you hear it said: "How absurd

407
it is that the management of Piccadilly should be vested in a vestry. How bad it is that when you are driving along your horse suddenly passes from asphalt to wood and from wood to macadam." The uniform administration of the roads is of great advantage when the roads are being repaired, and also in economy of administration. From the nature of things you must have a movement in the direction of placing roads, at least the main roads, under the management of the London County Council rather than of vestries. The Royal Commission which inquired into the subject, and of which I had the honour of being a member, was most desirous of fortifying the subordinate municipalities rather than weakening them, but we could not see much to be done in this direction. It has been agreed that certain functions should be transferred from the County Council to the subordinate councils, but they are of a secondary character. The honourable Members for Battersea and Poplar have great apprehensions lest a Moderate majority in the Council may be induced to consent to the abandonment to the subordinate municipalities of a great many powers now vested in the former body. But they ought to know very well how Members cling to the authority and power they possess, and even Moderate members of the London County Council do not want to give up their work, and they will not find it possible to give up that work in any substantial degree. I have not gathered from the speech of my right honourable Friend whether the Provisional Orders transferring functions to the new bodies are to come before Parliament, but if any guarantee were necessary against the abuse of these provisional orders, the necessity of coming before Parliament, which I now understand to be affirmed by my right honourable Friend, will furnish that guarantee. As to the new municipality of the City of Westminster there is no doubt of the great importance of the proposal to organise the ancient city, and if this proposal is fully adopted a municipality will be created of immense wealth, great power, and preponderating influence. I should have thought, myself, that the area mentioned is too big to be easily managed, and I can warn my friends that they will probably find some objection to the creation of that
408
City from persons who will be affected by its formation. Representatives of the existing vestries will probably protest, as the Vestry of St. James's energetically protested before the Royal Commission, that places full of associations of a historical and literary character ought not to be swamped in any large area. With respect to the new municipalities to be created, my right honourable Friend did not mention who are to be the Commissioners entrusted with that work. Will they be mentioned in the Bill or will it be left to the discretion of the Government to select them after the Bill becomes law? The names of Boundary Commissioners have generally been mentioned in the Bill, but it may be convenient to mention their names at a later stage. One suggestion I think it worth while to mention with reference to their functions. Certain conditions have been laid down as to the population and rating value of the municipalities to be created. I agree with the condition as to valuation, but it ought also to be provided that under no circumstances should existing boundaries be cut. The new municipalities ought to be either an existing unit of administration or a combination of existing units. Such a cutting would only lead to further confusion. I think that is all that I have got to say on that branch of the subject, but there is another point on which I wish to make a few remarks. The Bill does not touch the City of London. I confess that I think it is almost ludicrous to see the respect which is paid to the City of London. The fear and anxiety which this strong Government has about touching the City of London is overstrained. I did not expect my right honourable Friend to touch it. He has the power to do great things, but the time has passed away. But, of course, it will have to be done some day, and when it is done the Conservative Members of the future will wonder at the reasons which led to the maintenance of this anomalous institution. We passed in recent years a Parochial Charities Act, which took away a great part of the charity funds from the administration of the old trustees and gave them, under sanction of Parliament, to Commissioners who dispense the funds all over the metropolis, and even beyond it, for the bene-

409
fit of the people at large. How can it be suggested that the administration of the particular funds, of which this small body are only trustees, and which are now really used by them not for the benefit of the City but for the benefit of the larger area, can be properly limited to that body of trustees. It appears to me absurd. They are the mere trustees, for example, of what is called the Bridge House Estate, and they recognise that this trust runs outside the City. The Corporation has in deed, created the Tower Bridge out of the trust funds, and it is generally recognised that the whole of the funds are practically available for the wants of the whole metropolis. In the same way the markets of the City were left under the control of the City, but they are really markets which belong to the whole of the metropolis. These trusts have far out-grown the particular area within which it is insisted in some quarters that the trustees should be maintained in their administration. You cannot maintain the Corporation of the City of London in the future as in the past. It must be made a body analagous to those which you are going to create outside its area. A Bill which provides for not interfering with the London County Council and for not interfering with the City of London is not likely to produce enormous results. It is, however, a good Bill so far as it goes, and really may be regarded at the same time as a preparation for something of far greater importance.
SIR C. DILKE: Those of us who for some years past have taken much interest in this question and have been working at it in a practical way must agree with most of the things which have been said regarding the Bill. In the very few words which I shall address to the House I shall confine myself to matters which have not been dealt with to-night at all. There is one matter of the most far-reaching moment in connection with the Bill which has not been considered at all. The speech of the Leader of the Opposition and those of other honourable Friends who followed him from this side of the House have hit the blot on the Bill as they viewed it, namely, that the Bill somewhat insidiously appears to strike at
410
some of those powers for which London is united at the present time. But my honourable Friends have not pointed out why there is an objection to those powers being divided among the proposed new municipalities. My right honourable Friend who has just spoken has said that the modern tendency in the public mind is in the direction of unity for a great number of services. What does that mean? Shortly, from the point of view of the great majority of the people, there are certain services which the London County Council may desire to get rid of because they are embarrassing, because they give a good deal of trouble, but which, for the sake of the people at large, ought to be kept united and ought not to be separated and given to these municipalities. There are, moreover, public grounds, even if the London County Council were anxious to get rid of these powers, why they should not be cut up among the municipalities. I may mention one instance. There is an Act dealing with the hours of young persons who are shop assistants. Now the enforcement of this legislation is in the hands of the London County Council at the present time, and it may be proposed to hand it over to the new municipalities. The London County Council has recently been pressed from the outside to use the great powers it has under this Act, and it has begun to use these powers in a manner which is an example to other localities. I am very much afraid that this insidious clause in the Bill authorising the future transfer of powers to the municipalities will strike at the root of this class of legislation and will tempt the London County Council to get rid of the administration of a very thorny subject and hand it over to bodies which will not observe uniform administration. Of course, on the surface the Bill appears to be very moderate, and only to carry out the suggestions which, since February, 1886, have been made at a whole series of conferences. But there are great dangers, not only in the obvious proposals of the Bill, but in that which underlies these proposals—dangers which mean the breaking up of the administration of London in much that has been useful and desirable. I wish to associate myself with the honourable Member for Bodmin in regard to what

411
he said as to the boundaries of the new municipalities. There are obviously difficulties, which suggest obvious remedies, but these remedies only involve greater difficulties still. Take, for instance, a detached portion of a parish. If you have already an existing area, which is one for all purposes, and divide it by throwing that detached portion into another municipality, you break up not only the Parliamentary area but the Poor Law area, and you will create greater difficulties than ever. This matter is well worth pressing on the Government at this moment, for probably they have not finally adopted their course of action on this point. The only other remark which I wish to make concerns the proposed resuscitation of the Ecclesiastical Incorporation of Westminster. The City of Westminster is for one purpose only still governed by a body of the most curious description—of which the Mayor is the Dean of Westminster, and the members of which have the right to wear a gown of a particular form. That body exists for one particular purpose only, and their functions are of a very limited kind. The City is not only ancient, but it is a convenient means of avoiding great boundary difficulties. Four or five speakers have attacked the proposal in the Bill on the ground that it will be a city of the rich, and a city of very great area. But if you look at the facts you will find it will not be a city of the rich, for it contains some of the very poorest parts of all London. Indeed, it will be a very representative section of the metropolis, and I doubt whether there is any ground for objecting to it on the ground that it will be a city of the rich. This unique position of Westminster was brought before the House during the Debates on the Redistribution Bill, and had it not been for the decisive action taken by a single Member there was a tendency to make an exceptional case in favour of Westminster simply because the difficulties with it were very great.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: May I now ask the House to bring this discussion to a conclusion. I have no reason, however, to complain of the reception given to the Bill as I introduced it. On the contrary, the tone adopted by the great majority of Members in their comments on the Measure
412
was such as to lead me to feel satisfaction as to its reception. But I feel, as everybody else must feel, that such comments are based on an imperfect knowledge of the facts, and that further discussion undoubtedly would be better taken a little later on. I do not think that any questions put, or arguments used, require an answer from me at present in detail. But I ought to say a word in answer to something that fell from my honourable Friend the Member for the Strand Division. There is a very ample provision in the Bill for compensation to officers of existing bodies who may be disestablished by the creation of the new municipalities. These provisions are based on similar provisions in the Act of 1894, and I do not think they leave anything to be desired. As I have already said in the course of an interruption by some honourable Gentleman, this question of the transfer of powers from the London County Council to the local municipalities has surely excited unnecessary alarm when we remember that before any such transfer takes place it must have first the consent of the London County Council, then of the new municipalities, and then the consent of both Houses of Parliament. I almost forgot—and of the Local Government Board also. When you think of such a conjunction of bodies it is impossible to imagine that there should be in each of those representative institutions a majority anxious to make an improper transfer of power. It is quite true that you cannot go beyond those powers, and all that can be done is to reverse their action at some future time if that action should be regarded as improper. As regards the Commissioners, it is quite true that large powers are left to them, or rather to the Privy Council, to which the Commissioners are to report. That is a procedure for which there are many precedents. I shall certainly be prepared to consider the propriety of making such orders subject to Parliamentary sanction, as other rules will be under the Bill. I do not wish to express myself as hostile to any such arrangement if the House suggests it, but I protest against the idea that the Government has shown any lack of initiative in not mapping out London. That can only be done after adequate

413
inquiry on the spot. The Government cannot do it. The Commissioners will not be named in the Bill, but before it passes I hope to be able to mention their names. The honourable Member for Battersea seems to think that somewhere in the Bill there was a scheme for interfering with the Equalisation of Hates. I confess that these suspicions of the Government with regard to the Equalisation of Rates and the County Council are somewhat out of date, because we were the creators of the County Council, and we were the inventors of the Equalisation of Rates. The whole policy of the Equalisation of Rates dates from the great Act of Mr. Gathorne-Hardy, now Lord Cranbrook, in 1868. My honourable Friend the Member for the Strand Division has asked me whether I hope to take the Second Reading before Easter. Certainly I hope to take it. We have got so much Supply to take that I cannot make an absolute pledge on the subject, but my Parliamentary experience tells me that it is extremely inconvenient not to read the principal Bill of the Session a second time before the Easter holidays. I shall regard it as a great misfortune if we are not able to carry out that intention. I hope the House will now permit us to take the first reading of the Bill.
MR. LOUGH: I do not wish to detain the House or to say anything that anybody else has said, but my excuse for speaking now is that I have tried to obtain the opportunity of asking two or three questions upon this Bill since eight o'clock, and I have had no chance of doing so, and, if the House will bear with me for a moment or two, it may help in the progress of the Measure. I do not think that the right honourable Gentleman can complain of the spirit in which the Bill has been received. I only desire to make one criticism upon the speech of the right honourable Gentleman, and that criticism arises from the mention which he made of the Municipal Corporations Act. I gathered from his remark that he has pursued the analogy of the Municipal Corporations Act, instead of doing as I hoped he would do, pursuing the analogy of the general law of the Local Government of London. All the criticisms on the Measure have mentioned that. It is from the great municipalities that he
414
has got the aldermen, which, in, our opinion, is objectionable; it is from them that there is proposed to be a system of audit which, we think, will have to be corrected; it is from them that we get the example of annual, instead of triennial, elections; and it is from them, finally, that there is a franchise, which the right honourable Gentleman himself says will not answer. The right honourable Gentleman, in introducing the Bill, explained that the London franchise is wider than that which the great municipalities enjoy. That is an admission that the analogy which the right honourable Gentleman has pursued so closely breaks down. My reason for making these remarks is in order to show the right honourable Gentleman the sort of Amendments which may be put upon the Paper, and which he will have to consider, and which Amendments will show the general spirit in which we are approaching this Bill. I ask him to recognise the spirit in which the criticisms have been couched, and to consider the definite suggestions which will be made. May I ask the right honourable Gentleman a question? What about the position of women under this Bill? Women have seats on all the Local Boards in London at present. They have not in any of the Municipal Corporations, and I will ask whether women will have seats upon these new local bodies, or whether this false analogy of the Municipal Corporations will be pursued, and women be excluded. This is a point which I am sure will raise a great deal of interest. Again, may I ask whether the 72 Members, which number is to be the limit of the Corporations, include aldermen or not?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes.
MR. LOUGH: That leaves, then, 48 elected Members. May I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether these bodies will have power of assessment as well as of rating; and also whether these elections will take place this year, or, I should say, whether some arrangement will be made by the Local Government Board that they may take place this year. Already preparations are being made for them, and if the right honourable Gentleman will make some announcement with regard to these mat-

415
ters, I am sure it will be received with great satisfaction. Will the right honourable Gentleman say something about the question of assessment, and about the position of women?
Question put.
Leave granted.
Bill brought in by the First Lord of the Treasury, and read a first time.

COLONIAL LOANS FUND.
Considered in Committee:—
(In the Committee.)
Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the creation of a Colonial Loans Fund, out of which loans may, if authorised by Act of Parliament, be granted to certain Colonies; such fund to be raised—

(a) by the issue of Colonial Guaranteed Stock, the dividends on which are to be paid out of the Colonial Loans Fund, and in default, out of the Consolidated Fund; or

(b) by the issue of Bonds, the principal and interest of which are to be paid out of the Colonial Loans Fund, and in case of default, out of the Consolidated Fund.

That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund, of the sums necessary to meet the guarantee in respect of the Colonial Guaranteed Stock or Bonds, or to make good any sum due from, but unpaid by a Colony, in respect of the interest on any such loan; such sums, so far as not repaid out of the Colonial Loans Fund, to be repaid out of moneys to be provided by Parliament.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
*THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The object of asking the Committee to pass this Resolution is to obtain its assent to the general principle of raising a fund out of which Colonial loans may be granted, although it will still be necessary to ask the assent of the House to a separate Bill before any such loan can be made. This matter was brought before the House last year,
416
and leave was given to bring in a Bill which, I think, generally met with a favourable reception, but objection was taken to one or two points of the Bill. It was argued by honourable Gentlemen opposite, and by others, that it was not fair to sanction these loans merely by a clause in the Public Works Loan Act. It was considered that that Act, relating, as it does, to loans made by the Public Loans Commissioners, ought not to include this class of loan, because the loans made by the Public Works Commissioners are practically made by their authority, and any Colonial loan would be proposed to Parliament by the Ministry of the day. The present Bill merely forms the machinery for raising the fund out of which loans to the Colonies may be made. It does not in any way authorise the granting of any loans out of that fund, and any loans granted out of that fund must be the subject of a special Bill, as is the case now, carried in all its stages through the House, and therefore the authority of Parliament will be exercised precisely in the way in which it has always been exercised hitherto. The great advantage of my suggestion is this, that if a loan fund of a large amount is raised, instead of separate loans of small amounts, a better market price is obtained, and that is to the advantage of the Colony, and more fully utilizes the credit of this country. Provision will be found in this Bill, as in the Bill of last year, for making full inquiry into the circumstances of the Colony, both by the Colonial Secretary and the Treasury, before any such loan is recommended to Parliament, and for requiring any Colony, on whose behalf a loan is to be recommended, to pass an ordinance providing for interest and sinking fund, and something in addition, out of which the expenses of the management of the Colonial Loans Fund might be borne: any profit arising therefrom to go to the Exchequer in order to recoup any possible loss. The fund will be managed entirely by the Crown Agents for the Colonies under the direction of the Treasury. They will invest from time to time the repayments, and the whole of the financial arrangements of the Bill will be found to be more completely under the control of the Treasury than

417
was the Bill of last year. If I now receive leave to introduce the Bill, there will be a full opportunity afforded for discusing it upon the second reading. I hope, therefore, I may be allowed to introduce the Bill.
MR. BUXTON: I thought it my duty at the end of last Session to object to the Bill then introduced, and I did so, in the first place because it was so very late in the Session, and we thought that the Bill was in violation of the promise given by the Leader of the House, that no opposed Bill should be then introduced; and, secondly, on the ground that it was mixing up this matter of Colonial Loans with the Public Works Loan Act in a way which we thought was not satisfactory. Thirdly, we did not think that there was sufficient guarantee for the Treasury in regard to the control of the resources of the Colony to whom the loan was made. Practically all of these objections to the Bill seem to be removed by what has fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I understand him now to say that in regard to any loans made to a Colony under this Act, the loans will be made by a separate Bill, and that therefore this House will have an opportunity of discussing the merits of the Bill, the loans it intends to grant, and the reasons for which these loans are given. That provision removes the principal objection which I had to the Bill last year, and the announcement of the right honourable Gentleman that the Treasury have arranged for greater control in regard to these loans when they are given, removes the second serious objection which I had to the previous Bill. I hope that this Bill does not mean that we are going to advance money lavishly on a system of Colonial loans; I trust that when a loan is given it will be taken care that we have not only complete control in regard to that matter, but greater control over the Colony in regard to other matters by these loans than we have at present. Considering the very satisfactory explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am very glad that he has introduced the Bill.
MR. LOUGH: I should like to know why the Bill is brought in now. I understand the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer
418
has not any particular Colony in his mind to which he wishes to make a loan. Will it not be well for us to wait until some Colony makes application for a loan? I have not been able to gather from the remarks of the right honourable Gentleman why he is seeking this power now if he does not require to use it at once. If he does require to use it at once, I shall be glad if he will tell us how he intends to do so. I quite agree with what my right honourable Friend has just said on the point of security, but I am still at a loss to know why there was any such pressure for this particular Bill at the present moment.
*THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am anxious to form a fund to enable arrangements to be made to meet any demands which Parliament may be called upon to sanction. There may be loans asked for during the present Session, but I am not in a position to state whether that is so at present, but if it happened to be so it would certainly be very advisable that a fund should first be set up as proposed by this Bill. Before a loan is made the proposal will come before Parliament, and full explanation will be given as to the reasons why it is asked for. In reply to the right honourable Gentleman, I do not anticipate a large extension of loans to Colonies, but my object is to see that, when such an advance is sanctioned, it shall be obtained on the best terms possible in the market, and this is the object of the Bill.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
House resumed.

SUPPLY.
Committee deferred till To-morrow.

LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
On the order for the Second Reading of this Bill,
MR. CALDWELL,: I must express my surprise that this Bill has been brought up for reading a second time without the Attorney-General giving any explana-

419
tion whatever with regard to the necessity for it. The question is not in any sense a Party one, no matter what Government might be in power. Although the Bill is a very short one, I believe I shall be able to show that most important questions are involved in regard to it. In the first place it is an acknowledgement that this House, which in its corporate capacity, has from time immemorial been exercising rights which belong to it, has been acting in an illegal manner in its corporate capacity, and has been in fact guilty of shebeening, and in consequence of that shebeening is liable to awful penalities. In order to do this this House of Commons is asked to go cap in hand with the Bill to the other House with a view to relieving us from the penalities which we have incurred through our past actions. The Bill even goes much further than this, because if it be the case that the Licensing Laws apply to the House at the time when this House is sitting in Session, then by implication it necessarily follows that the Sanitary Acts, the Police Acts, and the Building Operations Acts apply within the precincts of the House as well. The facts relating to this Bill are extremely few and simple. From time immemorial this House has exercised the right of selling or permitting the sale, within its precincts of intoxicating liquors. These have been sold to various classes of people. They are sold to Members of the House, to officials and servants of the House, to counsel, solicitors, and witnesses engaged before its committees, to the Members, to those in the Ladies' Gallery, and to the general public. Now, the House of Commons m carrying out its right of regulating the procedure of persons within the precincts of the House has been acting through the medium of the Kitchen Committee, but it is not the Kitchen Committee who are the sellers of these intoxicating liquors. It is the House of Commons which provides for their sale, and which makes up the balance of loss, if any there be, and which keeps the balance of profit if profit there be, on these transactions. Therefore, it is a question as to whether this House in its corporate capacity has the right to regulate its own procedure in the conduct of persons within the House itself. Now it is said that the necessity for this Bill has arisen owing to some
420
remarks of the Lord Chief Justice in a case which was brought before the Court of Queen's Bench. That case had been submitted first of all before the local magistrate, and the local magistrate decided that the House of Commons, being the Palace of Westminster, was not brought within the purview of the Licensing Acts. We, therefore, have got the decision of the local magistrate that the Licensing Acts do not apply to this House. Then the case came before the Queen's Bench Court on appeal, and on the case stated there, the Lord Chief Justice and Justice Wills said that two questions were involved; the first was whether any offence against the Licensing Acts had been committed at all, and the second was, assuming the answer to be in the affirmative, whether the respondent, who happened to be the servant who sold at the bar, was the person who had committed the offence. As to the first question it was argued by the Attorney-General that no offence had been committed, and the reason was that the Commons House of Parliament was wholly outside the law which prohibited the sale of intoxicating liquor without a license. The Lord Chief Justice said that, in the view which the Court took of the second question, viz., whether respondent had been guilty of any offence, it was unnecessary to express any definite opinion upon the first. So far as legal decision stands we have one decision in favour of the authority of the House to sell, and there is no contrary decision by the Court of Queen's Bench. I quite understand that the Attorney-General will say that there were indications from the Lord Chief Justice with regard to the first question as to the legality of the sale, but I think if the Attorney-General looks into the matter he will find he did not present to the Court of Queen's Bench the real argument, that this House in its corporate capacity has an undoubted right to regulate the conduct of persons within its walls, and has exercised that right from time immemorial, and that that right is inherent to the House of Commons, which no legal court can take away. If that be the constitutional right of this House, it was not necessary that this House should be exempted from the Licensing Act any more than it would be necessary to exempt the Royal palaces of the Queen, which are outside all Acts of Parliament

421
that may be passed. The Attorney-General did not present the case in a constitutional way. The Lord Chief Justice told us what the argument of the Attorney-General was, because he said that he was very far from satisfied that no offence had been committed, and he was not impressed by the argument of inapplicability which the Attorney-General used. The Attorney-General drew his arguments on the grounds of inapplicability, and the construction of the Act of Parliament, but he did not found it on the constitutional right of this House. I have no doubt that the learned Attorney-General will see that one reason for the inapplicability of the Licensing Act was this: that under that Act the name of the licensee was required to be placed outside the door of the place where the liquor was sold. I suppose the name that ought to be put outside here would be that of Lord Stanley, Chairman of the Kitchen Committee. If the Licensing Acts apply, then the policeman would have a right to come to the bar to see whether any Member was asking for more liquor than he was in a fit condition to receive. But I say that it is not a question of the construction of a statute—whether it can apply or not, or as to the inapplicability of an Act of Parliament. The same thing might occur in the Law Courts, or in the case of County Councils, or of Municipal Councils. The real argument is this, that this House in its corporate capacity has always maintained an exclusive right and jurisdiction to deal with its own legislative Chamber, and with the conduct of persons within that Chamber, and that it is essential to the supremacy of this House in doing its work of legislation that it should not be liable to go to any local body, however important, to ask permission from them to sell spirituous liquor if it is thought advisable that that liquor should be sold. We are, therefore, in this position—that not only is it a matter of constitutional right, but it is a right which we have always exercised. We are in quite a different position from any other body in the country. If anyone misconducts himself in the Gallery of this House, or within the precincts of this House, is it not a fact that this House exercises jurisdiction over
422
such person? There was a recent case where this House held that it was a breach of its privileges to serve summonses, or other legal documents, upon a Member of the House in the outer Lobby; because it claims this right—that the House in its corporate capacity, when sitting for the purpose of carrying on the business of legislation, has an undoubted right to exercise jurisdiction within its own precincts. Take, for instance, the case of a Royal palace; we remember when the Queen invited the Members of the House of Commons down to Windsor. The Queen might have allowed refreshments to be obtained on the grounds, on payment by Members. Would the Attorney-General say that if the Queen had permitted this within the walls of Windsor a licence would have been necessary, and if it was not obtained that the Lord Chamberlain could be brought up for illicit selling, or for a breach of the Licensing Act? Could a charge of shebeening have been brought against the Lord Chamberlain? We know the various rights that Royal palaces have in Scotland. Before imprisonment for debt was abolished, the palace authorities had a right of asylum there, and protection from imprisonment. There was no exception in the Act of Parliament; the palace, and all the officials thereof, had an undoubted prerogative which applies to all royal palaces, and no Act of Parliament can take these prerogatives away unless it specially mentions them. Why did not the Attorney-General argue his case in that way? I must say that I admit he did not bring that point forward. Take the case of the Law Courts. The Supreme Court of this country has jurisdiction, peculiar to itself, within the walls of those courts, and it has the right of punishing for contempt of court anyone that it may consider has acted, against the rights and dignities of that court. The Law Courts are licensed, I suppose, because some counsel or other had the idea that a license was necessary, and I suppose it was some counsel or other who thought it was necessary for the House of Commons. But I will point out this—that the very same privilege that applies in the case of a Royal palace applies in the case of the Law Courts, and applies

423
very much stronger in the case of the House of Commons—
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
And it being Midnight the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed on Friday.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
WAYS AND MEANS.
Committee deferred till Friday.
POOR LAW ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
COLONIAL SOLICITORS BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

METROPOLITAN GAS COMPANIES.
Adjourned Debate on motion for the appointment of a Select Committee.
*MR. COHEN: The honourable Member for Bethnal Green has an Instruction down upon the Paper, but I would remind him of the fact that the Committee has already had one meeting, and he did not oppose the appointment of the Committee last year. I hope my honourable Friend, therefore, will not press his Amendment, the effect of whim will be to defer the matter to some indefinite period.
*MR. PICKERSGILL: No doubt what the honourable Gentleman has said is perfectly true. I did not oppose the motion at the end of last Session, because it was perfectly obvious that the Committee could not then have proceeded, but now it is most important that the terms of the reference
424
should be carefully scrutinised, and I do feel that the terms of the reference which the honourable Gentleman has put down are not only likely to be nugatory, but may be possibly injurious. I have, therefore, put down the Instruction which was passed by the conference which considered this matter. Under these circumstances I must insist upon my intention to take the sense of the House.
Debate further adjourned till Thursday next.

PARISH COUNCILLORS (TENURE OF OFFICE) BILL.
Considered in Committee:—
(In the Committee.)

PARISH COUNCILLORS (TENURE OF OFFICE) BILL.

  CLAUSE I.
  *MR CHANNING: I very much regret that I have to ask the Committee to report progress on this Bill, but I should like to say, at the same time, that my reason for asking is that there is a certain amount of objection to the proposal to alter the terms of office of the Parish Councillors from one to three years. I am not able at the present moment to measure the amount of that objection, but I do know that it exists. My chief objection is that a serious change to an Act passed two or three years ago—a change affecting the character as well as the duration of office—is proposed under this Bill, and I do think that the Parish Councillors throughout the country ought to be in some way consulted, and that some inquiry should be made before such a change is brought about. I think that is only reasonable, and I have put down a notice on the paper that a Select Committee should be appointed to deal with that question, and, therefore, I beg to move, Sir, that you do report progress.
  Question put.
  Motion carried.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Friday.
  House adjourned at five minutes after Twelve of the clock.

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at Four of the clock.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN.
THE LORD CHAMBERLAIN (the Earl of HOPETOUN): My Lords, I bring the following Message from the Queen:—
"It is with great satisfaction that I have received the Loyal and Dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I have opened the present Session of Parliament."
Address and Answer to be printed and published.

PEER SAT FIRST.
The Lord HINDLIP—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Caledonian Railway (General Powers) [H.L.]

Glasgow and South-Western Rail-way [H.L.]

Herne Bay Water [H.L.]

North Staffordshire Railway [H.L.]

Paisley and Barrhead District Railway [H.L.]

Stretford Gas [H.L.]

Walton-on-Thames and Weybridge Gas [H.L.]

And also the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Great Grimsby Street Tramways.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing-Orders not complied with in respect of the
STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.

  Skipton Gas Bill [H.L.]
  ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed:
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
  Newhaven and Seaford Water Board Bill [H.L.]
  ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that Clause 53, extending the provisions of section 72 of the Waterworks Clauses Act 1847, to all dwelling-houses or parts of dwelling-houses occupied as separate tenements and left for any period less than a quarter of a year, be struck out of the Bill:
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
  Southport and Lytham Tramroad Bill [H.L.]
  ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that the powers to construct the proposed Tramways A and B be struck out of the Bill:
  Read and agreed to.

  SOUTH HANTS WATER BILL [H.L.]
  To be read a second time on Thursday next.

  IMPERIAL MARKETS AND STORES BILL [H.L.]
  To be read a second time on Friday the 3rd of March next.

  263

  Birmingham., North Warwickshire, and Stratford-upon-Avon Railway Bill [H.L.]

  Brighton Marine Palace and Pier Bill [H.L.]

  Friends' Provident Institution Bill [H.L.]

  Glasgow District Subway Bill [H.L.]

  Great Northern Railway Bill [H.L.]

  Great Yarmouth Water Bill [H.L.]

  Greenock and Port Glasgow Tramways Bill [H.L.]

  Hastings and St. Leonards Gas Bill [H.L.]

  Knott End Railway Bill [H.L.]

  Lea Bridge District Gas Bill [H.L.]

  Loughborough Gas Bill [H.L.].

  Lowestoft Water and Gas Bill [H.L.]

  Norfolk Estuary Bill [H.L.]

  North-Eastern Railway Bill [H.L.]

  Port Talbot Railway and Docks Bill [H.L.]

  Rushden and Higham Ferrers District Gas Bill [H.L.]

  St. Neot's Water Bill [H.L.]

  Yeadon and Guiseley Gas Bill [H.L.]

  Rochdale Canal Bill [H.L.]

  St. Albans Gas Bill [H.L.]

  Aberdeen Joint Passenger Station Bill [H.L.]

  Bexhill and St. Leonards Tramroads Bill [H.L.]

  Bristol Gas Bill [H.L.]

  Great Eastern Railway (General Powers) Bill [H.L.]

  Read a second time.

  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

    TREATY SERIES (1899).
    Exchange of Notes extending the Provisional "Modus Vivendi" between the United Kingdom and Belgium pending the conclusion of a Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between the two countries, 5th January 1899—

    No. 4. To Ceylon and Lagos;

    No. 5. To Newfoundland.

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

    TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
    No. 2206. United States: Trade of New Orleans and District for 1898:
    Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.

    UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889.
    Annual Statistical Report of the year 1897–98, by the University Court of the University of Aberdeen to the Secretary for Scotland.
    Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    ARMY (MILITARY SAVINGS BANKS).
    Statement of amount due to depositors on the 31st March 1897, and of the receipts, interest, and disbursements during the year ended 31st March 1897, etc.
    Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    SUPERANNUATION.
    Treasury Minute, dated 11th February 1899, declaring that William James Ewington, postmaster, Ambleside, was appointed without a civil service certificate through inadvertence on the part of the head of his department.
    Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    RAILWAY COMPANIES POWERS ACT, 1864 (EAST AND WEST YORKSHIRE UNION RAILWAYS).
    Draft Certificate of the Board of Trade for authority to raise additional capital.
    Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    STANDING COMMITTEE.
    Report from the Committee of Selection for the Standing Committee, that the Committee have added Lord Sudeley (E. Arran) to the Standing Committee; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  PETITIONS.
    VACCINATION ACT, 1898.
    Petitions for repeal of; of Guardians of the Newport (Salop) Union—and of Guardians of the Poor of the Kingston Union—Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
    MUNICIPAL TRADING.
    Petition that a Committee be appointed to define the extent to which municipal trading should be sanctioned by Parliament; of the Engineering Employers' Federation; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  BILL ORDERED FOR SECOND READING.

    MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894, AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
    To be read the second time to-morrow.
    House adjourned at thirty-five minutes after Four of the clock.