Sitting of 3 July 1899

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords].
  Standing Orders not previously inquired into 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, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First
  1264
  Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—

HASTINGS HARBOUR BILL [Lords].
  WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  Ordered, that the Bills be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords].
  Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with.
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL [Lords].
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL [Lords].

    GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
    GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [Lords].
    WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
    Ordered, that the Bills be read a second time to-morrow.

    FISHGUARD WATER AND GAS BILL.
    Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  BURY CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    BURY CORPORATION WATER BILL [Lords].
    Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
    CHURCH STRETTON WATER BILL [Lords].
    As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
    GREAT YARMOUTH PIER BILL [Lords].
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
    LIVERPOOL OVERHEAD RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    As amended, considered; an Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time.
    ST. NEOTS WATER BILL [Lords].
    As amended, considered; an Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time.
    WARRINGTON CORPORATION BILL.
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
ABERDEEN JOINT PASSENGER STATION BILL [Lords].
  CALEDONIAN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords].

    MANCHESTER CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
    SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
    OWENS COLLEGE, MANCHESTER, BILL [Lords].
    WOLVERHAMPTON TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
    Read a second time, and committed.

    MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (FINANCE) BILL [Lords] [STAMP DUTIES].
    Committee to consider of authorising the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board to enter into agreements with the Inland Revenue for the composition of transfers of their stocks (Queen's Recommendation signified), upon Wednesday.—(Dr. Farquharson.)

    NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENT BILL.
    Motion made, and Question proposed—
    "That the Order of the House of 14th April, 1899, That, in the case of Bills reported from the Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations, three days shall intervene between the date when the Report of the Committee is circulated with the Votes and the Consideration of the Bill, be suspended in the case of the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Tramways and Improvement Bill."—(Dr. Farquharson.)
    MR. J. W. LOWTHER: We ought to have some explanation as to why the Standing Orders are to be suspended.
    DR. FARQUHARSON: Both Bills came down late from the Police and Sanitary Committee, and it is important that there should be no further delay in order to get the Bills through before the end of the session.
    MR. J. E. ELLIS: That is an explanation to a certain extent, but why did the Bills go to the Police and Sanitary Committee late? We have every day the Standing Orders suspended in the most extraordinary fashion. I hope the hon. Gentleman will satisfy himself as to the expediency of suspending the Standing Orders in each case and give the House an assurance of the necessity thereof.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Ordered, That Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
    Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.
    Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
    (Queen's Consent signified.)—Bill read the third time accordingly, and passed.

    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
    Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 17) BILL.
    Read the third time, and passed.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
    As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL [Lords].
    Read a second time, and committed.
    OLDHAM CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and be printed.

    SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
    Mr. Halseyreported from the Committee of Selection that they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice and Legal Procedure: Sir George Fardell, Mr. Gedge, and Captain Norton; and had appointed in substitution Mr. Evelyn Cecil, Mr. William Jones, and Mr. Arthur Morton. Mr. Halsey further reported from the Committee that they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping and Manufactures: Sir Edward Hill and Sir James Rankin; and had appointed in substitution Mr. Galloway and Mr. Gedge.
    Reports to lie upon the Table.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to: Shirebrook and District Gas Bill; Nottingham Corporation Bill; London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Bill; Belfast Water Bill; West Middlesex Water Bill; Central Electric Supply Bill, with Amendments.
    That they have agreed to—
    Amendments to—

ARDRIE AND COATBRIDGE WATER BILL [Lords].
  GAINSBOROUEH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (GAS) BILL [Lords].

    WICK AND PULTENEY HARBOURS BILL [Lords].
    Without Amendment.
    That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional
    1268
    Orders made by the Board of Trade, under the Tramways Act, 1870, relating to Audenshaw Urban District Tramways, Clayton Tramways, Eccles Corporation Tramways, Ilkeston Corporation Tramways, Queensbury Tramway, and Southport Corporation Tramways." [Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords].
    Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under the Tramways Act, 1870, relating to Barking Town Urban District Tramways, Blackpool Corporation Tramways, Dudley and Wolverhampton Tramways, Gravesend, Rosherville, and Northfleet Tramways, Ilford Urban District Tramways, and Wrexham District Tramways." [Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Bill [Lords].
    Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the time for the completion of the authorised pier and works of the Weston-super-Mare Grand Pier Company; and for other purposes." [Weston - super-Mare Grand Pier Bill [Lords.]
    Also a Bill intituled, "An Act for extending the limits of the borough of Workington, and for making further and better provision in regard to the water supply thereof." [Workington Corporation Bill [Lords.]
    And also a Bill intituled, "An Act to consolidate the parishes within the county borough of Portsmouth, and to confer further powers on the Corporation of Portsmouth; and for other purposes." [Portsmouth Corporation Bill [Lords.]

    TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [Lords].
    Read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills; and to be printed. [Bill 255.]
    TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL [Lords].
    Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 256.]
WESTON-SUPER-MARE GRAND PIER BILL [Lords].
  WORKINGTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PETITIONS.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petition from Varteg Hill, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Royal, Parliamentary, and Police Burghs of Scotland, for alteration, to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Dumfries, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour from Lyss, Driffield, and East Liss; to lie upon the Table.
  TROUT FISHING ANNUAL CLOSE TIME (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Dumfries, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
  EDUCATION DEPARMENT.
  Copy presented,—of Minute of the Committee of Council on Education, dated 29th June, 1899, modifying Articles 37, 42, and 130 (6) of the Day School Code, 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (CHEDDAR CHEESE MAKING).
  Copy presented,—of Report on the Results of Investigations into Cheddar Cheese Making, carried out on behalf of the Bath and West and Southern Counties Society, in the years 1891–8, by F. J.
  1270
  Lloyd, F.C.S., F.I.C. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND).
  Copy presented,—of Eighth Report of the Board, being for the period from 1st April 1898 to 31st March 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (INDIAN CURRENCY COMMITTEE, 1898).
  Copy presented,—of Index and Appendices to the Evidence taken before the Committee appointed to inquire into the Indian Currency [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented,—of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2302 to 2304 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House.

  Copy of the Land Transfer Rules, June 1899 [by Act].
  NEW WRIT FOR ST. PANCRAS (EAST DIVISION).
  In the room of Robert Grant Webster, Esq. (Chiltern Hundreds).—(Sir William Walrond.)
  NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY (CORRESPONDENCE).
  Return ordered, "of copy of correspondence recently passed between the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury and the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery, relative to the acquisition of historical portraits by the National Portrait Gallery."—(Mr. Lecky.)
ORAL ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS
  QUESTIONS.

    SPECIAL ENLISTMENTS.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of men now serving, with more than three months' service, who were specially enlisted below the standard as to age and measurements and who, although they

    1271
    have not attained the standard required for enlistment under ordinary circumstances, are counted as effective soldiers; and whether he can state the standard of measurements for these "specials" in the infantry arm of the service.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): From the figures given in paragraph 30 of the Report of the Inspector-General of Recruiting it appears that on the 1st January there were in the army at home, 2,563 men of more than three months' service who were specially enlisted and had not then reached the standard. There is no separate standard for special enlistments. Only those men are so enlisted who are likely to reach the general standard.

    SCOTLAND AND THE MILITARY WORKS EXPENDITURE.
    SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what portion of the £1,306,000 required under the War Office scheme for defence works will be spent in Scotland, and whether such works are contemplated on the Firths of Forth and Tay as well as on the Dee and Clyde.
    MR. WYNDHAM: As I stated to the House in introducing the Military Works Loan Resolution, the Secretary of State does not consider it expedient to give any details in respect of the proposed defence works.

    COMMANDS AT DEFENCE STATIONS— MAJOR GRANT, R.E.
    SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War when the Secretary for War decided that at places where important building works, necessitating heavy expenditure of public money, are under consideration, it is desirable that the senior officer should belong to the Royal Engineers. Whether, before such decision was arrived at, the probable effects of thus securing for the officer charged with advising and supervising expenditure absolute freedom from local supervision and control by independent military authority on the spot was fully considered. And whether it is intended to apply this rule to all places, such as Bermuda, Jamaica, and Mauritius, named in the Schedule of the Military Works Bill, by conferring on the Royal Engineer
    1272
    officer at each of those stations local rank superior to that of his present commanding officer, as has already been done at Esquimalt under this rule.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The decision referred to by my hon. and gallant friend has reference to the case of Esquimalt only. The appointment of Major Grant, with local rank, was considered in all its bearings. My reply of the 12th May did not cite a rule, but explained that one officer of the Royal Engineers had been appointed to succeed another in the command of Esquimalt.
    SIR J. COLOMB: Does the rule apply only to Esquimalt?
    MR. WYNDHAM: It is not a rule. What I said was that at Esquimalt a Royal Engineer officer has heretofore been in command, and he is to be succeeded by another.

    CASTLE MOFFAT CAMP.
    SIR JOHN LENG: On behalf of the hon. Member for Leith Burghs, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state why the camp that was arranged at Castle Moffat, near Dunbar, has been abandoned.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The manœuvres had to be abandoned because the site available for the camp was found to be within the catchment area of the North Berwick water supply.

    THE CARNOUSTIE GOLF LINKS.
    CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for War, to whom I have given private notice of the question, whether he has any information as to interference by the military authorities on Saturday last with the playing of golf on the golf links at Carnoustie, which are the property of the borough; and whether he will take steps to prevent such interference in future.
    MR. WYNDHAM: A telegram has been sent to the General Officer Commanding calling for a report. If the hon. Member will repeat his question on a later day I shall be able to give him some information.

    RAIPUR—ZEMINDARS' GRIEVANCES.
    MR. J. H. ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India will he explain why no reply has

    1273
    yet been given by the Government of India in reference to the memorials presented by Lal Brijraj Sinh and other zemindars of Khariar, in the district of Raipur, praying for redress of grievances; and whether, in view of the long delay which has taken place, he will cause immediate inquiry to be made into the matter.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): I am informed by the Government of India that orders on their memorial were communicated to the Khariar and other zemindars of Raipur on the 14th of last month.

    WEI-HAI-WEI.
    SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the delimitations of the boundary at Wei-hai-wei, dividing Chinese territory under the influence of Germany from that leased to Great Britain, has been completed; whether it reserves for British occupation all land necessary for securing the command of the harbour and the Island of Leu Kung; and what, approximately, is the length of the boundary and the extent of the territorial area reserved for British occupation on the mainland.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): Full particulars with regard to the boundary of Wei-hai-wei are contained in the Convention of July 1st, 1898, which has been presented to Parliament, Treaty Series No. 14, 1898. I think my hon. and gallant friend's second question should be addressed to the Admiralty.

    MURDER OF A BRITISH MISSIONARY AT KWEI-CHAN.
    MR. J. H. ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state whether any definite arrangement has yet been arrived at between the British Government and the Tsung-li-Yamên as to the capture and execution of the headman who is principally responsible for the murder of Mr. Fleming, British missionary at Kwei-Chan; whether the representative of the British Government has demanded the dismissal of the governor of the province where the murder was committed, and that this demand has been refused by the
    1274
    Chinese Government; and what course the Government intend to pursue under the circumstances.
    MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's Government have demanded the dismissal of the Governor of Kwei-Chan in the event of his failure to arrest the headman of the village where the murder was committed, but in view of the capture and execution of two out of the three who were concerned in the crime, they have agreed to extend the limit of time fixed by Her Majesty's Chargé de' Affaires at Pekin for the apprehension of the headman.

    THE PEACE CONFERENCE.
    MR. STANHOPE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to deny the report current in Germany that the opposition manifested to the proposals for compulsory arbitration at the Peace Conference at The Hague proceeds from the instructions and action of the representatives of Great Britain.
    MR. BRODRICK: In view of the agreement arrived at that no disclosures should be made of the proceedings at the Conference beyond the authorised communications made to the Press, Her Majesty's Government are unable to give information in regard to the action of the British representatives at the Peace Conference. But the policy of this country in regard to arbitration is sufficiently well known from previous negotiations and public declarations.

    TRANSVAAL AFFAIRS.
    MR. H. S. FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state to the House the nature of the most recent proposals of the Transvaal Government for conferring the franchise on the Uitlanders, and in what respect they substantially differ from the recommendations which Sir Alfred Milner communicated to President Kruger at the recent Conference.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I stated to the House on the 6th of June the substance of President Kruger's proposals with regard to the franchise at the recent Conference. The project of law subsequently submitted

    1275
    to, and approved by, the Volksraad does not substantially differ from those proposals. They both substantially differ from Sir A. Milner's recommendations, communicated to President Kruger at the Conference in these respects. Under Sir A. Milner's scheme, Uitlanders who have resided in the Transvaal for five years might by becoming naturalised at once obtain the franchise, and those who subsequently complete a residence of five years might, on the expiration of that period of residence, be naturalised and obtain the franchise, while under the scheme of the Transvaal Government, no Uitlander could obtain the franchise in less than two years from the promulgation of the law, and no Uitlander who did not reside in the Transvaal before 1890 could obtain the franchise in less than five years from that time. In Sir A. Milner's scheme the franchise would be obtained on naturalisation. In the scheme of the Transvaal Government an interval of five years (or in the case of Uitlanders who resided before 1890, two years) would elapse after naturalisation, during which the naturalised Uitlander would have relinquished his rights as a citizen of his original country, and not have acquired the rights of a burgher of the South African Republic.
    MR. J. E. ELLIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the date of the proposals of the Transvaal Government to which he has just referred? Have they been superseded?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, the original proposal was made at the Conference by President Kruger, and the subsequent proposal, which was in the nature of a law, was submitted to the Volksraad subsequent to the Conference at Bloemfontein.
    MR. H. S. FOSTER: The date?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know the date, but it was some days afterwards—after the Conference.
    MR. J. E. ELLIS: Has nothing more recent reached the right hon. Gentleman?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. Nothing more recent than that has reached me.

    MALTA.
    MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether protests have been made by representatives of the people of Malta against the decree in letters patent from the Queen proposing to abolish the use of the Italian language in the law courts of the island after a number of years shall elapse; whether, in view of the native feeling which prevails against this decree, it can be modified so as to substitute a bilingual remedy for the grievances which have induced the Colonial Office to cause the issue of the letters patent referred to; and if the bilingual custom which has worked so well in the courts in Lower Canada will be extended to Malta as an alternative to the proposed abolition of the native language in the courts of the island.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The elected members of the Council of Government of Malta have protested against an Order in Council which provides for the use of the English language in certain cases in the law courts of the island, and against a notification of the intention to substitute English for Italian as the language of the courts after the lapse of fifteen years. The native language of the Maltese is not Italian but Maltese, and only a small proportion of the population understand Italian. The English language is now being taught in the schools, and it is anticipated that in a few years it will be more acceptable than Italian to the Maltese. I have no reason to think that there is any widespread feeling against the proposal.
    MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the change in the representative character of the Executive Council of Malta, by which the three members of the Council formerly selected from the elected members of the Legislative Council are now the nominees of the Governor, is accepted as satisfactory to the Maltese; and can he state for what reasons this change has been sanctioned.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The change in the constitution of the Executive Council of Malta was made in 1891—before that the Executive Council included three elected members of the Council of Government nominated by the

    1277
    Governor; but it was frequently found impossible to induce three elected members to accept seats in the Executive Council, and in order to prevent the work of the Council from being thus brought to a standstill the provision requiring three elected members of the Council of Government to be members of the Executive Council was repealed. In practice elected members of the Council of Government have continued to be appointed to the Executive Council when they were willing to accept seats. I have no reason to believe that there is any general objection to the change which has now been operative for eight years.

    CLYDE MUSSEL BEDS.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the statement contained in the last Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland in regard to the Board's rights to certain mussel beds in the Clyde, will he state what action has been taken in the matter; and will he say whether suitable arrangements have now been made for the cultivation of those beds.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): The arrangements referred to in the last Report to the Fishery Board for Scotland in regard to the Board's rights as lessees of the Crown to certain mussel beds in the Clyde have now been completed, and an action is about to be brought in the Court of Session for a declaration to establish the title of the Crown. Until this action has been decided it is impossible to make satisfactory arrangements for the cultivation of the mussel beds in question.

    UNDERSIZED FISH BILL.
    SIR. CAMERON GULL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any statistics to show what percentage of undersized flat fish would be preserved under the provisions of the Undersized Fish Bill, having regard to the fact that a very large proportion of such fish are destroyed in the process of hauling the trawl and sorting the catch.
    MR. RITCHIE: I am advised that no reliable estimate can be made as to the percentage of flat fish, which would be preserved under the provisions of the Undersized Fish Bill. While it is, no
    1278
    doubt, true that many small fish are destroyed in the way suggested by the hon. Baronet, I may point out that it is anticipated that one effect of the Bill will be to deter trawlers from visiting certain grounds where small fish are known to abound, and where fish of the standard size are scarce. The Bill, moreover, would prevent the sale in this country of undersized fish, which are, I understand, at the present time imported from those foreign countries in which their sale is by law prohibited.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Has the right hon. Gentleman any grounds for the belief that any fish at all will be preserved by this Bill?
    MR. RITCHIE: That goes without saying.
    MR. J. LOWTHER: Has the right bon. Gentleman no knowledge that the bulk of any such fish would be found to be dead in the net?
    MR. RITCHIE: No doubt, Sir. That is true with regard to certain trawlers, but my point is, as stated, that if this Bill is passed into an Act this class of trawler would not frequent those areas where small fish are numerous and large fish scarce.
    MR. H. S. FOSTER: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate any particular cases where that would occur?
    No answer was given.

    CYCLES CARRIED ON RAILWAYS.
    MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will endeavour to obtain from the principal railway companies of Great Britain, and lay before Parliament in the form of a Return, a statement of the number of cycles carried by each of those companies during the year 1898, and of the annual sum of money received by them in respect of the carriage of such cycles.
    MR. RITCHIE: I will communicate with the Railway Association, and see what can be done to meet the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. BRYCE: Will there be any objection to presenting it in the form of a Return?
    MR. RITCHIE: No; but I must make I sure I can get it in a complete form first.

    METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the proportion of married to single men in the Metropolitan Police Force; and whether, if the men who have recently joined are not influenced to leave the service by the prospect of having to pay high house rent when they marry, he can state to what cause he attributes the increase in the number of short service men who now leave every week.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): There are 11,673 married men in the Force, equivalent to 75 per cent. of the total strength. The extraordinarily satisfactory state of the unskilled labour market is, in my opinion, quite sufficient to account for the number, which is in no way abnormal, of short service men who leave the Force.

    VACCINATION.
    MR. LOGAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if it is intended by his Department that the public vaccinator's visit and offer to vaccinate, under Section 1, Sub-section 3, of the Vaccination Act, 1898, shall take the place of the opportunity afforded by the vaccination stations now abolished, and such visit and offer to vaccinate be made before any proceedings are instituted against persons who became defaulters since the 1st of January, 1899.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): I am advised that in the case of any child who has attained the age of six months since the 31st December last, the public vaccinator must visit and offer to vaccinate before any proceedings are instituted in respect of the non-vaccination of the child.

    SMALL HOUSES BILL.
    MR. BILL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he could state to the House what is the total number and population of the urban and rural districts, including non-county boroughs,
    1280
    with a population above 7,000, which will or may be excluded from the jurisdiction of the county councils under the Small Houses Bill as now proposed to be amended by the Government; and, what is the total number and population of the remaining districts.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The total number of districts referred to in the first paragraph of the question is 892, with a population of 13,707,696. The number of the remaining districts is 832, with a population of 3,179,630.

    TITHE RENT-CHARGE (RATES) BILL.
    MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture what are the statutes which authorise payments to clergymen in lieu of tithe, who will be benefited by Sub-section 2 of Clause 2 of the Tithe Rent-charge (Rates) Bill; and, to what places will that provision apply.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,): So far as the payments in lieu of tithe referred to in Clause 2 of the Bill are, specifically settled by the Statute, they consist for the most part of the rent-charges given under private Acts of Parliament, and whether they are rateable or not depends on the terms of the Acts under which they are paid. In these circumstances it is impracticable for me to specify the statutes and places to which the clause applies.

    TELEGRAPHS (TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION, &c.) BILL.
    MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, if he, or the Post Office, or any other Government Department, has made any estimate of the probable return which the State will obtain on the expenditure of the two millions of money in competition with the National Telephone Company, and of its effect on the royalties of £114,000 a year now receivable from the company; whether, for comparison therewith, any estimate has been made of the probable return which would be obtained at once if the company were extinguished, or converted into a State Department, and its capital converted into a stock with a limited interest of 3 per cent.; if so, will he lay a copy of

    1281
    such estimate before this House; and, if no such estimates have been made, will he cause them to be prepared; and, will he also lay a copy of the proposed new arrangements with the Telephone Company before the House, and not merely to the Members of the Standing Committee.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,)The two millions are intended partly for the provinces and partly for London. So far as the provinces are concerned the expenditure will be chiefly in places where this company is not now working, or where there is already competition between it and the Post Office. No question of royalty arises in such cases. In London, where there will be competition with the National Telephone Company, even if the rates of the Company, and therefore the royalty, are reduced, this reduction will, it is anticipated, be more than balanced by the increased number of subscribers. The answer to the second paragraph is in the negative. The proposed new arrangements have already been laid before the House in the usual printed notices.

    KILKENNY POSTMAN'S PAY.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that a postman named Jackson, in Kilkenny, has been in the Post Office service over twenty years, and that his wages at present are only 12s. per week; and whether Jackson was given the increment of 1s. 6d. per year fixed by the new wages scale, which came into operation in April, 1897, on the recommendation of the Tweedmouth Committee; and, if not, whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the case, with the view of giving Jackson the wages to which he is entitled by the rules of the service.
    MR. HANBURY: The rural postman at Kilkenny to whom the hon. Member refers was transferred on the 19th ultimo to another walk at that place, carrying wages of 16s. a week. His previous duty was not sufficient to warrant higher wages than 12s. a week.

    LAND IMPROVEMENT LOANS IN ROSCOMMON.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Roscommon,
    1282
    I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the fact that the Board of Works Inspector (Land Improvement Branch) for a great portion of the County of Roscommon resides at Enniskillen, in the County of Fermanagh, far distant from Roscommon, is the cause of grave inconvenience to applicants for loans, inasmuch as the inspector does not sometimes visit the farms for upwards of a month after the claims are filed and the fee paid at the Works Office, Dublin; and whether he will cause some change to be made for the better accommodation of the public.
    MR. HANBURY: The district of the Land Loans Inspector who is stationed at Enniskillen does not include any portion of the County of Roscommon. The inspection of land loans in Roscommon is performed by inspectors stationed at Ballinasloe and Mullingar.

    THE ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL OF THE POST OFFICE.
    MR. H. S. FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether Mr. Cardin, the Comptroller and Accountant-General of the Post Office, has attained the existing regulations as to retirement the age of sixty; and if so, whether, under at that age, it is proposed to retain his services.
    MR. HANBURY: Mr. Cardin has attained the age of sixty, and the Postmaster-General intends to retain his services.

    THE PAPLIAMENTARY DEBATES.
    MR. BARTLEV: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury who is now responsible for the printing of The Parliamentary Debates; and whether Mr. George Walpole, who is described as editor and manager, is an official of the Stationery Office, or has an independent position.
    MR. HANBURY: Messrs. Wyman and Sons, Limited, are now responsible for printing The Parliamentary Debates, a contract for "Printing and Publishing Reports of Debates and Proceedings in Parliament" having been granted to them on the same general lines as that until lately held by Mr. Bussy. The editor and manager is not an official of the Stationery Office, but an employee of Messrs. Wyman.
    MR. BARTLEY: I shall call attention to this on the Estimates, and move a Resolution.

    SCOTTISH CONGESTED DISTRICTS.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state whether the circular letter sent out some time since by the Secretary for Scotland to landlords in the Highland and Islands of Scotland has resulted in offers of land to the Congested Districts Board.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): Some replies have been received, but no useful information on the subject can be given at present.

    PORT NESS HARBOUR WORKS.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state what progress has been made with the harbour works at Port Ness (Island of Lewis); and whether the sand has yet been removed from the harbour.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The breakwater of the Port Ness Harbour is completed. The sand has not been removed from the harbour, and the rest of the works remain in the same state as when the hon. Member last inquired about them.
    MR. WEIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in consequence of the harbour being filled with sand it is utterly useless to the fishermen?
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I do not think there are any facts which are unknown. The hon. Member is as well aware as I am of the real reason for the state of the harbour.
    MR. WEIR: Will any steps be taken to render the harbour useful to fishermen?
    (No answer was given.)

    SCOTTISH FISHERY CRUISER.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that the Fishery Board for Scotland some time since decided to obtain another cruiser, and that the requisite funds have already been allocated to the Board, will he state why no steps have yet been taken in the matter.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I have nothing at present to add to the
    1284
    reply I gave to the hon. Member on the 23rd ultimo to a similar question.
    MR. WEIR: I shall call attention to this matter on the Estimates.

    BEE-KEEPING IN SCOTLAND.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that the question of encouraging bee-keeping in the congested area of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland has been under the consideration of the Congested Districts Board for upwards of a year, will he state what steps have been taken in the matter.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Congested Districts Board that considerable difficulty has been encountered in getting properly qualified persons in suitable places within congested districts to take an interest in bee-keeping. Some fully-equipped hives of the most approved pattern have been sent as an experiment to the Island of Coll, where the schoolmaster has kindly undertaken to have them distributed and supervised. Should the results of this experiment justify them, the Board contemplate a further extension of operations.

    MINOR LIGHTS ON THE SCOTTISH COAST.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the statement contained on page 5 of the Report of the Congested District Board, dated 20th October, 1898, in regard to the maintenance of minor lights erected under the Highlands and Islands Works Vote, will he state whether steps have been taken by the Scottish Office to secure the requisite funds from the Treasury, so that these lights may not fall into decay.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The matter referred to remains in the same position as it was in at the date of the publication of the report referred to.
    MR. WEIR: Has the Scotch Office taken any steps to secure funds for the proper maintenance of these lights?
    (No answer was given.)

    JUDICIAL RENTS IN COUNTY CLARE.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of the delay in fixing judicial rents

    1285
    in the Killadysert district, County Clare; and why the Commissioners do not hold a court in the town of Killadysert.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): With the exception of a short interval of a couple of months, a sub-commission has been constantly employed for close on two years in the disposal of cases from County Clare. It has been the practice to include cases from all the unions in the county in each list issued, so that cases from the Union of Killadysert are in as advanced a stage of disposal as those from the other unions. A fresh list for the entire county will be issued when the present list has been completed. There are only seventy-two cases from the union refered to awaiting hearing. The sub-commissions sit in such places as are most convenient for all parties interested, and if at a future time a large number of cases from the vicinity of Killadysert is listed for hearing, the question of sitting at that place will be fully considered.

    IRISH COUNTY SURVEYORSHIPS.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the examinations for county surveyorships in Ireland only 140 marks out of a total of 1,000 are allotted to county works including architecture; and whether he will suggest the desirability of paying greater attention to subjects directly connected with the duties of the surveyors in conformity with the practice pursued by the Incorporated Association of Municipal and County Engineers in England.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The fact is as stated in the first paragraph. The examinations for county surveyorships in Ireland will no longer be conducted on the system of open competitions, as formerly. No marks will be assigned to the separate subjects, and the examination will henceforward be directed solely to ascertain that each candidate has attained such a standard of proficiency on the whole programme of subjects prescribed as will satisfy the Civil Service Commissioners.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Do I understand that such subjects as chemistry, experimental geology and mineralogy are no longer to be included?
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I am not aware that they are included now.

    BELFAST HARBOUR.
    MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that great risk and loss of life takes place because of the exposed and unfenced state of the Belfast Harbour; that coroners juries have time after time censured the negligence of the Harbour Commissioners in this respect; and that the Belfast City Council has made representations to the Commissioners on the subject; and will he communicate with the Harbour Commissioners requiring their attention to the matter.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: On the 31st of March, 1898, the hon. Member was informed that the Government had called the attention of the Harbour Commissioners to the alleged unprotected state of the docks, and on the 26th of the following month I informed the hon. Member for South Down of the result of the correspondence with the Commissioners. No fresh facts have been brought to my notice, and I have nothing to add to my statement on the latter date.

    AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND) BILL.
    MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed unanimously by the Monaghan Rural District Council, urging the passage into law of the Agriculture and Technical Instruction Bill during the present session of Parliament; and will he give effect to the resolution.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I have received a copy of the resolution referred to. I trust I may have the assistance of the hon. Member and his colleagues in passing the Bill.

    MEDICAL FEES IN IRELAND.
    MR. BLAKE.: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the general provisions of the Medical Charities Act of 1851 on the subject are interfered with; and, if so, how far by the late scale of fees which is understood to be applicable to tickets issued for medical relief to dispensary doctors; and will he explain why

    1287
    changes in this respect have been made in the old system.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: This question appears to refer to Article 7 of the Dispensary Rules. But that Article does not interfere with the provisions of the Medical Charities Act. On the 8th of March last the Local Government Board issued to the local authorities concerned a circular which explained the operation of Article 7. The Statute does not give a definition of a "poor person," and the Board think that the fee demanded by the doctor for his services is an important factor in deciding the question.

    KILMALLOCK LAND APPEALS.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can explain the delay of the Land Commission in fixing rents in the Kilmallock district, some of which are listed for hearing nearly two years; and can he say when the Commission will deal with those cases.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The disposal of a list issued for the Kilmallock district was interrupted by the illness of an assistant commissioner. There are only sixty-seven cases from the district that have not yet been listed for hearing. The Commissioners will make arrangements for the disposal of the cases on the list referred to, as well as of those yet unlisted, as soon as possible.

    AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS AND THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.
    MR. SEELY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the offers now being made by insurance companies of good standing to insure farmers against the Workmen's Compensation Act at rates which would amount to 1½d.an acre or less; and whether, under those circumstances, he would give facilities for the passing of a short Act this session extending the benefits of the Workmen's Compensation Act to agricultural labourers.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have no information as regards the matter of fact referred to by my hon. friend in the first part of his question, though I should imagine that the rates of insurance in the case of agricultural
    1288
    labourers ought to be very low indeed. As to the second part of his question, I cannot promise legislation in the course of the present session.
    MAJOR RASCH: Was not the reason given for the exclusion of the agricultural labourers that the Act was merely a tentative one?
    (No answer was given.)

    NEW CHANCERY JUDGE.
    SIR H. H. FOWLER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether it is the intention of the Government to appoint an additional Judge of the Chancery Division of the High Court; and if so, in what form will the proposal be submitted for the consideration of Parliament.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand the procedure will be by motion for an address to the Crown, and that this procedure will be in pursuance of the powers given by the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876.
    SIR H. H. FOWLER: When will the motion be made?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman any specific undertaking as to the date on which it will be taken, but I will endeavour to give as long notice as I can.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the name of the judge to be appointed be submitted to Parliament?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know whether that is in conformity with precedent, but I will inquire into the matter.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I could give the right hon. Gentleman precedents.

    COMMITTEE ON MUNICIPAL TRADING.
    MR. COHEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, seeing that it has been found impossible this session to appoint the Joint Committee on Municipal Trading, he can give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will appoint the Joint Committee in question early next session.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir, I have to state that I hope we shall be able to appoint the Committee to which my hon. friend refers early next session.
    MR. GALLOWAY: Then are we to take it that the motion for the appointment of the Committee will not be proceeded with this session?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I indicated, I think, on Thursday or Friday, that time was getting on so far that there was very little hope that it would be possible to proceed this session.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. McKENNA: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he proposes to take the Tithe Rent-Charge (Rates) Bill on Thursday?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir, as at present advised I shall hope to do so.
MR. J. LOWTHER: What business will be taken to-morrow?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The first Order of the day, I imagine, will be the Scotch Private Bill Procedure Bill. I say I imagine it will be, because there are certain measures which stand before it, but which, I hope, will be disposed of to-night.

ROYAL NIGER COMPANY [CONSOLIDATED FUND].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS-EACH,): In calling the attention of the Committee to the position of the Royal Niger Company and the proposals which Her Majesty's Government make with regard to the future administration of the territories now under the company's control, I shall dwell very little on the history of the past. I can remember, when I held the office of Colonial Secretary in 1880, that our interests in that part of Africa were not considered important. I think they were practically centred in what was then the unimportant and small Colony of Lagos. Since that time, and especially within the last fifteen years, those interests have, as I need hardly remind the Committee, increased to a great extent. The Niger Coast Protectorate has been established, embracing the territory which was formerly known as the Oil River, and extending from Lagos up to the German sphere of influence at the Cameroons. Very large interests inland,
1290
on the basin of the Niger, have also been created over a vast territory by the enterprise of the founders and promoters of the Royal Niger Company. The position of affairs in the Niger basin was brought under the attention of the Government of the day before the year 1885; and, after much consideration, Lord Granville directed the preparation of a charter to that company, in May, 1885, and shortly afterwards that Government resigned. The matter was discussed by the succeeding Government, which, I think, was only in office for seven months, and afterwards by its successors. In May, 1886, it was decided to grant a charter to the Royal Niger Company, and the charter was actually issued in July of that year. Therefore the Committee will see that whatever may have been the merits—and I think they were considerable—of the policy adopted in granting a charter to a company in that region, and whether the provisions of the charter were good or not, at any rate, the policy was the policy, not of one Party alone, but of both the great Parties in the State. The charter conferred very wide powers on the Royal Niger Company parry. It empowered them to obtain and hold any treaty rights in the region to which it related, to trade there, and to hold land and any privileges, monopolies, and concessions from any potentate or government in Africa or elsewhere. It recognised thirty-seven treaties already made by the company with the chiefs in the Niger basin ceding territory to the company. It empowered the company to levy customs duties to be applied solely to defray the necessary expenses of government, including expenditure already incurred for administrative purposes or otherwise in relation to the maintenance, acquisition, and execution of treaty rights. The company was made in certain matters subject to the control of the Secretary of State; and there were provisions in the charter by which the Secretary of State could check their administrative accounts, and by which also it was stated that nothing in the charter should be deemed to authorise any monopoly of trade, and that the obligations of the Treaty of Berlin relating to the navigation of the Niger should be adhered to. Therefore, within this region of Africa three different kinds of British administration were established.

1291
First, there was the Colony of Lagos under the control of the Colonial Office; secondly, there was the Niger Coast Protectorate under the Foreign Office; and, thirdly, there was the Royal Niger Company, subject only, as far as Her Majesty's Government were concerned, to the very slight control I have stated to the Committee. Perhaps it was hardly likely that these three different kinds of administration would work in harmony, and they have not done so. The Royal Niger Company set itself to the work authorised by its charter with very great energy. It did not do what is a very common thing now—it did not make its shares the subject of speculation on the Stock Exchange, nor has it become the fruitful parent of many other companies, granting concessions for various purposes, which are perhaps often of greater advantage to those who obtain them than they are to the public at large. The Royal Niger Company devoted itself to administration and trade and to the development of the great territories entrusted to its care. As a trading company it has been successful. On its paid-up capital of £500,000 it has divided amongst its shareholders 6 per cent. during each year since the charter was granted; and it has established a considerable reserve fund from its trading profits, and has applied large sums from those profits to the expenses of the administration of the territory which it incurred beyond the amount derived, under the provisions of the charter, from customs duties and other charges it was authorised to levy for the purposes of administration. But my work to-night is to deal with the administrative rather than the trading side of the company. In the work of the administration of the company, two men, I think, stand out pre-eminent—the late Lord Aberdare and Sir George Goldie. Two Secretaries of State—Lord Salisbury and Lord Kimberley—have borne testimony in the highest terms to the energy, the ability, and the resource displayed by the directors of the company, and especially by those I have named, in the work of the administration of these vast territories. Under their guidance the company extended its protectorate over an area of something like half a million square miles, with an estimated population of 30,000,000. It put down slave-raiding and massacres over a great area. It conquered the powerful Ameer of Napé and the Sultan
1292
of Ilorin, and took the town of Bida after an expedition with which Sir George Goldie's name will always be honourably connected. Some two or three years ago it abolished the legal status of slavery within its own jurisdiction; and it, also did what I think is greatly to its honour—it checked materially that terrible curse of Africa, the trade in spirits with the natives. The company further established very valuable relations with the great empires of Sokoto and Ganda—empires which are, as compared with African tribes generally, really civilised countries. Generally speaking, I think it may fairly be said that the company has founded an empire extending over many thousands of square miles in the most valuable part of Equatorial Africa; and this has been done in sharp contrast with the neglect which successive Governments and Parliaments in this country have shown of British interests in that part of the world. I am afraid that nothing in the past is much less to our credit than the manner in which the communications and the trade with the interior of Africa have been allowed by us to be cut off from our settlements of Gambia, Sierra Leone, and even to some extent the Gold Coast. The company acted very differently. It is owing to their work, and to nothing else, that they have preserved for our commerce and for our interests the great artery of the Niger; and in dealing with the company, either now or in the future, I am confident that the work which they have done in this respect will never be forgotten by their countrymen. But, of course, there is another side of the shield. The charter had not long been granted when difficulties arose in working. Some time ago there was a difficulty with the native tribe inhabiting the Brass country within the Niger Coast Protectorate. As far as I am aware, the relations between the company and the tribes within its own territories have been excellent. But the tribes to whom I refer had been in the habit of trading freely with the interior of Africa, of passing in British goods, and of bringing African produce to the coast. When the company was necessarily authorised to establish customs regulations and a customs tariff at its boundaries, these tribes found themselves, of course, seriously hampered in their freedom of intercourse with the interior; and the result was a very dangerous rising on their part

1293
and great loss of life and property, as well as expenditure by the company, before it was put down. Then, again, the company, being bound to establish a customs tariff, had to take care that it should not be evaded by smuggling, and they had to issue certain regulations formed with that object. They made certain provisions with regard to the granting of Customs certificates, with regard to the sums which should be paid for licences to trade on the Niger, and also with regard to the places where vessels might be allowed to trade or call for fuel on the voyages up and down the river. These regulations were undoubtedly to a great extent in restriction of trading by anyone else than the members of the company, and in my opinion they were almost necessarily so. But that was their effect, and consequently grave complaints were made by other traders not connected with the company, both in this country and in France, that practically these regulations, although I believe they were found to be within the legal rights conferred on the company by its charter, did infringe the spirit of the Act of Berlin in respect of the navigation of the Niger. That was a matter of natural complaint with regard to the company. But the great difficulty that has arisen, and the real ground, to my mind, which justifies the change we propose in the position of the company, has been the rivalry in that region between France and this country. We all remember the difficult and delicate nature of the situation two years ago. We remember the strained relations—more strained, I think, sometimes than the public generally appreciated—which arose, and we are all glad that that state of things has been put an end to by the treaty recently ratified by the two Governments. But it was perfectly clear through those difficulties that, although the Chartered Company might be the best means of dealing with that region as far as the natives were concerned, it was not the proper instrument with which the obligations of this country could be performed with regard to anything affecting our civilised neighbours in Europe. The officers of the Niger Company, however able—and they have had very able servants among these officers—must have been primarily influenced by the local and the trading interests of the company they served. It was impossible for them, of course, to
1294
consider matters from the broad point of view from which it would be the duty of Imperial officers to consider them; and, undoubtedly, if the Niger Company had been allowed a free hand in its relations with the French there would have been most grave danger of misunderstanding, and, perhaps, even of conflict, which might have led to a great and terrible war. Therefore, they were not allowed a free hand in this matter, and consequently they naturally devoted themselves to other matters within their own territory, rather than on their frontier, in which they were allowed a free hand, and the duty fell to Her Majesty's Government of taking such measures to protect the frontiers of the Niger Company as the circumstances required. The Committee will remember that we have had to organise a great West African frontier force and to send it out to those regions, with the practical result that within the, territories of the company there has been established a kind of dual administration, military and civil, of Her Majesty's Government and the company, one controlling the relations with the French, and the other controlling the relations with the natives. I need not dwell on the waste and on the risk of friction which that arrangement must necessarily bring with it, and this is the main reason why we have found it necessary to terminate the state of affairs which has hitherto prevailed and to advise Her Majesty to revoke the charter of the company. On that revocation the company will be relieved of all its administrative rights, powers, and duties, and will make over to Her Majesty's Government all its treaty rights, all its land and mineral rights, whatever they may be, and however acquired; further, it will make over to the Government so much of its administrative buildings and plant as we have deemed necessary for the administration of the territory. It will be reduced in itself to the position solely of a trading company, and will be left in possession of nothing more than its trading plant, buildings, stations, wharves, and so on, which are actually at present within its occupation. I am quite sure that the Committee will feel that on this very important change being made in the position of the company it is entitled to full recognition of the position which it

1295
has created for itself, and the rights which it has acquired in the territories covered by the charter. Those rights are very large. They are contained, I believe, in something like 300 treaties, of which, as I have said, thirty-seven were made before the charter was granted. But they also include private land rights and other rights which were not acquired by the company in virtue of the charter, and which were actually purchased out of its private trade profits. When the charter was granted the company was allowed to levy customs dues for the cost of the administration, and included in that cost was a sum representing the expenditure already incurred in relation to the maintenance, acquisition, and execution of its treaty rights. That sum was fixed as long ago as 1888 at £12,500 a year to be charged on the customs duties of the Niger territory. On that charge the company raised in order to recoup themselves for expenditure before the grant of the charter, a sum of £250,000, which is the debt of the Niger Company's territory. We propose to take over that debt on the condition, of course, that we obtain the rights now possessed by the company to redeem it. The debt bears 5 per cent. interest, and is not redeemable at par until 1938; but it is redeemable at any time on three months' notice at a premium of 20 per cent.; and part of the proposal I have to make is that we shall raise £300,000 in order to redeem that debt at once. Then I come to another point. The company was allowed to raise customs duties for the necessary expenses of administration. I think it is very probable that if it had had any anticipation of what we propose to-day, the revenue from these customs duties would have been sufficient to bear those necessary expenses, because it would have been obvious to the company that, not having a permanent tenure, they were not bound to expend in the administration and development of their territory more than was absolutely necessary to secure their trade profits. But that was not the view they took of the position from the beginning. They considered, of course, that they had a permanent tenure under their charter, and they acted accordingly; expending in addition to the necessary outlay on administration to secure their trade profits large sums much beyond the produce of the customs duties,
1296
which were paid by them out of profits which they made in trade. This matter has been gone into very carefully by the Foreign Office, who, as I think the Committee are aware, have been since the grant of the charter furnished every year with the company's administrative account. We have been satisfied that the company have a fair claim on this account to be reimbursed their expenditure in what may be called "unexhausted improvements," for, of course, they will not reap what they have sown in this way owing to the change that will be made in their position. The total amount of this expenditure, together with interest at about 2 per cent. since the granting of the charter, amounts to £300,000. That is the sum which we propose to ask Parliament to pay to the company on account of these unexhausted improvements. I think it ought never to be forgotten that the company risked a great deal in this matter. They have risked the whole of their capital in the attempt to develop a notoriously unhealthy and practically unknown region of Africa. They might have lost every penny of their capital. On the contrary, they have succeeded in their work, and I am sure that the House will not be willing to treat them with anything but fairness, and I would even add with liberality, in making this charge. Then I come to another point. In addition to their treaty rights—treaty rights, I mean, by cession of territory and matters of that kind—the company have acquired by private purchase very valuable land rights along the banks of the Niger. There is a strip for many miles along the banks of the Niger of excellent land in many places susceptible of irrigation, from 500 to 2,000 yards broad, which the company hold practically by virtue of purchase; and the total area so held may, I believe, be fairly estimated at something like 500 square miles, or 320,000 acres. It will be perfectly obvious to the Committee that these land rights must in future be of great value. The Niger is the great highway to this territory, and whether it be for the establishment of trading stations or factories, or the establishment of plantations, the strip of land to which I have referred at present affords not only the most suitable but perhaps the only really suitable ground for the promotion of commerce and industry in that country. We take these over from the company, and we also

1297
take over from the company the mineral rights they have acquired by treaty. Those rights are of considerable extent, particularly in the empire of Sokoto and Gando, and they exist under special treaties. It is reported that there are silver, tin, antimony and other metals in those regions; and, of course, there is always the hope of gold. I do not wish to exaggerate the importance of the mineral rights in this area, because it is a part of the world where hitherto minerals have not been successfully worked. But still it is perfectly obvious that the company holding those rights ought to transfer them to the Government so as to avoid friction and trouble in the future, and they will also be taken over by the Government on the conditions I am about to mention. We propose to pay to the company for its land rights I have described and for its mineral rights and also by way of compensation for the dislocation of business caused by the revocation of its charter, £150,000. The future Government of the territory will charge a royalty, and the company will for a period of ninety-nine years from the revocation of the charter be entitled to half the proceeds of any such royalty on minerals worked in a defined part of Northern Nigeria, between the Niger on the west and a line drawn from a place called Yola to Zinder on the east. Now I come to the last head, administrative plant. Of course, it is necessary that the new administration of the territories should be provided with adequate plant, buildings, steamers, and other requisites. We have had the advantage in this matter of the advice of Colonel Lugard and Sir R. Moor, who are intimately acquainted with the different places and with the property of the company to which I have referred. We propose to take over from the company a steamer, several hulks, launches, and boats, a considerable amount of war material, and the following buildings—at Akassa, the headquarters on the coast, a plot of 200 acres of made and cleared land, various buildings, machine shops and machinery, and a slipway for steamers; at Akaba, barracks, gaol, court-house; and similar buildings at Okuta and other places; and some stores which will have to be checked on the part of the company and of the Government. Of course, all these matters stand at a certain sum in the company's books. This
1298
has been carefully gone into, and we have made very considerable deductions from the sum. We have agreed with the company to take over the property to which I have referred for the sum of £115,000. I believe they are worth more than that, and they certainly would cost far more if we had to provide them afresh for ourselves. The Committee will see that we have dealt with four several sums—£300,000 to pay off the debt; £300,000 compensation to the company for their expenditure in developing the territory; £150,000 for land and mineral rights and compensation for the dislocation of trade, and £115,000 for plant; amounting together to £865,000. We propose that that shall be a debt against these territories in future. I believe it will not be many years before they will begin to pay it off. Out of this we propose that £820,000 shall be raised by way of loan on terminable annuities for thirty years; the remaining £45,000, being for articles like steamers, stores, and warlike material, we propose to charge on the Consolidated Fund out of the revenues of the year. I think I have completed what I have to say with regard to the arrangements proposed to be made with the Royal Niger Company, and for any detailed statement of future arrangements for the government of our territories in this part of the world I think I ought to refer hon. Members to my right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary. But perhaps I may say generally that throughout these territories all inland customs frontiers will be abolished, and there will be perfect freedom of trade to all alike. There will be a common arms law throughout the whole region and a common tariff, except that the importation of trade spirits into Northern Nigeria will be prohibited as now. For the present, and until a healthy site for a capital can be selected and better means of communication provided, the territories will be divided for administrative purposes into three divisions all under the control of the Colonial Office. One division will be Lagos, with its present area; the next will be Southern Nigeria, composed of the Niger Coast Protectorate and part of the Niger Company's territories, nearly half as large again as now; and the third, Northern Nigeria, composed of the rest of the company's territories, including Borgu and Ilorin, bounded on the south by a line

1299
drawn from Dahomey along the 9th parallel of latitude to Idda on the Niger, and thence following the same direction to the Anglo-German frontier. I should add that the military and police establishment in all these territories will be reorganised, and that especially in Lagos I believe it will be found capable of very material reduction, and in Northern Nigeria will be utilised for preventive purposes. I hope these proposals, which I have endeavoured to explain as shortly as possible, may commend themselves to the Committee. Papers relating to the subject will be laid on the Table to-night. Of course, if the Committee should agree to the Resolution, and I should be allowed to bring in a Bill to be based upon it, we should not propose to take the Second Reading until the papers shall have been in the hands of Members. But I suggest that, at any rate, there should be no objection in principle to the proposals. It may seem to some hon. Members that we are assuming on the part of the Government, and, therefore, of the country, a very material increase of responsibility in this region. That is not really the fact. All the responsibility rested upon us throughout, and all we are really assuming is the power of carrying out that responsibility as it ought to be carried out. In making this change we have endeavoured to deal fairly with the Royal Niger Company. I feel most strongly that to revoke their charter, to deprive them of their existing position, to reduce them to the position of a trading company and nothing else, without the fairest consideration, would be an act of gross injustice. We must remember what they have done for this country. I do not say they have been faultless in their policy or administration; I dare say many points could be stated which would show the contrary, but they have done a great work for us in those parts of the world. They have established a position which will be of profit and advantage to this country in the future to an extent which we perhaps are hardly able to appreciate now, and therefore, when on public grounds we feel ourselves compelled to ask Parliament to make this change, I would submit very respectfully that it ought to be made with the fairest and fullest consideration for the rights and interests of those who have done this great work.
Motion made and Question proposed—
"That it is expedient to authorise the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund, of sums not exceeding £865,000, and for the purpose of providing for any such issue, to borrow, by means, of terminable annuities charged on and paid out of moneys annually provided by Parliament for foreign and colonial services, and if these moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund, any sum not exceeding. £820,000 for making payments to the Royal Niger Company, in consideration of the transfer to the Crown of the administrative powers of the said company, together with their treaty and other rights, property, and for meeting the expenditure rendered necessary by such transfer."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Committee must, I am sure, have listened with the deepest interest to the singularly clear statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Of course he will not, as he states, expect the Committee to pronounce an opinion on the particulars of the arrangement which has been made, especially in the absence of the Papers which have been promised. We must defer any discussion, I would suggest, until the Bill is before us for our approval. But the story which the right hon. Gentleman has told is, I think, a very clear instance at once of the convenience and of the dangers and difficulties attending government by chartered company. There are, as I have said, conveniences in the system, but undoubtedly one of the effects of it is that the country is often insidiously led on to a somewhat rapid expansion of its responsibilities without being really aware of what is being incurred in its name. I therefore think this is obviously a case in which this mode of government has been carried too far, and that it is time this country should openly undertake its responsibility and become possessed of the power to deal with what is practically in its hands. I believe there will be universal agreement in what the right hon. Gentleman has said as to the conduct of Sir George Goldie and those who have taken part with him in the control of the Niger Company. There is no doubt that individually he has shown the very highest qualities, and that those who have been associated with him have done their part well also. The policy of the company also has been distinguished by an evident desire all through to deal with the great evils of slave raiding, slave driving and slavery

1301
itself, as well as with those of the liquor trade in those regions. That in itself should be sufficient to cover any trifling sins that may be brought home to the company in the course of its administration. But at the present time I do not think it is desirable to spend much time in discussing the matter, because until we have details before us in the Papers promised by the right hon. Gentleman we really are not in a position to offer any detailed criticism upon the proposal he has submitted—a proposal which, however, I imagine will commend itself to the judgment of the Committee.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I entirely agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this company is far more respectable than those other chartered companies which the right hon. Gentleman did not name, but which we perfectly well understood him as referring to. I think it is most desirable that we should take over this company. But it should also be thoroughly understood that while recognising the fact that the company ought to be taken over we entirely reserve to ourselves the right to discuss the terms of the agreement, because it has more than once happened that when a Vote of this kind has been taken we have subsequently been told that we have pledged ourselves to agree to it. We want to have before us the figures and the accounts of the company before we can come to a conclusion. This is a company with a capital of £500,000 and a debt of £250,000. So far as I gather we take over the debt of a quarter of a million and further agree to give the company a sum which is in excess of the par value of its shares. For that we are to obtain the political rights of the company, certain lands, and certain mineral rights. It certainly does seem to me to be a somewhat considerable amount to pay, awl the Chartered Company ought to pay the cost of the administrative charges. We leave to the company practically all its commercial undertaking, and therefore I do not see, when we positively relieve the company of a heavy charge upon its finances, why we should pay them for being relieved.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I congratulate both the company and the
1302
Government on the arrangement made. It seems to me that both in the interests of good government and of Her Majesty's Government themselves it is desirable that some such new arrangement as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has sketched should be made. As regards the amount, I think we are not capable of dealing with that at the present moment; and indeed this discussion must necessarily be adjourned, in the first place because we shall have further information before us, and in the second place, this House cannot deal with figures which are thrown out, as it were, without the slightest notice. But is it not possible to make some alteration in the practice of the House? When money is to be voted, the amount to be asked for should be placed in hon. Members' hands a day or two before they are called upon to vote; and I should like to ask whether it would not be possible so to alter the practice in this respect as to bring it into accord with what I confess I believe to be the true intention and meaning of the Standing Order.
MR. DILLON: If we agree to this Vote we shall be really binding ourselves, if not to the exact figure, substantially to the amount which it is proposed to give to the Niger Company for the revocation of its charter. I object to the sum, which I think is monstrous so far as we have any information laid before us, and I object to the whole principle on which the sum has been arrived at in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think the House of Commons is very unfairly treated in being asked, in the way in which it has been called upon to-day, to Vote a sum of £800,000 for compensation to a company when, I venture to say, we are all, even after the lucid statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, practically in the dark as to what we are doing. There is really nothing in the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which would convince anybody that we are getting £20,000 value for £865,000. We ought to have had a statement of the finances of the country, and of the balance between the receipts from the Customs duties and the administrative expenses since the charter was granted. We ought to have some information also as to the price which was paid, if any, by the Chartered Company for those valuable lands which

1303
we heard so much of in the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and for those vague mineral rights which may turn out to be of no value whatever. I object to the amount which is set forth in this Vote, and the method by which this amount has been arrived at, and the manner in which the Committee has been treated on the present occasion. There is one point which appears to me to be of exceedingly great importance in connection with this proposal. This, unfortunately, is not the only chartered company now existing under the Crown, and you cannot deal with the Niger Chartered Company without taking into account the precedent that you are setting. You have to remember that another chartered company will have to be wound up very soon, for, if what is published in the newspapers is true, I think the time is very near at hand when complications will arise which will compel the Government to deal with the South African Chartered Company, and the same principle will apply. The Chancellor of the Exchequer drew a very flattering but hardly true comparison between the Niger Chartered Company and the South African Chartered Company. It is notorious that the South African Company has pursued methods which may necessitate an outlay of five, or six, or seven millions, if the charter is to be revoked on the same principle as has been adopted in the present case. Therefore, in dealing with this proposal, we cannot deal with it as if it were entirely disconnected with other matters. What is it we are asked to do by this resolution? The Niger Company, according to the statement of the Chanceller of the Exchequer, is to do great things for this country. Well, it remains to be proved that the Niger district will be an advantage to this country at all. I confess that I have not sufficient knowledge to form an opinion; but the fact remains that none of these West African colonies have ever paid their way, and this Niger Company, although, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, controlled by men of great capacity and great business experience, never has paid its way; on the contrary, the deficit which we are asked to take over, amounting to £250,000, represents a period of ten or eleven years' administration. It therefore remains to be proved whether we are not, in the present instance, taking over a losing concern, and relieving the company
1304
of a burden which is equivalent to a loss of many thousands per annum. Then, nothing was said on the trading position of the company. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not placed before us any rough estimate of the loss contemplated by the company consequent upon the withdrawal of the charter. Therefore, it appears to me that, with the exception of buildings, steamers, land, and mineral rights, the Government is getting nothing whatever for all this money. I do not think that is a reasonable proposal, and though I know that many Members who have their doubts of this scheme may not see their way to do so, I shall divide the House against this proposal if I can get anybody to tell with me.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: There is one question which ought to be brought before the Committee before this Vote is taken, and it is a similar one to that which occurred on the purchase of the East Africa Company some time ago. I understand that the French Govern-ment have some claim against the Niger Company—which they have put out as a set off against the Waima claim—owing to what occurred on the River Niger some time ago. It is now stated that the French Government are prepared to give compensation, and to go to arbitration to see what amount is to be paid, but they require that the other claim which they have against the Niger Company should be settled at the same time. Now that is a matter which ought to be raised here, and the Government ought to tell us whether a settlement will be come to between the company and the French Government before the company is taken over, otherwise it appears to me to be a bar to the arrangement in the Waima case which the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us he is anxious to come to. All these matters, I think, should be taken into account.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I do not think I need say anything further than that this motion does not in any way bind the House as to the Bill the Government is about to introduce. The hon. Members for East Mayo and King's Lynn seem rather to have misinterpreted the meaning of this resolution. I take it that the resolution is tantamount to

1305
asking leave to introduce a Bill, and hon. Members will be quite at liberty to discuss the principle on the Second Reading. With regard to the point put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean, I understand that there are claims, not only by the French Government against the company, but that there are very heavy claims by the Niger Company against the French Government. But all that will be considered.
MR. J. E. ELLIS: I am bound to say I think there is some substance in the matter raised by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, and I think there could be no objection to placing these Resolutions upon the Paper, that we might see them. I think that the House of Commons, dealing as it does with the taxpayers' money, is entitled to see these resolutions before they are moved. I am quite aware that this is not a matter which is entirely in the discretion of the Chairman. No doubt every Government desires in these matters to be as silent and swift as possible; but that is no reason why the House, sitting in Committee, should not have full and ample notice of the actual sum of money that it will be required to vote. I entirely accept the views of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as to the meaning of the resolution, and we are not bound beyond giving formal liberty to bring in a Bill, and therefore do not now say anything further on the matter.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised us Papers, but this Paper will not be included. It is essential to know what the profits of the company are year by year, and I would suggest that we should also have the last two or three balance-sheets of the company, and we ought to know what its trading arrangements are. As I understand, the Government are going to take user the administrative part of the company, and leave the company as a trading company. If that is so, we ought first to know what the costs of administration are, and also what the profits of the company are. I trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to give us those figures, so that we may be able to judge what price should be given to the company.
COMMANDER BETHELL: I think the reasons which
1306
called this particular form of procedure into existence have long since passed away, and that being so, it is not worth while offering any resistance to this motion.
DR. CLARK: Before this Vote is carried to a Division we ought certainly to have all the facts before the House. I am afraid I cannot follow the Government in this matter. All I know of the Niger Company is that it is a trading company, and twelve years ago it was given a charter, and prevented the men of Liverpool and the Clyde, who were doing business in those parts, from earning their living, and they were ruined. Now you are going to buy back what was given for nothing. I do not know who is going to benefit by that. I would like to know before anything is done. We shall have a list of the shareholders before us so that we may see whom the money is going to.
MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: I have systematically asked for many years for the balance-sheets of the Chartered Niger Company to be produced. I cordially endorse what has been said upon this matter, and I am prepared to say that the people of Liverpool, although they have suffered at the hands of the Company, welcome the proposed change, and are prepared to forget and forgive. At the same time, we should like to know what we are going to get for our money.
MR. WARNER: It seems to me that the Government are going to buy for a large sum of money a thing which they know nothing about, and I certainly think with the hon. Member for Poplar that we ought to have some account of the cost of administration. I hope this point will be considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he will be able to give us some satisfactory answer on the point.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: There will be no difficulty in giving any information with regard to the cost of administration of the Company. As to the trade accounts, I am not quite sure that we shall find it necessary to have those. But I have no doubt that we shall be able to give the House full particulars.
MR. MOON: Has the Standing Order 62 been complied with here?
THE CHAIRMAN: The Standing Order has been complied with in the same way that it has been for the last fifty or sixty years.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite right in saying that the House binds itself to nothing at all. It binds itself to vote £800,000, and it is not the mere formality which is suggested. What I suggest is that in future, when Her Majesty's Government desire to raise money, instead of leaving out the amount, they should allow it to be printed in the white paper. Might I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider that point?
THE CHAIRMAN: The procedure under which this is taken is very well known. It complies with a Standing Order which has been in existence some thirty-three years, and the procedure dates back for some two hundred years before that. There is nothing whatever unusual in it.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Several Members of the Committee have complained that the right hon. Gentleman has not brought forward sufficient data upon which to base even this stage of the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman, as I understand, has promised to supply to the House full data later on. Is it not within the powers of any Member of the House to propose the adjournment of the Debate on the ground of insufficient information having been given?
THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot put the question to report progress, as it seems to me, the practice being, as I have stated, a very old one, to alter it would require an alteration of the Standing Orders. There is nothing in the practice which has been followed on this occasion to differentiate it from the thousands of cases which have occurred before. I see no reason, therefore, why the adjournment should be moved.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Am I to understand that even if the Ministry come before the Committee without any data whatsoever in justification of any Vote, however large, we have no power in
1308
this House to postpone the further consideration of the question, and that, as. a matter of fact, the Committee is without any remedy, and that the Government may force through the House, with or without information, any proposal whatsoever, for any sum however large? I think, Sir, you will see the vast importance of the question now raised—whether the Government is entitled to proceed without being interrupted by a proposal for adjournment, however absolutely insufficient the information presented to the House may be.
THE CHAIRMAN: I certainly did not go so far as the hon. Member says. The ground on which the hon. Member for King's Lynn wished to move the adjournment of the Debate was that the procedure on this occasion did not follow the Standing Order. That was the sole ground, as I understood.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I correct you, Sir? The ground was, that sufficient time had not been given to the Committee to appreciate the figures which were put before it verbally only. I did suggest that there was not a proper compliance with Standing Orders. But that was not the ground upon which I put my objection.
MR. DILLON: May I remind the Committee of what occurred last year on a similar motion in connection with the Irish Local Government Bill. When exception was taken by myself and other Members upon this very point—that the Resolution was not placed upon the Paper in accordance with practice—the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed to an adjournment. The resolution was placed on the Paper, but the Debate was adjourned on the ground that we had not time to consider the full bearing of the resolution.
SIR, M. HICKS-BEACH: My recollection is entirely contrary to that. The point in that case was that the resolution did not give as much money as was expected.
MR. DILLON: That does not touch the question of order. That was a part

1309
of the objection, but the other part of the objection was that it was impossible to discuss the question until we had the Resolution in our hands. A difference of opinion arose on the Treasury Bench as to whether it did limit us on the very point we have raised, and it became evident to the House that it would not be fair to discuss the question without having more information and more time to consider the matter.
THE CHAIRMAN: Of course it is open to any hon. Member to move the adjournment of the Debate on the ground of information not being sufficient. My only duty is, if I consider a motion for adjournment an abuse of the rules of the House, to put it at once, or refuse to accept it. I certainly understood the hon. Member for King's Lynn to take exception to this Resolution on the ground that the procedure was not in compliance with Standing Orders. In fact, the first time he rose he had a copy of the Standing Orders in his hand. Therefore I presumed his sole objection to the procedure was that it did not follow the Standing Orders. To take such an objection, in my opinion, was an abuse of the forms of the
House, and I refused to accept the motion of adjournment. But if the hon. Member tells me that he desired to move the adjournment on the ground that sufficient information had not been given, I will, under those circumstances, accept his motion.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I wish to move the adjournment on the ground that we have not had the figures before us in any written form; we have only had them verbally. That would be the ground, and because sufficient information has not been placed before the Committee. I would therefore move the adjournment of the Debate.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)rose to speak.
Question put, "That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 103; Noes, 192. (Division List No. 211.)

AYES.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

Nussey, Thomas Willians

Bainbridge, Emerson

Fowler, Right Hon Sir Henry

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

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley

Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

Billson, Alfred

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Pease, Sir Joseph W.(Durham)

Birrell, Augustine

Hedderwick, Thos. Charles H.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Pilkington, Sir G. A. (Lancs S W

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

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

Pirie, Duncan V.

Caldwell, James

Horniman, Frederick John

Power, Patrick Joseph

Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow

Jacoby, James Alfred

Price, Robert John

Causton, Richard Knight

Joicey, Sir James

Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

Cawley, Frederick

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Channing, Francis Allston

Kay-Shuttlew'th, Rt. Hn. Sir U.

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

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

Kearley, Hudson E.

Robson, William Snowdon

Clough, Walter Owen

Kitson, Sir James

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Colville, John

Labouchere, Henry

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfrshre.

Crombie, John William

Langley, Batty

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Leng, Sir John

Souttar, Robinson

Dalziel, James Henry

Lloyd-George, David

Stanhope, Hon. P. J.

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Logan, John William

Steadman, William Charles

Davitt, Michael

Lough, Thomas

Stevenson, Francis S.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Strachey, Edward

Dillon, John

Lyell, Sir Leonard

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Donelan, Captain A.

Macaleese, Daniel

Tennant, Harold John

Doogan, P. C.

M'Ewan, William

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

M'Leod, John

Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Dunn, Sir William

Mappin, Sir Frederick T.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Ellis, John Edward

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Warner, Thomas CourtenayT.

Evans, Sir F.H. (Southampton)

Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

Wedderburn, Sir William

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Morgan W. P. (Merthyr)

Weir, James Galloway

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Moulton, John Fletcher

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Flynn, James Christopher

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Williams, John Carvell (Notts

Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)

Woods, Samuel

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

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

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Gibson Bowles and Mr. T. P. O'Connor.

Wilson, John (Govan)

Yoxall, James Henry

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

NOES.

Aird, John

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Milton, Viscount

Allsopp, Hon. George

FitzWygram, General Sir F.

Milward, Colonel Victor

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Arnold, Alfred

Flower, Ernest

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Galloway, William Johnson

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Garfit, William

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Bailey, James (Walworth)

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

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Baird, John George Alexander

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St.Albans

Nicholson, William Graham

Balcarres, Lord

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Pierpoint, Robert

Baldwin, Alfred.

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Pilkington, R.(Lancs., Newton)

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

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

Goschen, Rt. Hn. G.(St George's

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Banbury, Frederick George

Graham, Henry Robert

Priestley, Sir W. Overend (Edin.

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Gull, Sir Cameron

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward.

Barry, Rt Hn A H Smith-(Hunts

Gunter, Colonel

Purvis, Robert

Barry, Sir FrancisT.(Windsor)

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Pym, C. Guy

Bartley, George C. T.

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Rankin, Sir James

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.

Richards, Henry Charles

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Hardy, Laurence

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

Beach, Rt Hn Sir M. H. (Bristol

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Beresford, Lord Charles

Heath, James

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Bethell, Commander

Heaton, John Henniker

Russell, Gen. F. S. (Ch'lt'nh'm

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Biddulph, Michael

Hill, Arthur (Down, West)

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Seely, Charles Hilton

Bowles, Capt. H.F.(Middlesex)

Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Brassey, Albert

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

Brookfield, A. Montagu

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Burdett-Coutts W.

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

Butcher, John George

Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Campbell, Rt Hn, J. A. (Glasgow

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

Carlile, William Walter

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

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

Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Jones, David Brynmor (Swan.)

Strauss, Arthur

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

Kimber, Henry

Strutt, Hon, Charles Hedley

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

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Sturt, Hon. Humphrey N.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Knowles, Lees

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

Chelsea, Viscount

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Valentia, Viscount

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry)

Vincent, Col. Sir C.E. Howard

Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William E. H.

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swan.

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

Cox, Irwin Edward B.

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Cranborne, Viscount

Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-L.)

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Cruddas, William Donaldson

Lowe, Francis William

Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh. N.

Dalbiac, Col. Philip Hugh

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Wodehouse, Rt Hon E. R (Bath)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Denny, Colonel

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Woodall, William

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart

Doxford, William Theodore

Macdona, John Cumming

Wyndham, George

Drucker, A.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Wyndham-Quin, Major W.H.

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh, W

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.

Malcolm, Ian

Young, Commander (Berks, E.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

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

TELLERS FOE THE NOES,

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

Meysey-Thomson, Sir H. M.

Sir William Walrond and

Finch, George H.

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton.

Mr. Anstruther.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I think this is one of our most remarkable experiences for many years. Here we have the Government of the day coming down to propose an expenditure of over £800,000 and the taking over of the vast responsibilities of the government of a large portion of country, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the gentleman mainly responsible for the administration of the finances of the country, and the guardian and custodian of the public purse—makes this proposal without putting before the Committee one shred or syllable of information except such as he has verbally given to the House. I venture to say that in the history of this Parliament this is an unprecedented proposal, and it is an unprecedented manner of conducting business. The Chancellor of the Exchequer—who, deservedly, I believe, has the reputation of being a rigid economist and a vigilant guardian of the public purse—has come before the Committee to-night in a manner which would do credit to the most daring audacity of the most daring company promoter. He comes down here, and although he must have had this proposal in his mind for weeks and months, there is not a single Member of this House who has a single scrap of print before him with regard to this transaction. The right hon. Gentleman has felt the difficulty of the situation, because he has promised that the Papers will be ready tonight. Why, then, if the Papers are to be presented to-night is not this resolution postponed till to-morrow? I put it to the business men of this House whether in all which they have ever read during the last ten years of rotten company promoting they have ever heard of a case in which they have been asked to take shares without a single fact about the transaction with which they are asked to deal? This proposal reminds me of some recent transactions on the Stock Exchange, where a number of people began to gamble in shares before they even saw the prospectus. Here there are over £800,000 asked for from the taxpayers of this country; here is the control of a large portion of country passing from the hands of a private company into the hands of the Government; and therefore I say it is a transaction of vast and momentous importance; and although the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that the Papers will not be ready until
1314
to-night, yet he asks this Committee to accept this proposal to-day before a single one of these Papers is forthcoming. I do not think that a more remarkable fact has ever occurred in our history. What are our materials for forming an opinion of the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? I understand that he has given some details with regard to how this money is going to be spent. Just fancy upwards of £800,000 being asked for upon mere verbal details given across the floor of the House, of which Members of this House have no other means of gathering the drift except by the hasty notes which they were able to take in the course of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Not only this, but he has made a most remarkable statement with regard to the proposed expenditure of this money. I understand that he stated that £120,000 was to be given for the mineral rights and land.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACHdissented.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: The right, hon. Gentleman shakes his head, and I must confess that I have not had the advantage of hearing the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. (Hear, hear.) Some hon. Members opposite cheer that statement ironically, but I doubt if even they have had the advantage of hearing the statement. How many of the Members who went into the Lobby just now had the advantage of hearing the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman? Is it tolerable that in a great transaction of this kind you should have no means of information except a verbal statement which not one-third or one-fourth of the Members of this House had the advantage of hearing? I only repeat the statement as it was given to me, and I understand that a very considerable sum is to be given for the so-called mineral rights. This transaction must be sifted to the bottom. I believe, from the evidence before me, that it is a thoroughly bad and unsound transaction, and the manner in which it has been brought before this Committee—with all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman—is an abuse of the powers of Government in forcing this proposal upon the Committee. This charter, I understand, was got for nothing, and was granted by the State something like thirteen years ago. This monopoly, which did not cost the,

1315
company one penny, is now to be bought back by the State which gave it for £800,000. That is surely a most extraordinary transaction which will require a great deal of justification. But that is not my real point. What I object to is the manner in which this transaction has been dealt with. I observed that the First Lord of the Treasury was rising at a previous portion of this Debate, and although I was rising at the same time I gave way to the Leader of the House. Now, I should like to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say about this transaction. Is it right that we should be left in this way without information? Then there is one point which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave in his defence of his manner of dealing with this question; he said that this stage was practically a formal stage of the Bill, and that it pledged nobody to anything except giving the Government permission to introduce the Bill. I do not wish to imply that this resolution will decide the fate of the Bill, but, at the same time, I want to put this to the First Lord of the Treasury. Why is it that this method of procedure has been adopted by the Government with regard to all money bills? At this stage of the Bill, instead of being bound down by the same rule of only a single speech which binds the House when the Speaker is in the chair, there is full and ample means of discussing this question. Are all these rules a farcical nullity or a reality if the right hon. Gentleman can come down here and make a proposal of this description, then I say these rules are a farcical nullity. If these precautions were meant to be real I do think the right hon. Gentleman is straining his power in this House in calling upon us to assent to this Bill in the absence of material for judging of the merits of the transaction. For these reasons I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will postpone the further consideration of this matter until these Papers—which he says will be in the hands of Members to-night—have been issued, and until we have had some further opportunity of judging this great and important measure.
DR. CLARK: I should like to ask whether it is proposed to take over from the company its administrative duties, which are carried on at a loss, while all the company's trading rights are to be
1316
continued to it. Are the Government acting in the interests of Liverpool and Manchester? The Chambers of Commerce of those cities asked that this monopolist company should be bought out altogether in order that there might be free trade and competition in the region of the Niger. But according to the proposal before us you are only going to buy up what has been a source of loss to the company, and the company is to continue as a trading concern with all its huge monopolies. I suppose the company was well aware that something of this kind was going to take place, and it has been doing all it possibly can to secure its own position as a trading concern after it has given up to you what is to it a source of loss, and it will still be able to exercise a practical monopoly. Is it not a fact that the company has been buying sites where trading stations could be placed, and has been putting pressure on the chiefs to obtain valuable rights for a mere song? You are taking over all responsibility, and you are asking Parliament to approve of that course without giving us any Papers on the subject. I think it is ridiculous, under those circumstances, to ask us to pass this resolution without any information having been given to us. If this stage is necessary, we ought to have full particulars before we pass from it. This scheme was, I believe, originally promoted by an astute Glasgow man, who secured a promise from the late Government—this Government is not responsible—to buy up at a great price what is now a source of loss to the company. Before the Government ask us to pass this Vote they ought to tell us whether these are the actual facts or not. When the matter was mentioned it was thought that the Government were buying up the whole concern, just as the British East African Company was bought up. We ought to have been supplied with a list of the shareholders of the company, in order that we may know with whom we are dealing. Every ordinary company is required to send a list of its shareholders to Somerset House, but a chartered company is not required to give that information. That and other information ought to be given to us before we proceed any further with this proposal.
Sill M. HICKS-BEACH: The statement of the hon. Gentleman is not a fact.

1317
What we propose is to take over the rights of the company in such a way that there must be free trade on the Niger, and there can be no monopoly in future.
DR. CLARK: Is it not a fact that the company has had no legal monopoly for ten years?
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: It has been alleged that the Company has had a practical monopoly in recent years, but it cannot have that monopoly in future. As to the land rights, I explained to the Committee that the land rights we propose to purchase are the very land rights alluded to by the hon. Gentleman. Therefore any trade which the Government of the Niger Protectorate desire to attract to the neighbourhood will have no difficulty in settling there.
MR. DILLON: In the course of this Debate a principle of the most extraordinary character has been laid down, and has apparently been accepted by some hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. It is, however, a principle which I venture to contend is absolutely unsatisfactory, viz., that this motion does not in any way bind the House to the amount of motley it is proposed to take, and that it is nothing more than a formal motion. If that be so it would make no difference what the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked for, and he might have asked without question for £10,000,000 instead of £800,000. When put in that light can anyone understand that it does not matter what amount of money is asked for in the Resolution? Of course, such a contention is absurd. If the Committee passes the motion it will substantially accept the estimate in the Resolution. I do not mean that the House will be subsequently debarred from cutting down the amount on some small detail, but I hold that this is the stage when substantially the amount of the burden to be placed on the taxpayers has to be decided, and we are entitled to discuss before the Resolution is passed the general principles on which this sum has been arrived at. This sum appears to be based on a general Calculation made without anything like sufficient information, and we should have the detailed calculation on which the items are based before we are substantially committed to the principle. On the question of land, it is quite true, as the
1318
Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated, that certain valuable lands on the Niger River are to be taken over by the Government, but we have no details. We do not know that the company might not have retained all the valuable sites it desired, and handed over to the Government all which it did not value, but for which it is now to obtain £100,000. I think we are entitled to know how many cases of gin were given for these lands: it is probable that they were all bought for forty or fifty cases of the poison which is imported into the district. I really do say we are entitled to have some information as to the nature of the bargain, and the price to be given for the lands to be obtained. We are called upon to purchase the losing part of a concern, leaving to the company all its rights to carry on the business which has been a source of profit to it. The taxpayers are called upon to pay over £500,000, which is sufficient to give a bonus of 100 per cent. to every shareholder in the company, and then the company will continue its trading and pay 6 per cent. dividend. That is the transaction so far as I could understand it from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if that be a fair statement, it appears on the face of it, to use plain language, to be a most monstrous job. Under the circumstances we are not unreasonable in asking for further information.
MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I desire to ask one question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that there is to be free trade on the Niger River. Now the Niger River is only a small portion of the territory to be taken over, and I desire to know if there is to be absolutely free trade in the entire territory we are taking over? I think, for the credit of the House, and for our reputation as business men, that the Government have been very badly advised in not giving us more information. We have absolutely not a scrap of information, and even the terms of the resolution were not given on the Orders of the Day. It does appear to me to be exceedingly unfortunate, at a time when we have so much going on in connection with companies which is not satisfactory to this House or to the honour and credit of the country generally, that we should depart from our high traditions of fair play and

1319
honourable dealing in such a way as will I leave us open—I will not say to reflection—but which will, at any rate, make people wonder whether chartered companies are going to rule this House absolutely. I am very much in favour of this company being bought out, but all its rights should be bought out in a fair, clear, and honourable manner, and the transaction should be carried out in a straightforward way. It would have been a great deal better to have had a Committee of this House to deal with this question, and I hope the Government will reconsider their decision, and will not take a Vote on this resolution until we have had the printed Papers, and can absolutely know what we are buying, instead of giving a vote in the dark, as we would otherwise be doing. While I am in favour of buying out the company, I will most decidedly vote against the Government, as a protest against the manner in which they have brought forward this question.
MR. LABOUCHERE: The fault lies really very much with the rules and regulations of the House in regard to Money Bills. It is a very great disadvantage—asa rule—that we do not have the Papers before us before the resolution is proposed, and the resolution itself is not even put down in the Orders of the House. Then, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that we are not pledged to go on with the Bill because we have voted for the resolution, there is a bias in favour of going on with it if we agree to the resolution and allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise that sum of money. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, before the Second Reading of the Bill, will give us very full Papers on everything connected with the company. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that he will lay Papers before the House, but he has not told us what the Papers will be. For instance, in view of public opinion out of doors, it is desirable that we should have before us the number and names of the shareholders of the company. In all companies, unless chartered companies, their shareholders' names are to be seen at Somerset House. But these chartered companies were not intended as commercial companies, and consequently they were excluded from the operation of the Limited Liability Act, and we do not have the same oppor-
1320
tunity of looking into the operations of chartered as of other companies. It will simplify proceedings very much when the Second Reading comes on if we do have full Papers. For instance, take the case of the land and minerals. My hon. friend behind me said that these were obtained for a bottle of gin, or for a few beads. I do not know what was paid for them, but we know perfectly well that in all parts of Africa the black man is robbed for the benefit of the white man. When you talk of treaties having been made by which land rights and mineral rights are made over to white men, what happens? Someone belonging to one company or another meets a black man. Of course, he has an interpreter with him. He asks the black man if he is proprietor of certain land, and if he will sign a paper he shall have a bottle of gin. The black man at once accepts; a paper is put before him, and he is told to make his mark on it, which he does. And then we say that we have made a treaty by which all the rights in that country of the emperor, king, or chief, or whatever you call him, have been given over to us. That is the origin of all these treaties, and under these circumstances we ought to have the accounts of the company for the last ten or dozen years, with information as to how the lands and minerals were bought, and what has been paid for them. There is one point the Chancellor of the Exchequer could tell us now. I gather there is a loan to be paid off of £250,000. I do not know what price it was issued at; perhaps it was issued at below par. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that it would require £300,000 to pay it off.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: The loan of £250,000 was raised on a charge of £12,500 a year on the Customs duties of the Niger territory. It was repayable at par in 1938. Obviously the debt bears interest at 5 per cent., but there is a power to redeem it at any time on three months' notice, by a premium of 20 per cent., and we propose to raise £300,000 in order to do that.
MR. LABOUCHERE: The company has made a very good bargain for itself, or rather for the gentlemen connected with this loan. All these things we want to go into. We want to know exactly the expenditure, and how it was

1321
incurred. I confess I really do not understand the figures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He tells us that we are to pay off this loan of £300,000 raised on the Customs duties, but if we pay off this loan, and take over the obligations of paying for the administration of the country, we really benefit the company in two ways, because the customs at present do not pay the cost of administration. If the company retains its commercial rights on which it makes its money, and at the same time if we pay off the loan, the £125,000 per annum goes into the commercial pocket.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACHdissented.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Anyhow, that is a proof that stupid people like myself may make mistakes on a verbal statement. If I am wrong, that is a reason why I urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the interest of public business, to give us the very fullest accounts, and all the documents concerning this company which we deem necessary, in order that we may be able to arrive at a proper conclusion as to how much money ought to be paid to the company.
MR. DALZIEL: My hon. friends who oppose this Resolution do so from two different points of view. In the first place, we claim, and I think rightly, that on a matter of such great importance the ordinary rule should have been somewhat departed from, and the right hon. Gentleman should have given us the necessary Papers before the Resolution was brought before the House. There have been many occasions on which a demand similar to this has been met by the Government. I remember a case in which a very small sum was involved. The Chancellor of the Exchequer came forward with a proposal to give a certain guarantee to a certain Highland railway. I opposed the proposal, and the net result was that it was abandoned until such time as we had the full Papers before us, and then we had a mach more useful and full discussion than we could have had without the Papers. It is all very well to say that, according to Parliamentary forms, this is an introductory matter; but the result is that we bring in a Bill to carry out the decision of the Committee. The Bill itself is only a secondary method of
1322
carrying that decision into effect; and, therefore, it seems to me that we are entitled to fuller information. It has been said that we are buying a losing concern, and we are paying for it a vast amount of money—that such profit as had been made did not come out of the land, but from the trading which the company is still to retain. We ought to have some sound evidence on which the Government have based their decision. If an ordinary business man goes to buy a property, the first question he considers is how much a year has this property been yielding for the last ten or twenty years; and he finds this out before he puts a penny down. And if he discovers that the property has been yielding no money at all he will only offer the very smallest figure for it. It is said that this is practically to be made a free trade country, that we are purchasing certain lands which the company had acquired, and the right hon. Gentleman assures us that it would be impossible for the company to have a monopoly. But I see it stated in responsible newspapers this morning that the company had been buying lands a little distance away from those which they have sold to the Government. If that is true, it shows a shrewdness on the part of the company, and a want of enterprise on the part of the Government. This is more than a mere question of money; we are taking over by this resolution a vast territory, and the administration of twenty-five or thirty millions of people. That is a very big order. Without any Papers or evidence, and without any real opportunity for discussion, we are to be committed to the principle to-night that this great private enterprise is to cease, and that for the future that vast territory is to be governed by this country. The company have had a charter, but it is a question of very grave doubt whether the enormous power which they have exercised up to the present time is a power they were entitled to use at all. It seems to me that in the interest of the Government, and of the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman is about to bring forward, the wishes of such a very large number of the Opposition should be considered. If we were to have the Papers to-night the resolution might be taken on Wednesday, by which time we would have had the opportunity of reading the correspondence. If the right hon. Gentleman will give way, it

1323
will shorten the length of time for discussion on the Bill itself.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: The Second Reading of the Bill will not be taken until hon. Members have had ample time to read the Papers.
MR. DALZIEL: It is so far satisfactory to know that the Second Reading will not be taken to-night. But sufficient time to consider the Papers before the Second Reading may mean a few days to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and a much longer period to those who are opposing it.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Second Reading will not be taken this week.
MR. DALZIEL: This Bill is much too important to be rushed through by any Government. It is a Bill which I think ought to be carried with the general assent of the House, and not by mere catch party vote.
MR. LOGAN: What fell from the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not satisfied me. As a man of business I should not for a single moment dream of putting my own money into the concern; I should refuse to take any shares in such a company; and I decline to invest the money of those I represent in it. We have been told over and over again that what we are taking from this company is a losing concern, and I cannot understand how the British taxpayer should be called upon to pay a large premium for the honour and glory of taking over a losing concern; particularly this year, when we have been compelled to dip into what is rightly called our "war chest" for the purpose of defraying the ordinary expenses of the year. We are told, if this transaction takes place the British people will acquire certain mineral rights. As a man of business, I have the greatest doubt as to whether the Niger Company are actuated by philanthropic notions in handing over these rights to the British people. If they have any real value at all, I am certain that the directors of the Niger Company would have kept them for themselves. We are told that there are sundry treaties with the natives which are to be acquired. I can fully bear out what the hon. Mem-
1324
ber for Northampton said as to how these treaties are obtained. I remember the bitter complaints of the natives of New Zealand as to the way in which they had been done out of their land for a trifling consideration. I am not concerned to obstruct the business of the House, but I say, as a man of business, I am entitled to further information as to why I should vote the money of those I represent. I hope the Government will reconsider the position, and adjourn the Debate for a day or so. If they do not, I believe the people of the country will not forget that at a time when we are so badly off for money that we cannot find any for old age pensions to the deserving poor, they cheerfully voted a million to a company who are going to hand over to us what they do not want.
SIR F. T. MAPPIN: This is, in my opinion, the most extraordinary proposal I have ever heard of since I have been in the House. We are asked to vote £865,000 without any information whatever. I cannot suppose that any business man in the House could, from the information we have before us, venture to support such a motion. We have no statement as to the value of the steamboats or machinery, and I would earnestly ask the Government to postpone this motion until we have further information.
MR. W. ALLAN: The, right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Government were to take over from the Niger Company all the steamers, jetties, warehouses, plant, and machinery. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, in the Papers to, be submitted to the House, the age, carrying capacity, and value of the steamers will be entered; and who valued them. Further, will the original value of the jetties be entered, and who valued them? Will the same information be given in regard to the warehouses, plant, and machinery? Practical questions like these, will I am sure, commend themselves to the business abilities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: As I have already explained, a full schedule of the articles of various kinds to be taken over, with the prices, will be presented to the House. That schedule has been settled

1325
by a small Committee on which was included Colonel Lugard, who is well acquainted with the country and the places named, and Sir Ralph Moor, who is also acquainted with the places. The values were arrived at by a comparison with the company's books, which I believe allow for depreciation in each case. The value fixed—£115,000—is considerably less than the price at which these articles appear on the company's books. I may explain that the valuation has not only been taken by reference to the company's books, but also from the personal knowledge of Colonel Lugard of the company's plant and machinery.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not acceeded to the request for the postponement of the Debate. There is no option left but to move as an Amendment the deletion of the words "£865,000," with the view of inserting the words "£600,000."
SIR M. HICKS-BEACHrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the question be now put."
Question put, "That the question be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 216; Noes, 116. (Division List No. 212.)

AYES.

Aird, John

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hardy, Laurence

Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

Corbett, A. Cameron ((Glasgow)

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Allsopp, Hon. George

Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

Arnold, Alfred

Cranborne, Viscount

Heath, James

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Henderson, Alexander

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cruddas, William Donaldson

Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Hill, Arthur (Down, West)

Baird, John George Alexander

Curzon, Viscount

Hill, Sir Edw. Stock (Bristol)

Balcarres, Lord

Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

Baldwin, Alfred

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

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

Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chat.)

Holland, Hon. Lionel R.(Bow)

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

Denny, Colonel

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Banbury, Frederick George

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Houston, R. P.

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Howard, Joseph

Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. S. (Hunts

Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

Howell, William Tudor

Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor)

Doxford, William Theodore

Hozier, Hon. J. H. Cecil

Bartley, George C. T.

Drucker, A.

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

Egerton, Hn. A. de Ta ton

Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

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

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

Fardell, Sir T. George

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Beresford, Lord Charles

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Mncr.

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Bethell, Commander

Finch, George H.

Keswick, William

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Kimber, Henry

Biddulph, Michael

Fishier, William Hayes

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Blakiston-Houston, John

Fison, Frederick William

Knowles, Lees

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

Laurie, Lieut-General

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Lawrence, Sir E Durning- (Corn

Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Lawrence, Wm. F.(Liverpool)

Brassey, Albert

Galloway, William Johnson

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Garfit, William

Lea, Sir Thomas, Londonderry

Brookfield, A. Montagu

Gedge, Sydney

Lecky, Rt. Hon. William E. H.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Gibbs, Hn A. G. H.(Cityof Lond.

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swan.)

Butcher, John George

Gibbs, Hon.Vicary (St. Albans

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Glasgow

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Carlile, William Walter

Gilliat, John Saunders

Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

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

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Liverpool

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

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Lorne, Marquess of

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Lowe, Francis William

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Bir.

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

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.

Graham, Henry Robert

Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Greene W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Charrington, Spencer

Gull, Sir Cameron

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Chelsea, Viscount

Gunter, Colonel

Macdona, John Cumming

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Malcolm, Ian

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Richards, Henry Charles

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Milton, Viscount

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Ox'd.Unv.

Milward, Colonel Victor

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

Moon, Edw. Robert Pacy

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Valentia, Viscount

More, Robt, Jasper (Shropshire)

Russell, Gen. F. S. (Ch't'n'm)

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

Morgan, Hn. F. (Mon'mthsh.)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Morrell, George Herbert

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

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

Murray, R Hn. A. Graham(Bute

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Seely, Charles Hilton

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

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

Nicholson, William Graham

Sidebottom, William (Derhysh.

Wodehouse, Rt Hon E R(Bath)

Pierpoint, Robert

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Pilkington, R. (Lancs. Newton

Smith, James P. ((Lanarks.)

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

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Wyndham, George

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Priestley, Sir W Overend (Edin,

Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Purvis, Robert

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Pym, C. Guy

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Rankin, Sir James

Strauss, Arthur

NOES.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Hy.

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

Price, Robert John

Bainbridge, Emerson

Horniman, Frederick John

Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Randall, David

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Joicey, Sir James

Rickett, J. Compton

Billson, Alfred

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Birrell, Augustine

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

Robson, William Snowdon

Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn)

Kearley. Hudson E.

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Kitson, Sir James

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Langley, Batty

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.

Burns, John

Leng, Sir John

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Lloyd-George, David

Souttar, Robinson

Caldwell, James

Logan, John William

Stanhope, Hon. Phillip J.

Cameron, Sir Charles(Glasgow

Lough, Thomas

Steadman, William Charles,

Cawley, Frederick

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Stevenson, Francis S.

Channing, Francis Allston

Lyell, Sir Leonard

Strachey, Edward

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

Macaleese, Daniel

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Clough, Walter Owen

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Tennant, Harold John

Clough, Thomas B. (Donegal)

M'Dermott, Patrick

Thomas,Abel(Carmarthen,E.)

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

M'Ewan, William

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

Davies, M.Vaughan-(Cardigan

M'Kenna, Reginald

Trevelyan, Charles Phillips

Davitt, Michael

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Wallace, Robert

Dewar, Arthur

M'Leod, John

Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

Dillon, John

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Wedderburn, Sir William

Donclan, Captain A.

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

Weir, James Galloway

Doogan, P. C.

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

Dunn, Sir William

Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)

Ellis, John Edward

Moulton, John Fletcher

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

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Wilson, John (Govan)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

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

Woodall, William

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Hddersf'd

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Connor, James(Wicklow,W.

Woods, Samuel

Foster, Sir Walter(Derby Co.)

Oldroyd, Mark

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

Yoxall, James Henry

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbt. John

Paulton, James Mellor

Gourldey, Sir E. Temperley

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Pilkington, Sir. G. A. (Lancs)

Mr. T. P. O'Connor and Mr. Dalziel.

Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Original Question put accordingly.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 223; Noes, 101. (Division List No. 213.)

AYES.

Aird, John

Finch, George H.

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Melville, Beresford Valentine.

Allsopp, Hon. George

Fisher, William Hayes

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Fison, Frederick William

Middlemore, Jno. Throgmorton

Arnold, Alfred

FitzGerald, Sir Rollert Penrose-

Milton, Viscount

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

FitzWygram, General Sir F.

Milward, Colonel Victor

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott Hants)

Bagot, Captain J. Fitzroy

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Baird, John George A.

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Balcarres, Lord

Galloway, William Johnson

More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

Balfoar, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Man'

Garfit, William

Morgan, Hn. F. (Monmouthsh).

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

Gedge, Sydney

Morrell, George Herbert

Banbury, Frederick George

Gibbs, Hn A G H.(CityofLond.)

Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham.(Bute

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary(St. Albans)

Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

Barry, Rt. Hon. A. H. S. (Hunts)

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Gilliat, John Saunders

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Bartley, George C. T.

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Nicholson, William Graham

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Pierpoint, Robert

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Pilkington, R.(Lancs, Newton)

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

Goschen, Rt Hn (St. George's)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Graham, Henry Robert

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

Bentinck, Lord Henry c.

Gull, Sir Cameron

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. E.

Beresford, Lord Charles

Gunter, Colonel

Purvis, Robert

Bethell, Commander

Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Pym C. Guy

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Rankin, Sir James

Biddulph, Michael

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

Richards, Henry Charles

Blakiston-Houston, John

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

Rickett, J. Compton

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hardy, Laurence

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex)

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Brassey, Albert

Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Heath, James

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Brookfield, A. Montagu

Heaton, John Henniker

Russel, Gen. F.S.(Cheltenh'm)

Butcher, John Goerge

Henderson, Alexander

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Campbell, Rt Hn J. A.(Glasgow

Hill, Arthur (Down, West)

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Carlile, William Walter

Hill, Sir E. Stock (Bristol)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead

Seely, Charles Hilton

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

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Holland, Hon. L. R. (Bow)

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

Houhlsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Sidehottom, William(Derbysh.

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Houston, R. P.

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Howard, Joseph

Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

Charrington, Spencer

Howell, William Tudor

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Chelsea, Viscount

Hozier, Hn. James HenryCecil

Stanley Edward J. (Somerset)

Clare, Octavins Leigh

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

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

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Strauss, Arthur

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Corbett A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Sturt, Hon. Humpbrey Napier

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Keswick, William

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

Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Cox, Irwin Edw Bainbridge

Knowles, Lees

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Cranborne, Viscount

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

Valentia, Viscount

Cruddas, William Donaldson

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Wanklyn James Leslie

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

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

Curzon, Viscount

Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd.

Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

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

Whiteley, H. (Asht'n-under-L.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swase.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh. N.

Denny, Colonel

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

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

Disraeli, Conings by Ralph

Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Long, Rt.Hn Walter (L'pool.)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C B. Stuart-

Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

Lorne, Marquess of

Wyndham, George

Doxford, William Theodore

Lowe, Francis William

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Drucker, A.

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Young, Commander (Berks, E.

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Fardell, Sir T. George

Macdona, John Cumming

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edwd.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

Malcolm, Ian

1330

1331

NOES.

Allen, W.(Newc. under Lyme)

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Bainbridge, Emerson

Kearley, Hudson, E.

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Billson, Alfred

Kitson, Sir James

Robson, William Snowdon

Birrell, Augustine

Langley, Batty

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Leng, Sir John

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Lewis, John Herbert

Sinclair, Capt. John(Forfarsh.)

Burns, John

Lloyd-George, David

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Caldwell, James

Lough, Thomas

Souttar, Robinson

Cameron, Sir Ch. (Glasgow)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Cawley, Frederick

Lyell, Sir Leonard

Steadman, William Charles

Channing, Francis Allston

MacAleese, Daniel

Stevenson, Francis S.

Clark, Dr G. B. (Caithness-sh

M'Dermnott, Patrick

Strachey, Edward

Clough, Walter Owen

M'Ewan, William

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Curran, Thos. B. (Donegal)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Tennant, Harold John

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Leod, John

Thomas, Alfred(Glamorgan, E.)

Davies, M. V. (Cardigan)

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

Davitt, Michael

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Wallace, Robert

Dewar, Arthur

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

Dillon, John

Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel

Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

Donelan, Captain A.

Moulton, John Fletcher

Wedderburn, Sir William

Doogan, P. C.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Weir, James Galloway

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

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

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Dunn, Sir William

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

Ellis, John Edward

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

Flynn, James Christopher

Oldroyd, Mark

Wilson, John (Govan)

Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durham

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Woods, Samuel

Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

Pilkington, Sir G. A (Lancs S W)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

Pixie, Duncan V.

Yoxall, James Henry

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

Power, Patrick Joseph

Horniman, Frederick John

Price, Robert John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Jacoby, James Alfred

Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

Mr. Thomas Bayley and

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Randell, David

Mr. Logan.

Resolved, that it is expedient to authorise the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund, of sums not exceeding £865,000, and, for the purpose of providing money for such issue, the borrowing, by means of terminable annuities charged on and paid out of the moneys annually provided by Parliament for Foreign and Colonial Services, and, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund, a sum of not exceeding £820,000, for making payments to the Royal Niger Company, in consideration of the transfer to the Crown of the administrative powers of the said Company, together with their treaty and other rights and property, and for meeting expenditure rendered necessary by such transfer.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

SMALL HOUSES (ACQUISITION OF OWNERSHIP) BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee), further considered.
COLONEL MILWARD: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the
1332
Paper. The object of the Amendment is to increase the scope and usefulness of the Bill, which I believe it does very largely.
Amendment proposed:
"In page 5, line 40, to leave out the words 'and containing,' and insert the words, 'or of any rural district, containing respectively,'—(Colonel Milward)instead thereof."
Question proposed, "That the words 'and containing' stand part of the Bill."
SIR CHARLES DILKE: I am not a supporter of this Bill, for reasons which will I give on the Third Reading; but of course we ought to discuss it from the point of view of making it workable. If we accept the Amendment, however, we shall be making every county a patchwork for the purposes of this Bill, which will be administered in one way in one portion of the county and in quite another way in another portion. There is no reason why a different system should be adopted, but if we introduce this Amendment, the very patchwork system which we have with partial success tried to put an end to will be introduced again.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I do not deny that this Amendment will add slightly to the existing complications to which my right hon. friend refers, but, on the other hand, the advantage of it is so great that I think there can be no doubt as the decision to which the House ought to come. It is precisely in those rural districts found in the neighbourhood of large towns, to which there is a tendency on the part of the working classes to congregate, owing to cheap train and tram facilities, that the operation of the Act will be most beneficial. The Amendment proposes to give the councils of those rural districts the option of putting the Act into operation, and I therefore support it.
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I do not wish to repeat over again the arguments which I addressed to the House last week, and which have been put forward by my right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean, but I cannot allow this Amendment to be adopted, as no doubt it will be, without renewing my most emphatic protest against the Bill in its present shape. I could have understood
the action of the right hon. Gentleman if he had entirely discarded the county jurisdiction, or if he had kept the Bill in its original shape and retained the jurisdiction of the county councils in the counties. But I do not understand with what authority he says that districts above 7,000 population are nearly all to be found in the neighbourhood of large towns. From such experience as I have had, many districts which are above 7,000 population are large, scattered rural districts, and even above 7,000, 10,000, and even 20,000, there are large districts which are purely rural in character. I must therefore say, with all the respect that I have for the right hon. Gentleman, as one of our greatest authorities upon municipal government, I think he is entirely wrong in this matter. I do not want, myself, to put the House to another Division, but I can only say that I think this arrangement is so objectionable that, if a Division is taken, I shall certainly go into the Lobby against it.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 96; Noes, 188. (Division List, No. 214.)

AYES.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Hedderwick,Thos. Charles H.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Allen, W.(Newc.-under-Lyme)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

Price, Robert John

Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. Henry

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

Randell, David

Bainbridge, Emerson

Horniman, Frederick John

Rickett, J. Compton

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Jacoby, James Alfred

Robson, William Snowdon

Billson, Alfred

Joicey, Sir James

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Jones, David B. (Swansea)

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Kearley, Hudson E.

Souttar, Robinson

Burns, John

Kitson, Sir James

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Langley, Batty

Steadman, William Charles

Caldwell, James

Leng, Sir John

Strachey, Edward

Cameron, Sir Charles(Glasgow)

Lewis, John Herbert

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Lloyd-George, David

Tennant, Harold John

Cawley, Frederick

Logan, John William

Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

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

Lough, Thomas

Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Clough, Walter Owen

Lyell, Sir Leonard

Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

MacAleese, Daniel

Wallace, Robert

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Dermott, Patrick

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Davies, M. Vaughan(Cardigan)

M'Ewan, William

Wedderburn, Sir William

Davitt, Michael

M'Kenna, Reginald

Weir, James Galloway

Dewar, Arthur

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

Dillon, John

M'Leod, John

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

Donelan, Captain A.

Mellor, Rt. Hon. J. W.(Yorks.

Wilson, John (Govan)

Doogan, P. C.

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Woodall, William

Dunn, Sir William

Moss, Samuel

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Moulton, John Fletcher

Woods, Samuel

Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

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

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

Yoxall, James Henry

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. J.

O'Connor, T.P. (Liverpool)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Oldroyd, Mark

Sir Charles Dilke and Lord

Goutrley, Sir Edward Temperley

Paulton, James Mellor

Edmond Fitzmaurice.

NOES.

Aird, John

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Melville, Beresford V.

Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

Fergusson, Rt. Hon. Sir J.(Man)

Middlemore John Throgmorton

Allsopp, Hon. George

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Milton, Viscount

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Fisher, William Haves

Milward, Colonel Victor

Arnold, Alfred

FstzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

FitzWygram, General Sir F.

Moon, Edward R. Pacy

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

More, R.J. (Shropshire)

Baird, John G. Alexander

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

Balcarres, Lord

Galloway, Wm. Johnson

Morrell, George Herbert

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

Garfit, William

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

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

Gedge, Sydney

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Banbury, Frederick George

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Barnes, Frederic George

Gibbs, Charles Tyrrell

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. S.-(Hunts.)

Gilliat, John Saunders

Nicholson, William Graham

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Pierpoint, Robert

Bartley, George C. T.

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Pilkington, R.(Lancs. Newton)

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

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

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

Greene,W. Raymond-(Cambs.

Priestley, Sir W.O (Edinburgh

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Gull, Sir Cameron

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Beresford, Lord Charles

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Purvis, Robert

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Pym, C. Guy

Blakiston-Houston, John

Banbury, Rt. Hon. R. Wm.

Richards, Henry Charles

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

Bowles, T Gibson(King'sLynn)

Hatch, Ernest Fred. G.

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chs. Thomson

Brassey, Albert

Heath, James

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Brodriek, Rt. Hon. St. John

Henderson, Alexander

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Campbell, Rt Hn. J A (Glasgow

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Russell, Gen. F.S.(Cheltenham

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

Hill, Arthur (Down, West)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Cecil, E. (Hertford, East)

Hill, Sir Edward Stock (Bristol)

Ryder, J. H. Dudley

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Bir.

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

Holland, Hon. L. R. (Bow)

Seely, Charles Hilton

Channing, Francis Allston

Houston, R. P.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Howard, Joseph

Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

Charrington, Spencer

Howell, William Tudor

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Chelsea, Viscount

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

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

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Colston, Chas. Ed. H. Athole

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Strauss, Arthur

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Keswick, William

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Corbett, A.Cameron (Glasgow)

Kimber, Henry

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Cornwallis, F. Stanley W.

Knowles, Lees

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Uni.

Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Cranborne, Viscount

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Cruddas, William Donaldson

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Valentia, Viscount

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Lecky, Rn. Hon. W. E. H.

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Curzon, Viscount

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn(Swansea

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

Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-L.)

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Denny, Colonel

Long, Rt Hn. Walter(Liverpool

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

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lorne, Marquess of

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

Donkin, Richard Sim

Lowe, Francis William

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Wyndham, George

Doxford, William Theodore

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Drucker, A.

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Dyke Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

Macdona, John Cumming

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

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

MR. STRACHEY: I beg to move an Amendment which is not upon the paper. It is in Clause 9, page 6, line 1, to leave out the third word in the line, which is "seven," and to insert instead the word "five." I doubt the utility of the Bill myself, but at the same
1336
time if there is to be a Bill at all, we are all agreed that it should be made as perfect and useful as possible, and if this Bill is to be regarded as a useful measure in the West of England, it will have to apply to urban populations of less than 7,000. There are many urban district

1337
populations far below that number, and unless the Bill is amended in this respect it will not be of much use in those parts of the country.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 1, to leave out the word 'seven,' and insert the word 'five'—(Mr. Strachey)—instead therof."
Question proposed, "That the word 'seven' stand part of the Bill."
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I differ from the view taken by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Somerset. This matter was discussed at great length in Committee, when it was suggested that the figure should be increased to 10,000; the matter was discussed at considerable length, and eventually 7,000 was adopted as a compromise, and I think it was a fair one and might be left where it stands.
MR. WARNER: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has taken the view he has with regard to this Amendment, because there are many districts of this character in all parts of England where people require houses. Where a Bill of this kind will be required to be put in force, the districts are very populous in a way, but the population does not reach 7,000. Nevertheless, these are the places where houses are wanted, and where men will buy land and put up their own houses. These are districts which ought to be encouraged, and therefore I shall vote for the Amendment.
MR. McLAREN: I represent a county in which there are a large number of rural districts which are rapidly acquiring urban powers, and many of these districts are in the same position as that referred to by the
hon. Member for Lichfield. These places are inhabited by thrifty men, who earn good wages and who pay no rates, and who, if they had the opportunity, would build houses for themselves. I think something might be done to encourage such localities as these. If it is left to the municipal councils, in many cases nothing will be done; and, for my part, if the hon. Member who moves the Amendment goes to a Division, he will receive my strong support.
MR. McKENNA: I also am one of those who do not believe that the Bill will be a success. I believe the cost will be very considerable, and that the work would be better done by private enterprise. At the same time, I think the cost is less likely to be excessive if this work is undertaken by small local authorities than if it is undertaken by the county councils. What is likely to happen is that a county council, having once attempted to carry out the provisions of this Bill, and having found it exceedingly costly, will refuse to have anything further to do with it. The small local authorities would, no doubt, be anxious to try the measure, but they would be unable to do so unless the Amendment of my hon. friend is carried. I would also point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the population of the local areas may be subject to a rise and fall of as much as 1000 in live years, and if the population fell below 7000 I should like to know whether the local authority would cease to be the authority for the purposes of this Bill. That is one of the simple details of the measure which the right hon. Gentleman has never considered, and never attempted to answer.
The House divided—Ayes, 168; Noes, 90. (Division List, No. 215.)

AYES.

Aird, John

Bartley, George C. T.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon.J.(Birm.

Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Allsopp, Hon. George

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

Channing, Francis Allston

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Arnold, Alfred

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Charrington, Spencer

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Beresford, Lord Charles

Chelsea, Viscount

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzR.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Baird, John George Alexander

Blakiston-Houston, John

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

Balcarres, Lord

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

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

Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn)

Coloston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Banburry, Frederick George

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

Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H

Barry, Rt Hn A H Smith-(Hunts

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Cranborne, Viscount

Cruddas, William Donaldson

Howard, Joseph

Parkes, Ebenezer

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Howell, William Tudor

Pierpoint, Robert

Curzon, Viscount

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

Pilkington, Rich.(Lanes. S.W)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Davies, Sir Horatio D(Chatham

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Denny, Colonel

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Purvis, Robert

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Pym, C. Guy

Donkin, Richard Sim

Keswick, William

Richards, Henry Charles

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Kimber, Henry

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Doxford, William Theodore

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thompson

Drucker, A.

Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn.

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelth'h'm)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lecky, Rt Hn.William Edw. H.

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn(Sw'nsea)

Ryder, John H. Dudley

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Fisher, William Hayes

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

Seely, Charles Hilton

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (L'pool)

Sharpe William Edward T.

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Lorne, Marquess of

Sidebottom, William (Derbys.)

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Lowe, Francis William

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Garfit, William

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

Gedge, Sydney

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary(St. Albans)

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Stanley, H. M. (Lambeth)

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Macdona, John Cumming

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Gilliat, John Saunders

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Goldsworthy, Major General

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Middlemore, John Throgmort.

Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G.

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Milton, Viscount

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

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

Milward, Colonel Victor

Valentia, Viscount

Gull, Sir Cameron

Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants.)

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd.

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. Wm.

More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

Whiteley, H.(Ashton-under-L.

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Morgan, Hn. Fred.(Monm'thsh

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Morrell, George Herbert

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

Heath, James

Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford

Wodehouse, Rt Hon E R (Bath)

Henderson, Alexander

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham(Bute

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

Hill, Arthur (Down, West)

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Wyndham, George

Hill,Sir Edward Stock (Bristol

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Holland, Hon. Lionel R.(Bow)

Nicholson, William Graham

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Houston, R. P.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

NOES.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbt. John

Power, Patrick Joseph

Allen, Wm.(Newc.-un'r-Lyme)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Randell, David

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

Rickett, J. Compton

Billson, Alfred

Hedderwick, Thomas Charles H

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Robson, William Snowdon

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

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

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James

Horniman, Frederick John

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Burns, John

Jacoby, James Alfred

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Joicey, Sir James

Souttar, Robinson

Caldwell, James

Jones, David B. (Swansea)

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

Steadman, William Charles

Causton, Richard knight

Kearley, Hudson E.

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Cawley, Frederick

Kitson, Sir James

Tennant, Harold John

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

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

Clough, Walter Owen

Leng, Sir John

Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Crilly, Daniel

Logan, John William

Thomas, David Alfd. (Merthyr).

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

Lyell, Sir Leonard

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Macaleese, Daniel

Wallace, Robert

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Kenna, Reginald

Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.

Davies,M. Vaughan-(Cardig'n

M'Laren, C. Benjamin

Wedderburn, Sir William

Dewar Arthur

M'Leod, John

Weir, James Galloway

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

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

Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

Dillon, John

Mendl, Sigismund F.

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

Donelan, Captain A.

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Wilson, John (Govan)

Doogan, P. C.

Moss, Samuel

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Dunn, Sir William

Moulton, John Fletcher

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

Ellis, John Edward

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

Woods, Samuel

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

Yoxall, James Henry

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Paulton, James Mellor

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

Mr. Strachey and Mr. Warner.

Galloway, William Johnson

Pickersgill, Edward Mare

Question put, and agreed to.

Other Amendments made.
SIR E. SASSOON: The aim of the Amendment I now move is rather the reverse of the Amendments which have been accepted. While they were directed towards safeguarding the interest of the county councils, my Amendment wishes to prevent any expenditure that might be incurred, or any loss that might accrue to county councils in consequence of their adopting this Act, being thrown upon the general county rate, and consequently upon the constituent contributors, whoever they may be. Under Section 68 of the Local Government Act, 1888, county councils have two funds—one known as the "General Purposes Fund," raised by means of rates levied upon the whole of the districts under the control and jurisdiction of the county council, and the other known as the "Special Purposes Fund," raised by means of rates levied on individual portions of the county for special purposes in those portions. This clause declares that the whole of the expenditure should be placed on the county rate, which I presume to be the General Purposes Fund. The effect will be to create this anomaly, that urban districts that have adopted this Act and incurred expenses under it, and urban districts who refuse to adopt the Act, will both have to bear the expenses which their county council incurs in consequence of adopting the Act. Assume that Folkestone chooses to adopt the Act, that Dover does not, that Canterbury equally does not, but that a resident of Canterbury, desiring to avail himself of the benefits of the Act, makes an application to the Kent County Council to advance him the money necessary to enable him to acquire his dwelling. If the whole expenses incident to the working of the Act are to be thrown on the general rate, to which both Folkestone and Dover are contributors, the effect will be that Folkestone will have incurred a double expense, and that, Dover would have a certain charge upon it; whereas, if the expenses were thrown on the special rate, Canterbury, and Canterbury alone, who would benefit by the working of the Act, would be saddled with the whole of the expense. If my right hon. friend concurs in the expediency of avoiding this anomaly, but considers the object would be better secured by any other method, I
1342
should be perfectly willing to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 6, after the first word 'county,' to insert the words 'as a special purpose.'"—(Sir Edward Sassoon.)
Question proposed, "That those words, be there inserted."
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir R. B. FINLAY,): I hope my hon. friend will not press this Amendment. He will see that a later Amendment in the name of the Colonial Secretary carries out the object he has in view. If the Amendment which has been moved were carried it would cause absolute confusion in the working of the Act, as if the county council is to raise the rate as a rate for a special purpose, you would also need to show in respect of what district that special purpose is to be taken as applying, so long as it is worked by the county council. The county council has in view the whole county, and the only case in which you want to limit the application of the rate is where certain parts of the county have adopted the Act, and that case is provided for in the Amendment of the Colonial Secretary.
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I am rather inclined to the view that the Solicitor-General is correct. It has been urged that when you get into the region of special rates and special purposes, the more districts you allow to be "punched" out of the county area the greater will be the number of special accounts. In view of the principle which has been adopted, all that has to be done is to settle what is the correct way of expressing that principle. So far as I am able to judge, the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill is sufficient, but it may be an open question whether an express declaration of some kind that there should be a special rate may not be necessary. On the whole, I am disposed to think that the words which follow the general scheme of other Acts of Parliament bearing on this matter are sufficient.
MR. M'KENNA: The matter has been made so clear by the hon. Member opposite that I am surprised there should be any doubt on the subject. In the case

1343
given by the hon. Member, if the Amendment of the Colonial Secretary is adopted, Folkestone, which becomes the local authority for the purposes of the Act, is excepted from the Act, pays its own expenses, and bears no part of the county rate; Dover, which does not except itself and does not make use of the Act, has to bear part of the expense of the Act which is set in motion at Canterbury, Canterbury not becoming the local authority for the purposes of the Act. We, therefore, see that the two Amendments are not the same. If they were, the result would be that Dover, which does not make use of the Act or become the local authority for the purposes of the Act, would not have to contribute to the county rate for the purposes of Canterbury, which also is supposed not to be the local authority for the purposes of the Act, but yet makes use of it. It seems to be more reasonable that each town should bear the cost of its own working of the Act, and one of the three towns should not be allowed to impose the expenses of the working of the Act upon the whole of the county excepting those parts which had taken over the Act for themselves.
SIR E. SASSOON: In consequence of the appeal which has been made to me by my hon. and learned friend, and the difficulties foreshadowed in the working of this Amendment by the noble lord the member for Cricklade, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,
Other Amendments made.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 9, at end, to insert 'but no sum shall be raised in any urban or rural district the council of which becomes a local authority for the purposes of this Act on account of the expenses of a county council under this Act.'"—(Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR CHARLES DILKE: The question arises here as to how far this privilege will be used for the purpose of blocking the operation of the Act. A number of districts may nominally adopt the Act, and then do nothing at all under it. That is a real danger. We are legislating somewhat in the dark upon the whole subject, as we have no return before us
1344
showing what are the populations of the urban and rural districts of this country. I am afraid a great number of districts will nominally adopt the Act for the purpose of doing nothing.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That is a very serious imputation on local government. I do not at all suppose that any district will follow the Machiavellian policy of deliberately adopting the Act in order to avoid being called upon to pay a share in the expenses of the county. That is really too absurd an argument to be put forward seriously. The population of the districts is supposed to have some authority in the matter, so that if they wanted to have the Act carried out they would force their local authority to proceed.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: I am assuming they did not want the Act carried out.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Does the population go for nothing? In that case it is quite undesirable that the local authorities should force the carrying out of the Act against the wishes of the people. I desire that local government should be in the truest sense of the word "executive," and if the population did not desire to take advantage of the Act the local authority should not proceed with it.
MR. R. WALLACE: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us exactly whether by passing a resolution of this kind, constituting themselves the local authority under the Act, a district would escape a liability for the general rate to which they otherwise would be liable. That would be an inducement to many districts to adopt the Act.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think the hon. Member followed my answer. It is true that if they adopt the Act they will be excluded from any expenses which may be incurred by the county council. We believe that in the vast majority of cases the Act is so constituted that it may be carried out without expense to the local authority. But putting that aside, and assuming there will be an expense, no doubt by adopting the Act as is suggested a local authority would avoid that expense

1345
That, however, would really be a breach of public duty which certainly I am not at all prepared to attribute to any local authority in the country.
MR McLAREN: I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to deal with the matter from a legal point of view. A distinct hiatus in the machinery of the Act has been pointed out, and instead of meeting it with "pooh-poohs" as a farfetched idea and appealing to the general good sense of the community to prevent such things happening, the point should be properly dealt with. Everybody knows what takes place at elections of local authorities. Just before an election a local authority might pass a resolution adopting the Act, but fail to take further proceedings. The election might take place upon this particular issue, which would be a direct appeal to the pockets of the ratepayers, and a majority returned against going any further with the Act. By the passing of the resolution the local authority gets rid of the liability, and there is nothing in the Act to compel them to enter into the obligation referred to in the Amendment. I think the question ought to be met by the Government, and if it is not there should be a Division.
SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE:: The right hon. Gentleman has met my point by the Amendment just carried, and therefore I do not move the one standing in my name on the Paper.
Other Amendments made.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 19, after the word 'sum,' to insert the words, 'rateable value,' shall include the value of the Government property upon which a contribution in lieu of rates is paid."—(Colonel Hughes.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope very much my hon. friend will not insist upon the introduction of these words. I know what his object is, and similar words were introduced into the London Government Bill, where, however, they were of very much greater importance. The point is that the Bill provides that
1346
where the expenses under the Act exceed ½d. in the £ on the rateable value the operation of the Bill must stop for a certain period. My hon. friend desires to include in the rateable value the value of Government property for this purpose. As I have stated over and over again, the Government do not think the provision will be operative, because they do not anticipate that there will be any expenditure which will exceed or approach ½d. in the £ on the rateable value, and therefore the inclusion or exclusion of Government property is of no great importance in regard to this Bill, although it was of great importance in the London Government Bill. I also understand that the Amendment if made would introduce considerable difficulties, and therefore I hope it will not be pressed on this occasion.
COLONEL HUGHES: In the Borough of Woolwich about £91,000 is the annual value of Government property, on which a contribution is paid in lieu of rates. That £91,000 forms part of the total annual value of the district, and I think it ought to be included for the purposes of this clause. As it is in respect of Government workmen that we should want to build houses, the Government property ought really to be represented as much as ordinary property.
MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: It is rather a dangerous way of dealing with a draft Bill in Parliament to assume that a clause is put in to meet a case which will never arise. The assumption is that there will be no expenditure, or, if there is, it will not amount to ½d. in the £. If that is so, what is the use of the clause at all? But you cannot take anticipations of that sort as likely to be correct. At the time of the passing of the Education Bill it was distinctly stated that the rate was not likely to exceed 3d. in the £, but we all know that the average rate is nearer 1s. than 3d. Therefore you cannot rely upon anticipations of that kind. The right hon. Gentleman said that difficulties would arise if these words were inserted, but he did not say what those difficulties were, and as the principle has been admitted inn the London Government Bill, I think it should be admitted here.
MR. M'KENNA: I am not surprised that the Colonial Secretary should pooh-pooh this Amendment, because so far from anticipating a loss in the working of the Bill he anticipates a profit of 4s. per £100 invested.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon. Member is labouring under a mistake.
MR. M'KENNA: The right hon. Gentleman stated so.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not said that at all.
MR M'KENNA: About this particular Bill no; but about the principle on which this Bill is based, and about the provisions which are contained in this measure, the right hon. Gentleman has certainly stated so.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon Member is mistaken, that is all.
MR. M'KENNA: On the occasion to which I refer he anticipated a profit, but we who look differently upon the construction of this measure cannot fail to anticipate a loss. I should be anxious to cut down the possible losses to local authorities as much as possible, and therefore I should oppose the Amendment of the hon. Member for Woolwich, and hope he will not press it.
Question put and negatived.
Other Amendments made.
MR. CALDWELL: I quite approve of the principle of this measure in so far as it is a measure to enable the ownership of small houses to be acquired by their residents in certain localities, and I approve of it also because it is all attempt to introduce cheapness into the transfer of property. But while I approve of the measure, I have a very strong objection to its being made applicable in Scotland, as the Bill from its whole structure applies mainly to the case of England and can only be adapted to the case of Scotland by the substitution of a great many words. The legal authorities in Scotland have for a long time protested against this system of mixing up what is peculiarly Scotch legislation with English legislation, in
1348
cases where the laws in both countries are essentially different. In this particular case there is no doubt that the law of England as regards heritable property is different from that of Scotland, and we ought to have legislation for Scotland in a separate Bill altogether, not tacked on to the end of a Bill applicable to England, but a Bill which would deal with the subject of Scotch land legislation in a manner which would be intelligible and not complicated.
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members being found present:—
MR. CALDWELL: As an illustration of the difference of the working of the Act in Scotland from the working of the Act in England, take the case of a man occupying one of these holdings who dies. Immediately two persons are introduced: one the widow and the other the heir. There is no provision, whatever, in this Bill for dealing with such an ordinary case as that, and it is a case which will confront the local authorities almost at the very start. Then, again, there are other peculiar points. In the case of England, for instance, the personal representative of the proprietor transfers the holding, but in Scotland the holding will necessarily be heritable property and would necessarily descend to the eldest son. Supposing the eldest son is not living with the family, would it not then be a very hard thing that the widow and the other members of the family should be turned out on account of the statutory condition that the proprietor must be resident on the property? Strictly speaking there would be a breach of the Statute, because in that case the widow would not be the proprietor of the holding. Then, again, in the case of leasehold property in Scotland the widow would have no rights whatever, and she would be practically an outsider so far as the property was concerned. I am only pointing out these cases to show the difficulty of dealing with the case of Scotland in a Bill which may be good enough and applicable enough to the case of England. There is also another important matter that has to be considered. The county councils are the local authorities in Scotland, and they are to exercise jurisdiction in this matter over the whole of their

1349
areas, including boroughs which do not exceed 7,000 inhabitants. The valuation of these small boroughs is to be included in the valuation of the county, and then the rate is not to exceed ½d. in the £ over a whole area. But the Lord Advocate will notice that we have not yet ascertained whether the ½d.rate over the whole area may not necessarily mean a penny or a twopenny rate so far as these small boroughs are concerned, because under the structure of the Bill the town commissioners of each borough are to pay over to the county council on requisition an amount equal to the proportion which the valuation of the borough bears to the valuation of the whole area. The Bill is properly drafted so far as England is concerned. In England you are dealing with county council areas, county borough area, urban district areas, and sanitary district areas, but there are no complications, because the local authorities are the local authorities of the whole area. But the matter is complicated when you come to deal with another area altogether, and when the local authority requisition for a certain amount of money for an area in which they have no jurisdiction otherwise. But there is another point which has to be borne in mind. Under Clause 9, Sub-section 7, power is taken that any money received or retained by the local authority shall be applied, with the sanction of the Local Government Board, either to the payment of debt or to any other purpose to which capital money may be applied. It means that the local authority might use the money collected as capital under this Act for a purpose outside this Act altogether, such as electric lighting. There is no great hardship when you are dealing with the local authority for the whole district, where the ratepayers are the same ratepayers which have advanced the money, and where the capital not used for this Act is at least going for some other purpose. There is no inconvenience therefore in the case of England, where the local authority represents the whole of the ratepayers in the locality. But observe what you are doing in the case of Scotland. The local authority is the county council, which is empowered to employ any portion of the money for purposes other than the purposes of this Act. The boroughs would get no part of this money, and they would be liable to be assessed and continue liable to be
1350
assessed in respect of this Act, whilst at the same time the money might be diverted by the county council to purposes from which the boroughs would derive no benefit whatever. I mention these illustrations to show the great difficulty of attempting to make a Bill which may be in every respect suitable to England applicable to Scotland. Land legislation and questions of succession are utterly different in England and in Scotland, and I protest against this method of dealing with this important subject. Legal authorities in Scotland have always been complaining of this method and have always been insisting that legislation for Scotland should be in an entirely different Bill beginning from the foundation in accordance with the Scotch principle of land legislation. We have had an Agricultural Rating Bill for England and a separate Bill for Scotland, and a Voluntary Schools Bill for England and a separate measure for Scotland, and yet these subjects were twenty times less complicated than this. I really cannot understand why the Government should attempt to deal with such an important subject in this way. Everyone is anxious that the present Bill should succeed, and the only way to make it succeed is to have the machinery simple. If the machinery is complicated an immense number of questions will arise which will lead to litigation and mean absolute ruin to the small proprietors concerned. I have put down a number of Amendments to try as far as possible to adapt this Bill to Scotland. But anyone who studies it will feel convinced that it is a Bill that cannot be adapted in this way, and that it would have been much better if Scotland had had a separate Bill. I will, therefore, move in Clause 11, page 7, line 23, after "shall" to inert "not." It will follow consequentially that all to the end of Clause 13 would be deleted. Whether the Amendment be accepted or not, I wish to make a protest at this stage against dealing with complicated questions of this kind in such a manner.
MR. GALLOWAY: On a point of order, would not this Amendment make absolute nonsense of the whole clause?
MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member carries this Amendment another Amend-

1351
ment will follow, but he cannot move two Amendments at the same time.
MR. GALLOWAY: Would not the hon. Member be more in order in moving to omit the clause?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is quite in order. If the clause were struck out, the Bill would apply to Scotland.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 7, line 23. after the word 'shall' to insert the word 'not.'"—(Mr.Caldwell.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'not' be there inserted."
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The hon. Member for Mid-Lanark has somewhat surprised me by moving this Amendment, because the contention usually put forward is that in measures of general importance the two kingdoms should not be dealt with separately. It is quite true, of course, that there are certain matters which can be more appropriately dealt with in separate Bills. The hon. Member has given some instances, but I think he will find that the real criterion is that where the subject matter of a measure is a common-sense idea applicable to both countries there is no reason why we should not have one Bill, even though the actual machinery may be rather varied. The Agricultural Rating Bill is not a case in point, because in England the Bill relieved a part of the agricultural rates, and if the same words were to apply to Scotland they would have no practical result, because the rating system is essentially different. The object here is precisely the same in both countries, and it is only in the carrying out of the matter that
there is any difference. Now that we have had the hon. Gentleman's opinion upon it I do not think he will expect me to accept the Amendment. The hon. Member for South-West Manchester need not be at all nervous that the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark will persist in his Amendment, because if it were carried it would be perfectly suicidal, as it would prevent him from moving his other well-considered Amendments on the paper.
MR. DALZIEL: If my hon. friend goes to a Division I shall certainly support him. There is this peculiarity so far as Scotland is concerned. The Bill has never been discussed there. There is no public demand for it, and throughout the length and breadth of Scotland not a single candidate referred to the subject in his election address. Personally I do not believe there is any demand for this Bill in England. But so far as Scotland is concerned the Lord Advocate will agree with me that it is an absolutely new proposal, and foreign altogether to the whole idea of the occupation and ownership of houses in Scotland. It may be used at election times by our friends opposite, but there is no demand for it, and I doubt whether it will be used. I believe the proposal is one totally against the whole movement in Scotland in respect to land reform, and we had recent evidence of that so far as the Edinburgh elections were concerned if the hon. Member goes to a Division, in order to repudiate all responsibility for foisting this Bill on Scotch Members, I certainly shall support him.
The House divided:—Ayes, 48; Noes, 130. (Division List No. 216.)

AYES.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Hazell, Walter

Rickett, J. Compton

Billson, Alfred

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

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Hornidman, Frederick John

Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs.)

Burns, John

Leng, Sir John

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Cameron, Sir Charles(Glasgow)

MacAleese, Daniel

Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Causton, Richard Knight

M'Leod, John

Steadman, William Charles

Cawley, Frederick

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

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

Moss, Samuel

Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)

Clough, Walter Owen

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Condon, Thomas Joseph

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

Wedderburn, Sir William

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

Weir, James Galloway

Donelan, Captain A.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

Doogan, P. C

Pirie, Duncan V.

Yoxall, James Henry

Dunn, Sir William

Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Evans, Samuel T.(Glamorgan)

Randell, David

Mr. Caldwell and Mr. Dalziel.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)

NOES.

Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

Fisher, William Hayes

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Gr'h'm(Bute

Arnold, Alfred

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Galloway, William Johnson

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Garfit, William

Nicholson, William Graham

Balcarres, Lord

Gedge, Sydney

Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

Gibbs, Hn.Vicary (St. Albans)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Barry, Rt Hn A. H Smith-(Hunts

Gilliat, John Saunders

Pierpoint, Robert

Bartley, George C. T.

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Pilkington, R. (Lanes, Newton)

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Green, Walford D. (Wed'bur.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord Georgy

Purvis, Robert.

Blakiston-Houston, John

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W me

Pym, C. Guy

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Richards, Henry Charles

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Heath, James

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn)

Henderson, Alexander

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chs. Thomson

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hill, Arthur (Down, West)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Hill, Sir Edward Stock(Bristol)

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.

Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)

Seton-Karr, Henry

Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Howard, Joseph

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Charrington, Spencer

Howell, William Tudor

Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth),

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

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

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Stock, James Henry

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

Valentia, Viscount

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Kenyon, James

Wallace, Robert

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Keswick, William

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Curzon, Viscount

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm

Dalkeith, Earl of

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh. N.

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Long, Rt. Hn. Wltr. (Liverpool)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Denny, Colonel

Lowe, Francis William

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

Dewar, Arthur

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Wyndham, George

Dunkin, Richard Sim

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Douglas, Rt. Hom. A. Akers-

Macdona John Cumming

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Doxford, William Theodore

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Drucker, A.

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Fardell, Sir T. George

Milton, Viscount

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Milward, Colonel Victor

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Other Amendments agreed to.
MR. WILMA MOORE: The object of the Amendment which stands in my name is to extend the number of towns and urban district councils in Ireland in which the Act may be put into operation. I may remind the House that the Bill already recognises the principle that you may have in Ireland a different qualification as to population from what you may have in England. In England the qualifying population is 7,000; in Ireland, both as to rural and urban districts, it is 5,000. Now, I submit to the House that in drawing the line in the case of the urban districts, especially at 5,000, it has been drawn too high. We are very anxious in the North of Ireland to have the benefits of the Act extended. I think I can satisfy the
1354
Government that if my Amendment is accepted it will confer a great benefit on a large number of municipalities. There are in Ireland 95 municipalities, and under the Bill as it originally stood with a qualifying population of 10,000 only 13 towns would have been qualified to put the Act into operation. In Committee the qualifying limit was brought down to 5,000 for Ireland, which brought in 26 municipalities. My Amendment proposes a population limit of 3,000, which would allow other 33 towns to bring the Act into operation, making a total of 59 towns out of the whole 95 municipalities in Ireland. If this Act is to be such a benefit to England and Scotland as has been represented, it is at least reasonable to ask that 59 towns in Ireland should have the same privilege. These towns have all very large powers of borrowing under the

1355
Public Health Act and the Towns Improvement Act. The Solicitor-General says that the valuation of these towns with a population of 3,000 is very small, and that in the event of a total loss the rates would be increased very much. I would state that the local boards are allowed to take collaterial security, and they have also the veto of the Irish Local Government Board to fall back on. You could hardly imagine, therefore, that under this Act there could be a total loss. No money can be borrowed until the boards are satisfied that the security is ample, and until it has been approved of by the Local Government Board in Ireland. I may point out as evidence that the population line has been wrongly drawn, that the valuation of some of the towns which are allowed to come in on the 5,000 population basis is considerably below the valuation of some of the towns with only 3,000 inhabitants. For instance, Carrick-on-Suir has a population of 5,608 with a valuation of £6,800, while Crookstown with a population of 3,000 has a valuation of over £11,000. Many other instances could be given. I regret to be obliged to bring this matter to a Division, but I have received resolutions from county councils and from towns in the North of Ireland which are very alive to the benefits of the Bill, and which have not the advantage of building societies enjoyed by towns of the same extent in England, that they are anxious that this Act should be Worked in their district so far as it can be worked.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 10, line 29, after the words 'seven thousand,' to insert the words 'in so far as the same relates to the council of any rural district, and in the case of the council of any un an district three thousand.'"—(Mr. William Moore.)
Question proposed—"That those words be there inserted."
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. The Amendment introduced into Committee by the right hon. the Colonial Secretary afforded an opportunity to a considerable part of the rural districts in Ireland to come under the operations of the Act. We must remember that towns with 3,000 population really do not contain the class of people whom this Act is designed
1356
to benefit. In addition to that the valuation of at least fifty towns in Ireland is only from £1 to £1 10s. per head of the population. For instance, in Castlebar there is a population of 3,558, and the valuation is £4,352. In Cashel the population is 3,216, and the valuation is £3,642; in Trim the population is 3,612, and the valuation £3,816; in Navan the population is 3,269, and the valuation £5,355; in Clonakilty the population is 3,221, and the valuation £4,592. What does that mean? If you take the population at 3,000, and the valuation at £4,000, you can only raise 4,000 pennies. Four thousand pennies makes £16 13s. 4d. Imagine any local authority starting to put this Act into operation, making an advance of £240 for the purchase of a house with only a guarantee of £16 per annum. Sir, this proposal makes the Bill perfectly ridiculous.
MR. WOLFF: It seems to me very evident that if this Act is to do any good at all it is more likely to do it in small towns than in large ones. I have had considerable experience of workmen in large towns, the result of which goes to show that in those places they frequently shift from one part of a town to another, and also from one town to another; but in a small town the average workman frequently remains for half his working life. If, therefore, this Bill is to be of any use—and I do not think it will be of much use—it ought to apply to the small towns as much as possible. The Attorney-General has told us that the valuation in many of these towns is so small that the Act could not be put into effect except in regard to very few houses. There had better be few houses bought than none at all. I think it is a great pity that the Attorney-General should take the course he proposes, and I hope he will change his mind. If the hon. Member who moved this Amendment will go to a Division I shall certainly support him, however much I may regret the necessity of voting against the Government.
MR. HEMPHILL: In this case I am happy to be able to support the Amendment of my hon. and learned friend the Member for North Antrim, and also the hon. Gentleman who last spoke. In the Standing Committee on Law I advocated the

1357
reduction of the test by which this Act would be applied to small towns in Ireland. I think everybody who knows Ireland must be aware that the towns are very small throughout the length and breadth of the country. Assuming, for the purpose of the very few observations that I intend to make, that this is a beneficial Act, we have it from the statistics of the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim that to draw the line at 5,000 inhabitants would exclude thirty-three towns in Ireland from benefiting by the Bill. Why should they be excluded? I cannot imagine why the opposition to this Amendment should be persisted in. There may be a few towns in Ireland in which it would be a decided advantage for the poor working man to have the benefit of this Act. It is very likely that the Act may be a dead letter in Ireland—I do not myself look forward to any great results from it—but in legislation we are bound to assume that some beneficial results will follow. In applying the old-fashioned rule of three the Bill it is obvious to every Member in this House that the ratio of 3,000 inhabitants in Ireland would be fully represented by 7,000 in England, while 5,000 in Ireland would be equivalent to 10,000 or 15,000 in England. On the whole, therefore, I trust my right hon. friend will accept this Amendment.
MR. GALLOWAY: This is an Amendment which has for its object the granting of facilities for the acquisition of houses by working men. We had a discussion at an earlier stage with regard to the limit of population in England, and I voted then for the smaller number—I think the reduction was from 7,000 to 5,000—as I did in the Grand Committee on Law, because, however small may be the number of cases in which the Act can be applied, if it is going to be of any benefit at all there is no reason why these places should be excluded. It appears to me that if the Act is beneficial in any respect, we ought, wherever we can, consistently with safety, to secure the application of the Act. It surely is rather extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland should object to this Amendment, because as the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved it said, the Act as it at present stands would only apply to twenty-six towns. It does seem
1358
to me that twenty-six towns oat of ninety-five is a very small proportion indeed; in fact, it is little more than a quarter, and I do not think that in legislating for Ireland the Unionist party, at any rate, should exclude three-fourths of the towns from the benefit of the Act. I do not see in the arguments used by the Attorney-General for Ireland any reason why the Amendment should not be accepted, and I shall certainly support my hon. friend.
MR. McLAREN: It is abundantly clear from the speeeches made by the hon. Members below the gangway on the other side that unless the Amendment is carried the Bill will have practically no operation in Ireland. We know the form in which the Bill was cast would prevent it from having any valid operation in this country, but some of us did, at all events, hope that it would apply to the sister country, and be one of the great remedial measures which the Government pride themselves on introducing to heal the wounds of the sister country. But the hon. Member for East Belfast, whose experience as an employer of labour is second to none, perhaps, in this country, assures us that the better class of workmen—that is to say, the workmen enjoying the opportunity of earning large wages in the great centres of industry—will not avail themselves of the powers given by the Bill. Therefore it only remains to be seen how far the Bill can be applied in the smaller towns where the poorer classes are accustomed to live for generations. The hon. Member for North Antrim has put his finger on the blot in the Bill. He shows that unless the limit of population is decreased practically no Irish towns except the few larger ones will be benefited under the Bill at all, and we all know that unless the people of these smaller places have a personal interest in carrying out the provisions of a scheme of this kind it has very little prospect of being put into force. Those who heard the speech of the Attorney-General for Ireland must feel that his objection to the Amendment was a purely technical one, and therefore the hon. Member, in moving as he does from the Government side of the House, will have a better chance of getting the Government to accept his Amendment than if it were moved from this side.
COLONEL MILWARD: We discussed this question when the question of England was being considered, and I thought then it was the unanimous opinion of that House that to reduce the limit of population too low was to really introduce a dangerous principle into the Bill. Hon. Members who have spoken have said that they can see no harm or danger in introducing this limit. I think there is a very great danger indeed. When you conic to towns of 3,000 population, and you propose to allow the urban council to advance very considerable sums of money, you run at once into a very great danger. One danger not mentioned in the House tonight is that, although you are limited to a loss of 1d. in the £ as far as the rates are concerned, yet the loss may be much heavier than that before it is found out. You may have built right and left before you actually find that you have a loss, and you may be committed to a very large loss indeed. I think the hon. Members who have spoken have quite forgotten that all these towns are taken over by the county councils; they are not excluded under the Bill; but instead of applying to their own urban councils, they look to the county councils which have recently been established. Under these circumstances I hope the Government will adhere to the limit that they have decided upon.
MR. DILLON: I have already discussed this question at considerable length, when the Amendments were under discussion on the English part of the Bill, and I very strongly expressed my opinion that the proper authority to put into force this Bill, so far as it is good for anything, were the small district councils, who would know the character of the borrowers from personal knowledge. It has been said in this Debate, as was said when the main clause was under discussion, that these districts, which are deprived, or ought to be deprived, of autonomy under this Bill, would be taken care of by the county councils. When that proposition was advanced on a previous occasion, I asked the Colonial Secretary, in charge of the Bill, what was to be the area charged—because that is an all important question—and the Colonial Secretary replied that that would be dealt with in a different Amendment. I have only had time to make a
1360
hurried examination of the Amendment, but as far as I can gather the area charged in the case of these small councils is the county. If that is the case the Bill will not be put into operation as far as the small towns are concerned. To tell me that the county councils will advance money to these small towns and run the risk of putting a rate on the whole county is to talk nonsense. They will do nothing of the sort, and these unfortunate districts will be completely cut off from all benefit under this Bill if this is to be the area charged. If you allow the small towns to advance the money they will only advance it to three or four occupiers in the first instance, and if they find the experiment successful they will advance money to others. I submit that no argument has been advanced against the Amendment. When the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said he thought it was a dangerous Amendment the was probably ignorant of the difference which exists between Ireland and England as regards the standard of urban population. I have no hesitation in saying that a population of 2,000 in a town in Ireland is equal to a population of 10,000 in a town in England. When, therefore, the House is asked to reduce the limit of population in Ireland to 3,000, as compared with 7,000 in England, I think it is a very moderate request. I trust the hon. Member for North Antrim will go to a Division.
MR. ATKINSON: The loan is only repayable in thirty-three years, and most of the small towns in Ireland, after they have advanced £140 at 2½ per cent. to three individuals, will have their hands tied up.
SIR JAMES HASLETT: I am not aware of a single town in Ireland where the ordinary artisan could spend £300 for his dwelling. The average cost of an artisan's house in a rural district would be from £80 to £100. The average cost of an artisan's house in the City of Belfast would be from £120 to £140. It is, therefore, quite a fallacy to say that the artisan would spend the sum suggested. Such a thing is not known. It is in the small towns in Ireland that the Bill is mostly needed, and I would earnestly ask the Attorney-General to accept the reduced limit of 3,000 population in Ireland, since it is a fair

1361
comparison with 7,000 population in England.
The House divided:—Ayes, 84; Noes, 148. (Division List No. 217.)

AYES.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Dunn, Sir William

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

Allen, Wm.(Newc.underLyme

Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Oldroyd, Mark

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Flynn, James Christopher

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

Billson, Alfred

Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

Pilkington, Sir G. A. (Lancs. SW

Blakiston-Houston, John

Galloway, W. Johnson

Pirie, Duncan V.

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Priestley, Briggs (Yorks)

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

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Randell, David

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)

Burns, John

Harwood, George

Rickett, J. Compton

Caldwell, James

Haslett, Sir J. Horner

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)

Hazell, Walter

Roberts, John H. (Denbghsh.)

Campbell- Bannerman, Sir H.

Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Causton, Richard Knight

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

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Cawley, Frederick

Horniman, Frederick John

Souttar, Robinson

Channing, Francis Allston

Kearley, Hudson E.

Steadman, William Charles

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

Langley, Batty

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Clough, Walter Owen

Leng, Sir John

Thomas, Alf. (Glamorgan, E.)

Colville, John

Lewis, John Herbert

Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Logan, John William

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Wedderburn, Sir William

Dalziel, James Henry

Lough, Thomas

Weir, James Galloway

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Macaleese, Daniel

Williams, John Carvell(Notts.)

Davitt, Michael

M'Dermott, Patrick

Wilson, John (Govan)

Dewar, Arthur

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Dillon, John

M'Leod, John

Yoxall, James Henry

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

TELLERS FOR THE AYES,

Donelan, Captain A.

Moss, Samuel

Mr. William Moore and Mr. Wolff.

Doogan, P. C.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

NOES.

Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Arnold, Alfred

Curzon, Viscount

Howell, William Tudor

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Baird, John George A.

Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Balcarres, Lord

Denny, Colonel

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W(Leeds

Donkin, Richard Sim

Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

Banbury, Frederick George

Doughty, George

Kenyon, James

Barnes, Frederic George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Keswick, William

Barry, Rt Hn A H Smith-(Hunts

Doxford, William Theodore

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

Bartley, George C. T.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

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

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Liverpool

Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

Fisher, William Hayes

Lowe, Francis William

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Foster, Hairy S. (Suffolk)

Macdona, John Cumming

Bond, Edward

Garfit, William

Maclure, Sir John William

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Gedge, Sydney

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

Gibbs, Hon.Vicary(St. Albans)

Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbt. E.

chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Mellor, Col. (Lancashire)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm)

Gilliat, John Saunders

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Milton, Viscount

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Milward, Colonel Victor

Charrington, Spencer

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Morgan, Hn. Fred.(Monm'thsh.

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Goschen Rt Hn G. J.(St George's

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

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

Green, Walford D.(Wednesb'ry

Murray, Rt Hn. A. G. (Bute

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Gretton, John

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Gull, Sir Cameron

Myers, William Henry

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Colston, Chas. Ed. H. Athole

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Nicholson, William Graham

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Hardy, Laurence

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

Heath, James

Parkes, Ebenezer

Cox, Irwin E. Bainbridge

Helder, Augustus

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Henderson, Alexander

Pierpoint, Robert

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Pilkington, R. (LancsNewton]

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Seton-Karr, Henry

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Sidebottom, William(Derbysh

William, Joseph Powell-(Birm

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

Wilson,J. W. (Worcestersh.N.

Purvis Robert

Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

Wodehouse, Rt. Hon. E. R(Bath

Pym, C. Guy

Stanley, Lord (Lants.)

. Rt.Hon.C. B. Stuart-

Richards, Henry Charles

Stewart, Sir Mar K J. M' Taggart

Wyndham, George

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Stock, James Henry

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Strauss, Arthur

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Russell, Gen. F.S.(Cheltenham

Tollemache, Henry James

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Tomlinson, W. Edw. Murray

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Valentia, Viscount

Sir William Walrond and

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Mr. Anstruther.

Seely, Charles Hilton

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Resolutions agreed to.

Other Amendments made.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That the Bill be re-committed in respect of Clause 12."—(The Lord Advocate.)
MR. SYDNEY GEDGE (who spoke amid repeated cries of "Divide," was understood to say): I beg to move as an Amendment that the Bill be recommitted in respect of Clauses 8 and 12. I wish Clause 8 also to be considered with a view to its omission, and the insertion of another clause which was to be moved by the Colonial Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman moved, but afterwards withdrew it. My reason for moving the Amendment is that the clause as it now stands introduces, as regards all purchases and sales under the Bill, the Land Transfer Act of 1897 in every county in England. This is contrary to the distinct promise which was made when that Act was passed that it should be tried as an experiment only in the administrative County of London, and that for three years it should not be introduced in any other county in England, nor afterwards unless the county council asked that the Act should be put into force. This Bill suggests no machinery of any kind for the purpose of putting it into force. Not only is there no machinery, but when a deputation of the Incorporated Law Society waited on the Attorney-General, he promised to reconsider the matter. There is now some idea of leaving it to the House of Lords, and we know what the result will be.
Amendment proposed—
"After the word 'Clause,' to insert the words 'eight and Clause."—(Mr. Sydney Gedge.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: When the Bill was before the House on the Report stage I moved to omit Clause 8 and to insert an alternative clause, on the ground that it was in conflict with an understanding given during the passage of the Land Transfer Act through the House. Objection was taken to my proposal from many quarters of the House, and I was asked to reconsider the matter, as the suggested alteration was no improvement to the Bill. As the Attorney-General is absent on important public business, I have not had an opportunity of consulting him, but the Government is bound to carry out any pledge given on its behalf. I promised that the whole matter should receive consideration when the Bill came before the other House. My hon. friend now wants to hurry matters, and to have the point dealt with before full consideration has been given to it. I think, and I should like to know from tile hon. Member whether he thinks, that any pledge given would be sufficiently met if in another place it was provided that Clause 8 should not come into operation until the expiry of the three years during which no extension of the Land Transfer Act should take place. That is a compromise which I would consider, and I shall ask my hon. friend to say before the Bill conies before the House of Lords whether that compromise would meet the views of those whom he represents. I should then require further time to consider the whole case.
MR. HELDER: As one of the deputation which waited on the Attorney-General, I would like to say he dealt with the matter in such a way as led us to suppose that the clause would be withdrawn, or that some alteration would be made when the Bill again came before

1365
the House, in order to meet the views of the Incorporated Law Society. There are faults in Clause 8 which we consider very serious, but I think, on the whole, the right hon. Gentleman, the Colonial Secretary, has treated the matter very fairly, and that his suggestion to insert an agreed clause in another place is the best arrangement that could be made.
Question put and negatived.
Bill re-committed in respect of Clause 12.
Bill considered in Committee, and reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

MILITARY WORKS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. DILLON: Since we passed the Resolution in Committee, authorising the introduction of this Bill, two memoranda have been issued. Since these Military and Naval Loans Bills were first resorted to the process has gone on, growing more rapidly from year to year. At first several years were allowed to elapse between the passing of one such Bill and the bringing in of another, but now this present measure is introduced after all interval of only two years. We are called upon to provide a further sum of £4,000,000, making within three years a sum of £9,450,000 for military works. Nor is that all. We ate informed that this sum of £4,000,000 is not sufficient to carry out the complete scheme of the War Office. There is no such thing as a complete scheme in either the War Office or the Admiralty. The more money they get the more they are sure to require within a Very short In this Schedule "A," winch gives the particulars of the expenditure of the £1,000,000 row asked for, we are told that the complete scheme is estimated to cost £6,900,000. We have had some experience of these Estimates of the War Office, and we know that to round off this complete scheme many more millions will be required. I contend we have entered upon an extremely vicious
1366
course of finance in departing from the good sound principle of voting year by year the money required by these services, and confounding the finances of the country by introducing these Loans Bills, which have the result of enormously increasing the expenditure. The Under Secretary for War made a remarkable statement in his speech when he said that the method of proceeding by loan was proposed by the War Office because they found that when they called upon the House for money for military works, criticism in Committee of Supply cut down their estimates enormously, and they consequently did not get all the money they required. What was the Committee of Supply set up for, but for the purpose of criticising and cutting down Estimates?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The hon. Gentleman is under a misunderstanding. The "cutting down" occurred long before the Estimates came before the House.
MR DILLON: It took place from a wholesome fear of the criticism of the Committee of Supply, and that is point. The system of introducing Loans Bills was then fallen back upon, because it was found that enormously larger sums of money could by that means be got through the House. That is a strong argument against these Loans Bills, because the whole system of the Committee of Supply has been devised for the purpose of checking the inevitable tendency of all the great spending Departments of the State to swell their Estimates. Human nature is so constituted that if there was not that check the Departments would swell and expand their Estimates until the back of the taxpayer was completely broken by the burden. Under the favouring circumstances of a wave of Imperial expansion which has passed over the country, the War Office and the Admiralty have set up for themselves a wholly peculiar position with reference to the taxpayer of this country. Why should they have the right to depart from the principles which control the civil departments of the State? Why should not the civil departments have a right to come with a Loans Bill and get £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 set apart for them, and spread over two or three

1367
years? Under the first head of the items of expenditure is a sum of a round £1,000,000 for defence works. That looks rather suspicious. We are told that all these sums are based upon the most careful and elaborate estimates. It is rather a large demand upon our credulity to tell us that the War Office having carefully surveyed the military necessities of this vast Empire arrived at the conclusion that the sum actually required was £1,000,000—not a penny more nor sixpence less. We are not in- formed where the £1,000,000 is to be spent, nor have we the slightest indication of the purposes for which it is to be used. Many of the leading experts in the House tell us that this money is an absolute waste—just as much thrown away as were the enormous sums that were spent by Lord Palmerston on the defence of Portsmouth and other southern ports. I never pretended to be an expert about the War Office, but some time ago I read columns of letters in The Times from the hon. Member for West Belfast, who poses as a great authority on these matters, and in those letters we were distinctly told that the War Office is a "perfect monument of blundering stupidity." And yet that is the body to which we are asked to entrust a million of money without an atom of information as to how it is to be spent. I am inclined to pin my faith to the hon. Member for York, who said that this money was going to be absolutely wasted, and that the proper use would be to station at those ports which are to be defended by military works a crusier which could defend the port and in case of necessity be useful to sally forth and attack the enemy. I daresay that is a proper view and entitled to consideration. To the next item I have not the slightest opposition—£1,600 for building an enormous barracks at Salisbury Plain to make decent provision for our soldiers. But there are other items in this list to which I take the strongest possible objection. One is for the provision of barracks at Bermuda, Jamaica, and Halifax. I do not see what object there is in erecting fresh barracks and fortifications in these West India Islands. I firmly believe that in a very short time all the West India Islands will go over to the United States. That will be the inevitable result of the war between Spain and the United States, and the passing of Cuba into the system of the United States.
1368
You are in vain endeavouring to prop up these colonies by a system of loans. They are bankrupt, but under the United States they will prosper; and when Jamaica and the other islands find that nature has intended that they should be part and parcel of the United States, they will state so, and the people of this country will not be foolish enough to resist their wishes; and if they are foolish enough they will find that this condition of things will arise—that these islands will require you to spill out your money in order to keep them loyal, and that you will end by getting so tired of the process that you will give them over to the United States. There is another reason why I think the people of this country are foolish in pursuing this policy. You are always talking of the Anglo-Saxon race, and a large section of the people of this country are nursing themselves in the delusion that you can succeed in cultivating an alliance with the United States. That is a condition of things that I think is exceedingly unlikely to come off. But supposing it were, do you think you are promoting that state of good feeling by the provision of these fortifications and troops in the West India Islands? Against whom are you providing? Who is likely to touch these West India Islands? What European Power is likely to have the means of attacking them? The thing is absurd. There can be only one power against which you are fortifying these islands, and that is the United States of America. Therefore, from your own point of view, this is a foolish waste of money. As to the item of £130,000 for the erection of barracks at Wei-hai-wei, every possible opportunity ought to be taken to protest against the system, which has advanced by giant strides within the last two years, of getting in the pay of this country regiments and armies—as they are growing to be now—of strange and foreign and unchristian nations. It is an abominable system, and the further it extends the greater will become the monstrous evils to which it will lead. We heard for the first time last year of the African regiment and the Soudanese regiment, whose conduct in war it is impossible to foresee. They will undoubtedly commit atrocities which ought to bring shame to the people of this country. But now, forsooth, not content with having had black regiments

1369
and Egyptian regiments and regiments of various other nationalities, we are now to have a yellow army. Human life and suffering are as nothing to them, and they commit the most appalling atrocities without any sense that they are committing atrocities at all. I protest against this Vote upon the grounds which I have stated, and I hope it will not be agreed to.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I confess that I share the dislike of the hon. Gentleman opposite to the system of getting money by Loans Bills instead of putting the expenditure on the Estimates in the usual way, and subjecting it to Parliamentary criticism. The criticism to which it would then be subject is quite different from that to which it is subject when it comes before us in a Loan Bill for a lump sum. In the Estimates each item is brought forward in detail, but when once a Loans Bill has passed there is an end to Parliamentary control over the expenditure. The sum involved here is really very large. The sum of the Bill is £4,000,000, but we are told that that is not the whole of the scheme of the War Office, but that £3,000,000 more will be wanted. In addition to that there is 5½ millions of the 1897 Loans Bill, so that we have a total of over £12,000,000. We can quite understand why the proposal is put into this shape. If it was put in the usual way, Parliament might be unduly curious and unduly troublesome about granting the money. Take the very last item—"Staff and contingencies, £190,000." I thought the staff was provided for in the Estimates. Is this an additional staff? If it is, this is not the right place to charge for it; but it should be on the Estimates. The salaries should be included in the Estimates, and laid before the House, so that the House could have an opportunity of criticising not merely the total amount, but the individual salaries, and, if need be, the power of moving the omission of any individual salary or individual member of the staff. Perhaps we shall have some explanation of that. There are two items I wish to call special attention to. First of all, let me remark as to the West Indian barracks. I think it is highly proper that they should be, rebuilt and improved according to modern requirements, and the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman opposite, that the only country against
1370
which we should have to defend the West India Islands is the United States, is entirely unfounded. We have had to defend them many times before, but never against the United States, and if we had to defend them again it would not be against the United States. As regards Wei-hai-wei, this £130,000 represents a very much larger necessary expenditure than appears on the face of it. This is simply the housing of troops which will cost you perhaps millions, and it represents, in my opinion, a very dangerous departure in English policy—a departure which involves a want of confidence in the Navy to do its business, and a tendency to rely rather upon the War Office than upon the Admiralty for the defence of British possessions, not only here but abroad. If you are going to put down permanently such a large number of soldiers as will cost you £130,000 to house, and that only as a beginning, such a step must give pause to anybody who has the interests of the Empire at heart. I hope my noble friend behind me will explain to the House what is the meaning of the permanent presence in Wei-hai-wei of such a body of troops as will require an expenditure of £130,000 to house them? If, as the hon. Gentleman opposite has suggested, the larger part of those troops are to be Chinese troops, then this £130,000 represents a much larger number of troops than would be the case if they were European troops, because the housing of Chinese troops is much cheaper than any other. Now I come to what I consider is the great blot in the Bill, and that is the first item of £1,000,000 for defence works. The hon. Gentleman opposite is not quite accurate when he says the War Office places this at the exact amount, for it proposes £306,000 more. The proposal of the War Office is for £1,306,000, of which this £1,000,000 is but an instalment. This is for defence works, but what defence works? You have got provision for rifle ranges, staff contingencies, and barracks, and here von ask for this large sum of money without any explanation at all, without any detail, and without any suggestion of the kind of work you are going to provide, and you do not even mention the places where the work is to be carried out, or the character of those places. You simply ask permission for the Government to

1371
expend £1,306,000 on defence works. Now what are these defence works to be? It has been suggested by my hon. friend the Under Secretary of State for War—and it is the only suggestion we have had on the subject—that first of all it would be imprudent to state to the House the exact places where the defence works are to be erected, or their exact nature, because it would give information to the enemy and would be injurious to us. Now I absolutely disbelieve in all this secrecy. You do not hesitate to show foreigners every secret in our dockyards, but when you show a man a thing, unless you show him how to make it, and when it is made how to use it, you have not shown him much. It is extremely foolish to affect tins secrecy in respect of defence works, because as soon as you begin to lay your first brick it will be in all the evening newspapers, and all foreign nations will know exactly what you are going to do. It seems to me that, before the Government ask us to allow them to speed this million of money, they ought to give the House some general scheme as to what they are going to do with it, and they ought to give us something like the same details as they have given with regard to the barracks. There are forty or fifty lines of details in regard to the proposed barracks, which are relatively unimportant, but there is not a line of information about the details of this enormous item for defence works. If it be true that a large portion of this money is being spent in setting up forts for the defence of commercial harbours, then I say that is distinctly an item which the House ought not to sanction. I ventured to demonstrate to the House the other day that a raid upon a commercial port by an enemy Was practically impossible, and eat, if possible, would practically do no harm at all. If that be so, how much better it would be to spend this million on another ironclad. The House will observe that it is not the Admiralty which is in a fright, but the War Office. I should like to know w Nether the First Lord of the Admiralty was ever consulted about these defence works? My right hon. friend thinks that is a business which does not belong to the Admiralty, but belongs to the War Office. [Mr. GOSCHEN: "No."] Then I misinterpreted his smile, and I do not know what he smiled at. It does scum to me that the first person you should ask about these defence works is
1372
the First Lord of the Admiralty, because it is his primary business to afford us protection by ships and not by bricks and mortar. I do very seriously deprecate this new departure of attempting to defend your maritime ports no longer by ships but by earthworks and garrisons manned by the Army, for it marks a departure from the traditional policy of this country, which is to defend ourselves on the sea. That is where we must fight our battles, and not at any English commercial or naval port. It is at sea where all those great battles have been fought which have decided the safety of the British Empire, and it is at sea where they will have to be fought again. It is absurd, when you claim to have naval supremacy, to go pottering about building earthworks and setting up forts with little tin soldiers to man them in order to defend your commercial ports. If your Navy is not strong enough to defend these ports none of these earthworks will be of any use whatever. But if you are going to use money in this way, then you should justify your action by giving us the names of the places where you are going to spend the money, and give us some idea of the nature of the fortifications which you are going to erect, and let us know whether this money is to be spent upon guns or torpedoes. At any rate, I cannot conceive with what sort of face a Government can come down on the House of Commons, and, without giving any details whatever, ask us straight off for a million of money to spend in what they call defence works. This, to my mind, is the great blot in the Bill, and I do trust that before this discussion ends the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for War will really afford the House some information with regard to these naval defence works. I am no enemy to expenditure for naval and military defences, but I would rather see an increase in naval and a decrease in military expenditure, and I am afraid that the nature of this proposal is the other way, and that when the War Office gets this £12,500,000 the argument will go against an increase in the Navy. I very much regret that this Bill was introduced this evening at this late hour, because I am afraid the Debate will suffer, and I am still more sorry that no further information is forthcoming in regard to these defence works.
LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: The hon. Member for East Mayo appears to have misunderstood what I said the other night. I did not say that the £1,000,000 put down for defence works was unwise, but what I complained of was that a sum of £130,000 was going to be spent on Wei-hai-wei, and that the Government had absolutely changed their policy there as far as I could understand it. ("No, no.") The right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench says "No," but he has his opinion and I have mine. When the question of the occupation of Wei-hai-wei was first brought before this House I expressed the view that I thought it was a very valuable secondary naval base, and it would have been valuable if we had adheres to the original policy of the Government at the time, which was the maintenance of the integrity of China. But since then the Government have changed their policy, although right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench may deny it, for we have now drifted into the policy of spheres of influence, and that being so I think the possession of Wei-hai-wei will certainly be a great danger to us, because it will not be near our own sphere of influence. As far as the rest of the million of money goes, I think it is a very good expenditure. There are two questions to remember in fortifying places on shore. It is absolutely necessary that your naval arsenals should be adequately fortified and defended so as to allow your fleet to get out into the blue waters to tackle the enemy. In regard to the question of fortifying our commercial ports, I think it is the duty of the fleet to keep the enemy away from your commercial ports, and if we once agree in this House to fortify our commercial ports we shall have a very great power against us, because you will at once create a political power against you. You will not then be able to fortify one commercial port without being consistent and fortifying a great many other commercial ports, and no doubt pressure will be brought to bear on the Government to fortify other ports; and hon. Members of this House, in the interests of their constituents, will say to other hon. Members, "If you will support me in getting my port fortified I will support you to get your port fortified." If you spend a million of money in fortifying commercial ports—where an enemy ought never to come at all if the
1374
fleet is properly managed—you will be taking that amount of money from your mobile defences by which the fleet ought to be supported. With regard to Wei-hai-wei, if we are going in for this spheres of influence policy into which we are drifting, we shall have to take over the Yang-tsze province, for it is absolutely absurd to think that we can govern this province from Pekin with the Pekin Government, for when you do away with the constituted authority you will have to set up something in its place, and to do this you will have to occupy that province with a large number of men. That is the reason why I object to the expenditure of this sum of money for Wei-hai-wei, and I shall vote against it whenever it comes before the House. My position at the present moment is rather difficult, because I do not want to vote against the whole Bill, but I do want to vote against this item for Wei-hai-wei, which is put into the Bill. As to the rest of the Bill, the larger proportion is devoted to reforms and improvements which are absolutely necessary. I think the condition of the barracks in this country is simply a scandal to both this and the preceding Government. In the past our soldiers were not properly housed, and they have been put into very insanitary places, and I am very glad that the Government have decided to overhaul this matter, and are going to put these barracks into a state of proper repair, where the men can live decently. The hon. Member for East Mayo spoke of the objection which had been taken to our engaging armies of different colours; but I do not see why he objects to that, for our Empire is so enormous that even if we had conscription we could not properly police it it we had disturbances in our own territories, or if we had some disagreement with foreign nations. Therefore, we must have these coloured armies. My proposal to China was to have a Chinese Army, with a British officer at the head of it, on exactly the same lines that the Maritime Customs now are; that is to say, there should be a British officer at the head, but non-commissioned officers from all nations should manage the army; and I hold that it is not too late yet to do that, if we allow Russia to occupy Manchuria, and I do not see how we can prevent it. As we have got 64 per cent. of the trade

1375
of China let us manage the rest of the army. It is not a bit too late to do that now, in my humble opinion, and if we do it we shall get the vested interests of all countries all over China, and then there will be a unanimous opinion, shared by all countries, that the open door will be maintained. With regard to this question of fortifying Wei-hai-wei and other places, I should very much like to know if that mystical body the Council of Defence has been consulted over this matter, as far as the fortifying of Wei-hai-wei and other places is concerned, because I do not believe that any naval or military officer would agree to fortifying commercial harbours. Such expenditure is certainly an absolute waste of money, and there can be no objection on the part of the Government to telling the House what commercial harbours are going to be fortified, and why they are going to be fortified. As far as the West Indies go that is a point of naval base, and we have had to fight for the West Indies against many nations, but if we have a fleet big enough we shall not have to go to war at all. I think the Government ought to let the House know how this money is going to be spent as far as the commercial harbours are concerned, because I think the House will object to voting money for the defence of commercial harbours. I will not occupy the time of the House longer, because I shall have another opportunity later on of opposing, with all the vehemence I can command, this policy in connection with the fortification of Wei-hai-wei.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The noble Lord has made a number of interesting observations, with many of which I find myself in agreement. On the subject of the fortification of Wei-hai-wei and the commercial harbours, the noble Lord says he will give to that the strongest possible opposition, but how is he going to do it? That is one of the most remarkable features of the position in which we stand. Here is a White paper which has been distributed by the Government for the information of the House, and it is headed 'Military Works Bill Account, 1899." It is endorsed "Schedule A.—expenditure on services to be undertaken under the Bill. Schedule B.—complete War Office scheme." It is called Schedule A, just as if it was a schedule to this Bill, as if we had any
1376
control over these items. This is issued merely as information munificentia of the War Office to us for our gratification, but we have no control over these items. In these War Office Bills for loans, why should we not follow the same course as is pursued in the case of Navy loans, and put in the schedule of the Bill those items which we see here set out in the White paper. If this were done then the noble Lord could move to strike out the item for Wei-hai-wei or any part of it, or he could move to strike out any other item to which he objected. Now he is helpless in the matter, and cannot do so because the Bill comes before us with only this meagre statement of general figures, and the noble Lord cannot oppose the expenditure on Wei-hai-wei if he wishes to do so. He may move to reduce the amount asked for, but that would not affect the Act; and if he succeeded in reducing the amount it would not follow that Wei-hai-wei would be left out. As far as I can remember the Admiralty system, it gives the particulars of the works for which the money is wanted, and in that way it gives the House the power which it ought to possess. Now, Sir, I think of late years we have launched into this system of loans to an extent which is greatly exaggerated. I admit that there is a great convenience in loans when you can contemplate a uniform, steady, and uninterrupted expenditure of money upon a particular service without being exposed to the freaks and vicissitudes of the Estimates. That is a great advantage, no doubt, over the modern system, whereby the money in repayment of the loan—that is the sinking fund which is formed for the repayment of the money borrowed—is put upon the Estimates, for that brings the whole expenditure within the knowledge of Parliament. This does not give information or control over the details of the scheme—I do not mean the minute details, but the general details of the purposes for which the money is wanted. That, I think, is the main circumstance which strikes me in regard to this Bill. The hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn pointed out that we had first a loan of £5,500,000, and now we have a loan for £4,000,000; we are also going to have another £3,000,000, and that makes up a total of £12,500,000 within the space of a very few years. We are asked to vote this £4,000,000

1377
before the £5,500,000 has been expended, and the War Office do not exhaust the one before they demand the other. Now if these were continuous services we could understand to a certain extent that they should run into each other; but I think it is a little hungry on the part of the Government that, after having got £5,500,000 in 1897 they should come back to us in 1899 with another large proposal of the same kind, before the former sum has been expended. In this White paper which is before us I should like to ask whether the items which are given will complete the service. For instance, there is the sum of £130,000 for Wei-hai-wei, and I will take that item because it has been mentioned before. Will that sum complete the barracks at Wei-hai-wei? Taking the whole question, it will be seen that at foreign stations and barracks the total sum to be expended is over a million of money, and the money provided in this Bill for this purpose is only £450,000, so that we do not know as to any of these items whether the money before us now proposed to be provided will complete the service. I will not now enter upon a discussion of the policy of Wei-hai-wei, although I share the opinion of the noble Lord opposite in regard to it. It seems to me that Wei-hai-wei, having been somewhat of a puzzle and a mystery from the first, Her Majesty's Government are now trying to give consistency and something like reality to it by spending a little money on it. But I cannot see, and never have been able to see, what advantage it will be. If it is to be a minor naval base, it will only detain ships for the purpose of defending it which ought to be available for employment elsewhere. As to the raising of an army there by drilling a few Chinamen in one of our rival spheres of influence, I think that is one of the most original ideas that has ever been propounded as a serious policy. The other point which has been referred to is the policy of the protection of our commercial ports. But there are commercial ports and commercial ports; there are ports the possession of which or the destruction of which by an enemy's ships would be a damage to the naval and military efficiency of the country. I will take such a port as Liverpool or the Clyde. Obviously they are not naval ports, but they are ports which may be used for the refitting and the building
1378
of vessels for the purposes of the Navy; therefore they are almost as valuable as naval ports. But when you come to the mere seaside town, I think the idea of wasting money on such fortifications in seaside towns is not to be contemplated for a moment. I remember some years ago blaming the Admiralty—or those who were responsible for conducting the naval manœuvres under the authority of the Admiralty—for the silly practice of sending ships round the coast of these islands and demanding ransom from the unfortunate towns at which they stopped on their way. I remember that one of the big ironclads found its way to Aberdeen, and the captain immediately sent a polite message ashore demanding £500,000 ransom from the Lord Provost. Now if I had been the Lord Provost I should have answered this captain in two ways. First of all, I should have said, "Our dirty £1 Scotch notes won't do you, the enemy, any good if we give them to you, for we shall at once repudiate them. What you want is sovereigns, and we have not got £500,000 in sovereigns in Aberdeen, or even in the whole of Scotland. Will you be good enough to call some time about the middle of next week, and then I may have got down from the Bank of England enough sovereigns to pay this ransom." My second reply would have been, "My dear captain of the enemy's ship,—You are going to destroy my town if I don't pay you this ransom: will you be good enough to go on and blaze away?" I should advise him to do that be cause every shot that he fired would cost him a great deal more than all the damage it would have done to the town. On the whole I think that the people of Aberdeen and other towns by the seaside may sleep quite comfortably in their beds and not be in the least afraid. I am using that argument quite beside the superior argument of my hon. friend opposite and of the noble Lord, that of course the Navy ought to prevent the possibility of such a thing happening. If the Navy cannot prevent it then no fortifications can. I hope, therefore, that none of this money will be spent on any such purpose as that. But I draw a great distinction between such places as I have been speaking of and places which are either depots for coal or large harbours, and ports where there is a possibility of large shipbuilding and of beneficial assistance being given to

1379
our fleet. We must provide against all contingences which might be dangerous to such ports as these. I join with the noble Lord in saying that I am not willing to put any impediment in the way of this money being voted, because a responsible Government approves of it, and I will not stand in the way of anything which is On their responsibility considered necessary for the national defence. I hope, however, that even yet we will be furnished in the schedule to the Bill with the particulars contained in the White Paper. That would enable Parliament to keep control over the expenditure not in a meddling or interfering way with those carrying out that expetaliture—but it would entail that authority, full knowledge, and power of Parliament which I think are essential for control over the expenditure of public money.
MR. WYNDHAM: I feel it is only due to the right hon. Gentleman that I should rise at once to give such answers as I can to the criticisms which he has passed on this measure. I welcome the general support with which the right bon. Gentleman concluded his speech. We are glad to think that the responsible leader of the Opposition feels bound to support the Government of the day in any claim they make for the necessary defences of the Empire. The right hon. Gentleman began his speech—and referred to the same topic at the end—by suggesting that we might have followed a more convenient form of presenting our scheme to the House, and he suggested that it would have been rather better if we had followed exactly the precedent of the Naval Works Act. Instead of that we have followed the precedent of the Military Works Act of 1897. I have read the Debate on that Act very closely, and I am not aware that any section of opinion in this House found much fault with that method of presenting an absolutely similar scheme. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that under the method we have adopted he has till the information given in the plan of the Naval Works Act, and he has also ample opportunity for criticising the policy of the Government. He himself has disclaimed any idea that it would be possible to watch minutely over the detail of a large scheme of this kind—such as that a barrack in such a place should have been built for a lesser sum, or that a
1380
little money was wasted here or there—but he wishes to keep control over our policy. We are asking for four millions, and in respect of the barracks portion of that scheme, we have given in an explanatory schedule the names of all the stations at which we intend to spend money, and we have classified those stations in a series of classes the purpose of which is perfectly evident. The right hon. Gentleman took as an illustration of the kind of inconvenience he anticipated the proposed expenditure of £130,000 upon Wei-hai-wei; and he said that they could not control our policy in that respect, because this particular sum was not in the schedule to the Bill but only in the explanatory schedule; but I venture to think that he or any other Member of the Opposition could move the reduction of the sum we propose to take for barracks by £130,000 in respect of Wai-hai-wei.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: We could not do it, because Wei-hai-wei is not mentioned in the Bill. I do not think it would be in order.
MR. WYNDHAM: As to points of order I am not a very good judge, but I am bound to say that I believe if a Minister in charge of a measure of this kind states in a Parliamentary Paper that he has taken £130,000 for a certain purpose, it would be competent for the right hon. Gentleman to move a reduction of that amount if he disapproved of the purpose for which it was intended. Either he would be unsuccessful in the Division Lobby or he would be successful If he were unsuccessful it would be taken that the majority of the Members of this House approved of our policy. But if he were successful we should either have to abandon our policy with respect to Wei-hai-wei or abandon this bench. I think, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman has ample control over any question of policy embodied in this scheme. Let me remind the House how much information we do give. In the explanatory memorandum we have given full information as to the total sum we mean to expend on barracks. We have also undertaken in thee Bill to begin no service which cannot be completed for the total sum in the schedule, and we have also undertaken to publish at the beginning of every session, with the Estimates, a statement of the

1381
sum which we expect to spend on the different services in the course of the financial year. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman will always be in a position to how what we are doing. The alternative plan of bringing in successive Bills is one to which much inconvenience attaches, and it does not facilitate criticism by the Opposition of the policy of the Government of the day. The right hon. Gentleman followed on the lines of attack pursued by those who preceded hint in the Debate, though certainly he did not push the attack with as much conviction as other hon. Members did. He deprecated the frequent use of loans in place of Estimates in this respect, but the hon. Member for East Mayo and the hon. Member for King's Lynn went a great deal further and spoke about going back to the good plan of providing for these services out of the Estimates. But that never had been the "good old plan." There have been Loan Bills in 1860, 1872, 1888,1890, and 1897. As regards barracks, that service has been almost entirely met by Loan Bills, because it has been found quite impossible to do so by the alternative plan of Estimates. The idea that we could proceed by Estimates is altogether beside the mark. It may be my own fault that such an idea exists, because, in introducing the resolution on which this Bill is based, I adopted, or attempted to adopt, the plan of debating by reference. Legislation by reference is sufficiently confusing, but Debate by reference is worse, and perhaps I altogether failed to convey my meaning. I referred the right hon. Gentleman to the Report of the Committee on the Army Estimates of 1888–89, and to the speech of my right hon. friend the Under Secretary of Foreign Affairs, in bringing in the Works Bill of 1897. In the Report of that Committee, and in the speech of my right hon. friend, there are arguments to which it is very hard to find a reply in favour of proceeding by loan rather than through the Estimates. Assume for a moment that you are attempting to recast the barrack system of this country by the Estimates. As hon. Members are aware no new service can be begun until the particular Vote for it has passed the House, and the War Office would not be justified in taking any preliminary steps, such as to survey land, until the Vote for that par-
1382
ticular service had been passed by this House, perhaps ill the middle of August. That would mean that we should lose all the best buildings months in the year, and we should find ourselves just getting under way as the frost set in. The result would be that each year the programme for that year would be left unfinished, and at the end of their term of office the Government would have to leave to their successors a number of half-completed edifices. It is considerations such as these which have led preceding Governments and tins Government to adopt a plan of loan instead of the plan of Estimates. But the right hon. Gentleman says, "That is all very well, but you are coming to us rather soon. You came in 1897, and you are coming back again in 1899." I endeavoured to point out the other day why we have come back so soon. The reason is that in 1897 and 1898 Parliament sanctioned an increase of 25,000 to the Army, and it was incumbent on us to give them a roof and four walls. The hon. Member for King's Lynn wished to know what was meant by "Staff and contingencies, £190,000." It means pretty well the architect's and clerk of works' bills. I believe in civil life they amount to about 5 per cent. in connection with the mere execution of the work placed in the hands of the architect and clerk of works, and the same applies to military works. Five per cent. on the amount would be £200,000, but we have reduced it by £10,000, because part of the total of £4,000,000 will be spent in the purchase of land. The other main line of criticism has been directed against us in respect of the defence works portion of the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman expressed the hope that we were not going to spend more money upon watering places. That is not our intention. He was good enough to) say that in respect of the Clyde and the Bristol Channel it might be right to spend a certain sum of money on defence, and also to give confidence to the people of this country. I should really like to repudiate the charge that we have given no information. It has been said by the hon. Member for East Mayo that we have not given an atom of information, and the hon. Member for King's Lynn also said we gave no information. I gave a great deal of information the other day, and I believe that a third of my speech was

1383
devoted to indicating the kind of places on which we intend to spend money on defences, and I thought I made it plain. I cannot understand how anyone can come forward now and say that we are going to spend enormous sums on the defence of commercial ports. It is asked how much money will be required in respect of these defence works. In the Act of 1897 we asked for £1,120,000; this year we are asking for £1,000,000. If we include all the money spent for defence purposes on the annual Estimates of the last ten years, and add to them the additional sum of £306,000, which we believe will be necessary in order to make the defence works of the empire a going concern, we arrive at a total of £3,000,000, sanctioned, asked for, or contemplated, in a period that has already lasted for ten years. That is not 1 per cent. on the expenditure on the Army and Navy during that period. How, therefore, can it be contended for one moment that we are abandoning our old policy and going in for building castles on the sea-shore? And of this £3,000,000 for defence works the greater part will go for services the value of which has been recognised by my noble friend the Member for York and by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. The greater part of it will go to make secure our principal naval bases, our secondary naval bases, our coaling stations, and our strategic harbours. None of our experts have a shadow of doubt as to the value of these services. There are not more than three or four men who doubt that money can be well expended upon them. But obviously they will absorb by far the larger part of the £3,000,000, and will leave only a comparatively small portion for the defence of commercial ports. When it is suggested that we have been pursuing a War Office programme, and have not consulted the First Lord of the Admiralty, I would remind the House that the allocation of these sums was decided first upon local reports which were sent up to the Joint Naval and Military Committee. That Committee submitted a further recommendation to the Committee of Defence of the Cabinet. In this case, the Committee of Defence of the Cabinet referred the question to a conference of experts, and the sailors had as much to say on the matter as the soldiers. As to the nature of these defence works, they are prac-
1384
tically earthworks; but the ground must be very carefully levelled in order that the guns may be laid and aimed with absolute accuracy, and the works must be stable in order that the level of the guns may be retained. There is no idea of going back to the brick-and-mortar school. We feel that a great deal is to be gained by leaving the exact location of these defence works shrouded in a little mystery. It is better that people should know that a certain number of our ports are protected, and then they will think twice before trying to make a systematic list of those which are and those which are not protected. Our policy in respect of defences is, with the exception of Wei-hai-wei, practically supported by my noble friend the Member for York and by the Leader of the Opposition, and hardly any criticism has been passed on the barracks portion of the Bill. I hope I have met the criticisms which have been advanced, and that I have explained that the method we have followed is the most convenient, and that it will give the Opposition every opportunity of criticising the policy of the Government.
MR. BUCHANAN: I venture to express the hope that the First Lord of the Treasury will agree to the adjournment of this Debate. This is one of the most important Bills of the session. We have all fresh in our recollection the speech delivered by the Under Secretary for War, when he introduced this Bill, in which he stated that this Bill was a substantial part of the programme of imperial defence laid before the country by the present Government. It is an essential part of that programme, and it is quite impossible that it can be adequately discussed in one and a half hours at the end of the evening. It has very important military aspects and very important financial aspects, and in the few minutes now at my disposal I would wish to deal with one or two of these financial aspects. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has already called attention to the fact that we are taking part in a very large scheme for the construction of barracks by means of a loan. The Under Secretary for War said it was always the practice, and that it was done in 1860, 1872, 1890 and 1897. True in 1860, under Lord

1385
Palmerston's scheme, money was borrowed for large fortifications, but that was a new departure. In 1872 there was a further step in the same direction—one which financial authorities did not approve of; but from 1872 to 1887 no further step was taken until the Imperial Defence Act was brought forward in the latter year, and from that year to this we have had a succession of Bills brought forward for the construction of barracks and other military works by means of borrowed money, thereby relieving the military Estimates of a charge they had previously borne. The Under Secretary for War contends that it is impossible to construct military works out of the Estimates. That is all nonsense. It has been done repeatedly in the past and is still done to a very considerable extent by a much greater military power than this country is. At the present moment India builds all her barracks out of the revenue of the year, and not a single rupee is borrowed for that purpose. If that is possible in a country like India, surely it is possible in the United Kingdom with its vast financial resource's. There is a very strong objection to constructing these barracks by means of loans. If they were constructed under a Vote as in the past, Parliament would retain control over the military and naval financial resources of the year, and it has never shown in the past any reluctance to continue expenditure oil work once authorised. I defy anyone to point out a case of a great military work in which Parliament refused to vote sufficient sums once it was authorised. There is also another objection to this system. The Under Secretary for War tells us that this Bill contains essential military works which are required to be constructed within the next three or four years. But how are they going to be paid for? Under this Bill essential military works required during the next three or four years are to be paid for during the course of the next thirty years, and at a time of great prosperity like the present you are actually going to spread over thirty years payment for work which you say is essential during the next three or four years. In the bogus schedule which has been attached to the Bill you have put in the works to be constructed under this four millions, but you also put in further works which will have to be constructed in order to
1386
make this scheme complete. That is throwing a burden which this generation ought to bear or our successors.
It being midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

BOARD OF EDUCATION [SALARIES].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of a salary, not exceeding £2,000, to the President of the Board of Education, and of salaries and remuneration to the secretaries, officers, and servants of the Board, in pursuance of any Act of the present session to provide for the establishment of a Board of Education for England and Wales."—(Sir John Gorst.)
DR. CLARK: I beg to move that you, Sir, report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): I hope the hon. Member will allow us to take this stage, which is really only formal.
DR. CLARK: I object to public money being spent on education in England when £75,000 is being lost to Scotland. This is the only control we have over this Bill, as it is to be sent upstairs to a Committee.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

SUPPLY [30TH JUNE].
Resolutions reported.
CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1899–1900.

  CLASS I.
  1. "That a sum, not exceeding £29,936, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for payments under the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883, the Light Railways

  1387
  (Ireland) Acts, 1889 and 1893, the Tramways (Ireland) Act, 1895, and the Railways (Ireland) Act, 1896.

  CLASS II.
  2 "That a sum, not exceeding £2,797,be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland."
  3. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,229, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the stun necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland."
  4. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Public Record Office in Ireland, and of the Keeper of State Papers in Dublin."
  5. "That a sum, not exceeding £12,113, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Department of the Registrar-General of Births, etc., and the Expenses of Collecting Agricultural and other Statistics in Ireland."
  6. "That a sum, not exceeding £7,071, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment
  1388
  during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for the Salaries and Expenses of the General Valuation and Boundary Survey of Ireland."
  7. "That a sum, not exceeding £24,739, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works in Ireland."

  CLASS IV.
  8. "That a sum, not exceeding £21,724, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for sundry Grants in Aid of Scientific Investigation, etc., and other Grants."

  METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT ACTS AMENDMENT (BYE-LAWS) BILL [Lords].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1:—
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

  REFORMATORY SCHOOLS AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read 3a, and passed.

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged:—Bill withdrawn.
  Adjourned at a quarter after Twelve of the clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:

LONDON, WALTHAMSTOW, AND EPPING FOREST RAILWAY (No. 2.)
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Standing Orders Committee—Report from, that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the following Bills, viz.:

LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS,

  DERWENT VALLEY WATER,
  ought to be dispensed with, and the Bills allowed to proceed.
  Read, and agreed to.

LONDON WALTHAMSTOW, AND EPPING FOREST RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL.
Examiners' Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Monday next.
ROCHDALE CANAL BILL (Lords.
Committee to meet To-morrow.
IONIAN BANK BILL.
Committee to meet on Thursday next.
DUNDEE GAS, STREET IMPROVEMENTS, AND TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
LEEDS CORPORATION BILL.
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
CORK CORPORATION (FINANCE) BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SCUNTHORPE URBAN DISTRICT GAS AND WATER BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments; a further Amendment made; Bill passed, returned to the Commons.
WEST METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  INVERNESS HARBOUR BILL [Lords].
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS No. 12) BILL.
  Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  Committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
    House in Committee (according to Order): Bills reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a To-morrow.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
    Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read, and discharged.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (POOR LAW) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES) (No. 2) BILL.
    House in Committee (according to Order): Bills reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a To-morrow.

    GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No 2) BILL [Lords].
    Read 3a, (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 16) BILL.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
    Read 3a, (according to Order), and passed.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 17) BILL. (No. 151).
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL. (No. 152.)
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.

  EDUCATION.
  Minute of the Committee of Council on Education, dated 29th June 1899, modifying Articles 37, 42, and 130 (b) of the Day School Code, 1899.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES)—
  No. 2302. France (Algeria;
  No. 2303. China (Hankow);
  No. 2304. Corea.

  INDIA (INDIAN CURRENCY COMMITTEE, 1898).
  Index and Appendices to the evidence taken before the Committee appointed to inquire into the Indian currency.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE.
  Report on the results of investigations into Cheddar cheese making, carried out on behalf of the Bath and West and Southern Counties Society, in the years 18917–98, by F. J. Lloyd, T.C.S., F.I.C.

  CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND).
  Report of the Board for the period from 1st April 1898 to 31st March 1899.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  FINANCE.
  Finance accounts of the United Kingdom, for the year ended 31st March 1899: Laid before the House (pursuant to the Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.
PETITIONS.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.
  Petition for amendment of; of Vestry of the Parish of Chelsea; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL [Lords].
  Petition in favour of; of the London Association for Protection of Trade; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  VACCINATION ACT, 1898.
  Petition for repeal of; of Guardians of the Grantham Union; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Report from the Committee of Selection for the Standing Committee, That the Committee have added the Lord Brampton to the Standing Committee for the consideration of the Summary Jurisdiction Act (1879) Amendment Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  POOR LAW ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].
  House to be in Committee on Thursday next.
  ANCHORS AND CHAIN CABLES BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

  LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Clause 4:—
  Verbal Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 6:—
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 8:—
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Amendment to this clause is really to change the words of the former Act. I was surprised on the last occasion to hear noble Lords who have had great experience of county councils state that they had not found the words of the original Act inconvenient. I cannot help thinking that the words which I suggest more adequately imply the true meaning of the clause. I always understood that the words of the original Act had been inserted by some error, and I have certainly heard them complained of from time to time. Under the original Act the finance committee of a county council is really the controlling body. I will give an instance of what I mean. A committee of one of the bodies you are about to create is charged with the care of the streets of the borough, and wishes to repave a macadam street with wood. This proposal has to go before the finance committee, and, unless that committee recommend it, the county council cannot even entertain the proposal. If the finance committee think the expenditure undesirable, they cannot conscientiously recommend it, but, surely, the streets committee and not the finance committee ought to be able to decide a point of this kind. Practically, according to the wording of the Act, if the finance committee cannot see their way to approve of an expenditure proposed by the streets committee, or by any other committee, the council cannot entertain the recommendation at all. One noble Lord, the other day, said that as a matter of fact no friction had arisen. I admit that, so far as I know, no actual deadlock has occurred, but I have heard chairmen of finance committees say that under
  1234
  the present arrangement great difficulty had been experienced. The words I propose to insert carry out what I think was the original intention of the framers of the Act. I agree that it is desirable that the finance committee should thrash out all financial arrangements and lay them before the council, in order that the council should decide the matter; but I do not think we should perpetuate the present anomaly, under which, without a recommendation from the finance committee, the council cannot entertain any proposal.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, line 30, to leave out 'on the recommendation of,' and insert, 'after consideration of a report thereon by.'"—(The Duke of Northumberlan.)
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I hope the noble Duke in charge of this Bill will not agree to the Amendment, which goes a long way to reverse the decision the House came to the other night. The noble Duke (the Duke of Northumberland) has very great objection to the powers which the Act of 1888 confers on the finance committees of county councils, possibly as a result of his experience in his own county; but I have observed that both to-night and on the previous occasion he gave no instance of the deadlock which he appears to fear having actually occurred in practice. County councils have been in existence a good number of years, and if no case can be produced where the results of the clause have been unsatisfactory, I do not think we should now set to work to alter it with regard to the new London bodies. It is true that the clause gives large power to the finance committee; but the county council can refer hack any question to that committee, or to any other committee that may arise upon their reports, and I am very much disinclined to believe that a finance committee would be found which would prevent the carrying out of the clearly expressed views of the council. I do not understand why the noble Duke opposite should be so anxious to give the new London bodies greater power and independence, and place upon them less checks than exist under the present law with regard to county councils. We have heard some hard things said about the London vestries, whose place these new bodies are to take. I am not going to

  1235
  bring any accusation against the London vestries, but I am bound to say that the restrictions and checks which have been found necessary in the case of county councils are likely to be still more required in the case of the new bodies Parliament is now creating.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): As the House is aware, the whole of this clause was inserted contrary to the opinion of the Government, and I shall be guided in the course which I shall take by the opinion which may be expressed by members of county councils, by the weight of whose authority I think the House was principally induced to accept the Amendment on the last occasion. I should myself be disposed to think that the words proposed by the noble Duke behind me were an improvement on the words of the Local Government Act of 1888, but I should be very glad if we could have an opportunity of hearing the opinion of other Members of the House who have served upon county councils.
  EARL SPENCER: I regard the finance committee as a very useful cheek on expenditure, and I think it is not desirable that any one committee, which does not know what the whole of the expenditure of the borough may be, should have the actual power of recommending an expenditure to the council without the matter having previously gone to a finance committee. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will adhere to the words now existing, and not accept the alteration proposed by the noble Duke.
  THE EAEL OF NORTHBROOK: As I expressed an opinion in favour of this clause in Committee, I should like to say one word upon it now. I do not consider the Amendment one of any very considerable importance, because, if a collision occurred between the finance committee and the council, the views of the council must in the end prevail. The words had better remain as they are in the clause, for, if you change them, you will enable the council to vote an expenditure immediately upon the receipt of a report from the finance committee adverse to the expenditure. The best course to adopt in such a case would be to refer the matter back again to the finance committee, and then, if there
  1236
  was still a difference between the two, the council should prevail. I shall vote against the Amendment of the noble Duke.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I have been a member of the finance committee of my county ever since the formation of the County Council, and we have not met with any of the difficulties to which the noble Duke referred. The finance committee is an extremely useful body, and it seems to me that it is necessary to have some committee in the council who can put together, as it were, in one glance, all the various items of expenditure and receipts which have to be dealt with. Unless a committee has the whole balance-sheet before them, they cannot form a sound judgment upon any proposal. To deal with matters piecemeal is to open the door to jobbery by individual members; further than that, a finance Committee is absolutely necessary if the work of the council is to be efficiently done. A finance committee not only serves as a useful check on expenditure, but also performs a duty which, in a body of that kind, is absolutely necessary. I therefore think it is very desirable indeed that the provision should be maintained.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I entirely agree with what has fallen from noble Lords opposite as to the importance of finance committees. I admit that the new councils should have some committee which will have under its purview the whole expenditure of the council; bat the real question is whether the power of the finance committee should be so absolute that, if they do not sanction an expenditure, the matter cannot come before the council.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am very sorry to interrupt the noble Duke, especially as he is referring to something said by myself; but I think it would be extremely inconvenient if we were to break through the rules of the House and discuss matters on Report in the same way as we discuss them in Committee. The noble Duke is not in order is making another speech.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBELAND: I beg your Lordships' pardon. I was

  1237
  under the impression that the mover of an Amendment had a right to reply.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: County councils raise their funds by sending precepts to other authorities, but they do not receive from any other authorities precepts requiring them to raise money. On the other hand, borough councils receive precepts from county councils and boards of guardians requiring them to raise money by means of rates. The payments made in pursuance of these precepts are obligatory, and it does not seem right, and probably was not intended, that the finance committee's, of the new borough councils should question the propriety of these precepts. Therefore, I think it necessary that a saving clause should be inserted.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, line 38, after 'incurred,' insert, 'Provided that the 'foregoing provisions shall not apply to payments made in pursuance of a precept from another authority.'"—(The Lord President of the Council.)
  On Question, "That these words be here inserted," agreed to.
  Clause 10:—
  LORD MONKSWELL: I should like to say one word with regard to the first sub-section of Clause 10. I have this morning received from the Accountant to the Shoreditch Vestry a suggestion which I think is of importance. He points out that under this section only one person—the Town Clerk—has power to prepare lists of voters and the jury lists, and that there is no provision whatever for appointing a deputy. My correspondent says, I think justly, that this section must in course of time lead to inconvenience when the Town Clerk is ill and unable to perform his duty.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Clause 24 makes the necessary provision with regard to the appointment of a deputy in case of the illness or absence of the Town Clerk.
  Clause 16:—
  LORD MONKSWELL: It has been represented to me, on behalf of the Com-
  1238
  mons Preservation Society, that it would be possible under this clause for the Commissioners to interfere with local Acts relating to commons and open spaces. I do not know whether the noble Duke takes that view, but I think it would be undesirable to give the Commissioners power to do this. I would suggest that these Acts should be placed in the same category as the Building Acts.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 10, line 31, after '1894,' to insert, 'or Acts relating to commons and open spaces.'"—(The Lord Monkswell.)
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: A saving clause with regard to open spaces was inserted in Clause 31 in the other House, at the instance of Mr. Bryce. It appeared both to him, as I understand, and to the draughtsmen, that it was unnecessary to exclude Acts relating to commons and open spaces from the local Acts, which can be repealed under this clause. There is not the slightest intention of enabling the Commissioners to meddle in any way with open spaces or commons. But it was thought that it might be desirable that they should have power to alter, by scheme, the mode of appointment of trustees or managers under local Acts, so as to make the provisions of those Acts correspond with the new form of government which is being established by the Bill. It is impossible to know what is in all these local Acts. It may be that churchwardens are in some cases ex officio managers, and it would be desirable to amend the local Acts by substituting nominees of the borough council. By not inserting any reference to these Acts in this clause, no intention whatever is indicated that power will be taken to interfere in any way with the law relating to the regulation of open spaces.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Before I proceed to move the Amendment to Clause 16 standing in my name, I think it may be convenient that I should take this opportunity of stating the names of the Commissioners proposed to be appointed under Clause 15 to prepare such orders and schemes as will be required for carrying the Bill into effect. The first is Sir Hugh Owen, late Secretary of the Local

  1239
  Government Board, who will be chairman. I should like here to express the deep obligations of the Government to Sir Hugh Owen, who, as the House is aware, has just retired from the arduous duties of Secretary of the Local Government Board, for undertaking the extremely difficult and arduous task of presiding over the Commissioners. The two other Commissioners will be Sir Samuel Johnson, Town Clerk of Nottingham, and Mr. Alfred Tristram Lawrence, Q.C. The Amendments which I have to move to Clause 16 have been suggested by Sir Hugh Owen, who has pointed out that only the draft schemes are required to be published by the Schedule to the Municipal Corporations Act, but that the language of this clause might require the schemes to be advertised in full, a proceeding which would involve a great deal of unnecessary expense. All that is required is that notice shall be given as to where the draft schemes can be seen and copies obtained.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 11, line 18, after 'Gazette,' insert, 'and in such other manner as the Committee of Council may direct, of a draft scheme having been prepared or'; line 21, after the first 'the,' insert, 'draft scheme or,' and after 'Gazette' insert or in the manner required by the Seventh Schedule to the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882.'"—(The Lord President of the Council.)
  On Question, "That these words be here inserted," agreed to.
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 18:—
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I beg to move the addition to Section 1 of a sub-section providing that, if the Commissioners under this Act make a special report to Parliament, that by reason of anything done under any of the Adoptive Acts, or for any other exceptional reason, it is impracticable to deal with a detached part of a parish in manner required by the foregoing provisions of this section, those provisions shall not apply. My amendment further provides that the provisions of Section 1 of the clause shall not apply to the hamlet of Knightsbridge. It will be convenient if I state to the House the arrangement which the Government propose as to the question of Westminster and Knightsbridge, and also as to
  1240
  Kensal Rise. In the first place, we propose to insert provisions which will distinctively secure that Knightsbridge shall not be separated from the borough of Westminster or from the parish of St. Margaret, Westminster. Both are, by the Schedule, included in the borough of Westminster, and there is no intention of detaching them. This proviso is intended to secure that. Certain minor alterations in the boundaries of the parish will require to be made. There are cases in which parts of houses are in different parishes, and others in which the back gardens are in one parish and the house in another. The Commissioners will be empowered, but not directed, to take into consideration the point raised the other night by Lord Glenesk, as to whether it may not be expedient to separate Kensington Palace and some of the houses in Kensington Palace Gardens from the borough of Westminster and attach them to the borough of Kensington. The Kensington authorities are, I believe, ready to make any equitable compensation for the loss of rateable value which this may entail. As to Kensal Rise, the House is aware that that is a detached part of Chelsea. If the policy which has always been adopted in the case of detached portions of parishes is followed, Kensal Rise ought to be annexed either to Kensington or Paddington, or divided between them. For many reasons, however, into which it is not necessary to go, neither Kensington nor Paddington desire that to be done, and certain administrative difficulties, the chief of which, I believe, is connected with a public library, have been pointed out. The Amendment I am now moving is to enable the Commissioners, if they find insuperable difficulties in the administrative arrangements which would follow such a mode of dealing with Kensal Rise as would be in accordance with the general principles of the Bill, to make a special report upon that question, whereupon the provisions of the section would not apply. It will be left to the Commissioners to devise a scheme, if they are able, applying the general policy of the Bill to the case of Kensal Rise.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 11, to leave out lines 39 to 42, and insert, ('Provided that—(a) The foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply to the hamlet of Knightsbridge; and (b) If the Commissioners

  1241
  under this Act make a special report to Parliament that, by reason of anything done under any of the adoptive Acts or for any other exceptional reason, it is impracticable to deal with a detached part of a parish in manner required by the foregoing provisions of this section, those provisions shall not apply.'"—(The Lord President of the Council.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY; I troubled the House on the last occasion with some observations about this place with the disputed name, which I call Kensal Town, and which the noble Duke perhaps more properly calls Kensal Rise, but I think the Amendment suggested by the noble Duke will substantially meet the difficulty. I have received a copy of a resolution passed by the Kensington Vestry, from which it appears that that body will be well pleased if there is no possibility of their obtaining Kensal Town. At the same time, they say they would be satisfied if Kensal Town could remain a part of Chelsea, or if the decision in this matter were left to the Boundary Commissioners after hearing the representatives concerned. A representation is also made by Chelsea asking that words should be inserted to secure that the districts concerned should be heard. For my own part, I am under the impression that the Commissioners would certainly hear persons concerned, but I think it would give great satisfaction if the words "the Commissioners under this Act, after hearing representatives of any parish interested," were inserted.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: As the clause stands the Commissioners would certainly hear the representatives of any parish interested, but there is no objection to the insertion of the words proposed.
  THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER: I was taken by surprise the other day by the motion with regard to Kensington Palace, and I spoke rather strongly on the subject, understanding that the feeling of Westminster was adverse to giving up any part of the City of Westminster. I am informed that on consideration they are inclined to be more generous, and I believe the arrangement now proposed by the noble Duke, the Lord President, will not be otherwise than satisfactory to Westminster. As they will retain the hamlet of Knightsbridge, they are not indisposed,
  1242
  if the Commissioners think fit, to give up Kensington Palace, as they have a good many other palaces in the borough.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Perhaps I may be permitted to state at this stage that Lord Windsor was good enough to inform me that he considered the Amendment of the noble Duke quite sufficient to meet the case, and that he had no intention, therefore, to move the Amendment of which he had given notice with regard to Kensal Town.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I ought to have stated that I propose to transpose the order of the two sub-sections in my Amendment. I understand that the inhabitants of St. Margaret's are a little afraid that the provisions of Subsection (b) may apply to Knightsbridge, and I therefore propose to place Subsection (b) of my Amendment before Sub-section (a), which will remove any doubt on the subject.
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," resolved in the negative.
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted stand part of the clause," agreed to.
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MONKSWELL: The object of the Amendment I now propose is to enable me to move, when we come to Schedule 1, that the case of South Hornsey should be settled by Parliament, and not by the Commissioners. I imagine that, if these words are not inserted, it will be impossible to move in the direction I wish when the schedule is reached.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Had not the noble Lord better state the case now?
  LORD MONKSWELL: By all means. On the last occasion, when I raised the question of South Hornsey, the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Jersey) stated that I was entirely in error in asserting that South Hornsey was in favour of being annexed to London. I was very much surprised to hear the noble Earl state that the people of South Hornsey desired to be joined to Middlesex, but on.

  1243
  inquiry I find that the vote to which the noble Earl referred had no reference whatever to the question before the House, but to the question whether or not South Hornsey should remain an administrative unit. I do not know that my Amendment is of very great importance, because it is perfectly clear, I should say, that the Commissioners are certain to annex the whole of South Hornsey to Stoke Newington. I think it is just as well, however, that Parliament should decide this case for the Commissioners, and relieve the inhabitants of South Hornsey from any anxiety. It is perfectly obvious that South Hornsey cannot remain an administrative unit, because one part of it, known as the island, is entirely surrounded by London—that part will be joined to Stoke Newington; and there is no doubt that the remaining part of South Hornsey, called the peninsula, will be annexed either to Hornsey or to Stoke Newington. The fact that Stoke Newington contains only 35,000 inhabitants, as against 70,000 in Hornsey, is an argument in favour of South Hornsey being joined to Stoke Newington. Moreover, Finsbury Park cuts off South Hornsey entirely from Hornsey, and, geographically speaking, South Hornsey has much more connection with the County of London than with Middlesex.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 12, line 15, after 'shall,' to insert, 'save as hereinafter excepted.'"—(The Lord Monkswell.)
  THE EARL OF JERSEY: In the statement I made to the House on the last occasion, I was not so incorrect as the noble Lord seems to imply. The question before the electors was, "Do you wish South Hornsey to be taken from the county of Middlesex and added to London?" This question was answered in the negative by 1,817 persons, and in the affirmative by only 30. I contend that that was a vote distinctly against South Hornsey being annexed to the County of London. This is not a question to be decided by Parliament. The Bill makes it perfectly clear that it can come up before the Commissioners, and with this provision the County Council of Middlesex are perfectly satisfied. The noble Lord has another and more subtle reason than that of preventing the Middlesex County Council from being heard
  1244
  before the Commissioners for moving this Amendment, as the Amendment, if carried, would deprive the Middlesex County Council of any claim for compensation in the event of transfer. On the other hand, if they are heard before the Commissioners, they may advance a claim for compensation for the territory of which they are deprived. Surely it is an accepted principle that, when an area is taken from a county, the County Council should have the opportunity of claiming reasonable compensation. This is an illustration of the policy of the London County Council, of trying to snatch their neighbour's territory, which makes that Council distrusted and disliked.
  THE EARL OF KIMBELLEY: I am rather surprised to hear compensation mentioned. I do not know what the position of the County Council of Middlesex may be. It may have a somewhat peculiar privilege in that respect, but I have known an area to be severed from the county to which I belong, very much against our will, but we had no compensation, nor, as I understand, any claim to compensation. If there is any special power in this Bill with regard to compensation, I should like to know from what quarter it is derived.
  LORD MONKSWELL: I had not the slightest idea that the question of compensation was involved in my Amendment. If it is, I will withdraw my Amendment at once.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I cannot state positively whether a question of compensation will be involved or not, but undoubtedly the rateable value of the area is considerable, and the county of Middlesex may be very unwilling to lose it unless some provision for compensation can be proposed. At all events, we consider that it is very undesirable to disturb the arrangement by which the Commissioners will have the power of adding the area to the borough of Stoke Newington, and it is extremely probable they will do so. It is in our opinion, very undesirable to alter the permissive language of the clause. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Verbal Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 20:—
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I have been asked to move the Amendment which stands in the name of Lord Glenesk. I understand that it is not contested.
  Amendment moved, to insert as a new clause—
  "An Order in Council under this Act may detach Kensington Palace from the borough of Westminster, and attach it to the borough of Kensington."—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: This Amendment is agreed to.
  On Question, "That this clause be here inserted," agreed to.
  Clause 22:—
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The Right Rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) has an Amendment to Clause 22, which, as he is not able to be present to-day, he proposes to move on the Third Reading. I have been in communication with the Right Rev. Prelate, and have informed him that the general policy of the Commissioners will be to vest the appointment of churchwardens in the parishioners of the ecclesiastical district, and that an instruction to that effect will be given to the Commissioners. I think it probable that, after this intimation, the Right Rev. Prelate will not think it necessary to move his Amendment. If he does think it necessary to do so, it can be moved on the Third Reading.
  Clause 23:—
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I beg to move a new clause after Clause 23, exempting members of borough councils, borough treasurers, and town clerks from service on all juries. I believe there is a direct precedent for this exemption, which will be found in the Act passed in 1870, dealing with the remuneration and exemption of juries, and which states in the schedule of those classes who are exempt from serving as jurymen, "members of the council of a municipal corporation of any borough," etc. I beg to move the insertion of this clause
  Amendment moved—
  "After Clause 23, to insert as a new clause, 'The members of borough councils, borough
  1246
  treasurers, and town clerks, during the time that they hold office under this Act, shall enjoy exemption from service on all juries."—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
  THE DUKE OE DEVONSHIRE: I only had notice of this Amendment this, morning. It is necessary that I should further examine the Jury Law to see whether it is possible to entertain the Amendment. If the noble Lord wishes to press it, I would ask him to put it down on the Third Reading.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 25:—
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I move to amend this clause by substituting the London County Council for the Local Government Board as the authority for sanctioning alteration in the wards of a metropolitan borough. The noble and learned Lord, the Chancellor of the Duchy, said that under the Bill the whole question rested with the Local Government Board, but that is not the case. So far as the first division of borough council areas into Parliamentary districts and wards is concerned, it lies with the Privy Council. But it is proposed to give the power of making subsequent alterations to the Local Government Board under the present clause. I should like to remind the House of the present arrangements for the division of the various areas in London into wards and polling districts. So far as parish and vestry elections are concerned, the county council can divide them in the first instance, and can make alterations from time to time. So far as, the county council elections are concerned, the county council have power to divide the districts into wards and polling districts in the first instance, but have not the power to alter them from time to time, and I understand that the Chancellor of the Duchy agrees with me that the county council should have this power. So far as Parliamentary elections are concerned, the county council has, the power of dividing Parliamentary boroughs into polling districts, where such are in more than one petty sessional district, but where they are coterminous with petty sessional districts the duty is, with the Justices. The principle which has animated the council in the past has been to make the various districts coterminous,

  1247
  for vestry and election of guardians proposes, and so that they should not conflict with Parliamentary or council elections. That seems to me, my Lords, to be a thoroughly sound principle, which should be maintained. If the county council have been considered worthy of the power in the past, it is desirable that the power should remain in the hands of the council. It will simplify matters and prevent difficulties. In a former part of the Bill an alteration was made in the other House, by which the power of sanctioning loans was transferred from the Local Government Board to the county council, with an appeal to the Local Government Board. I would suggest that, even if the Government be not willing to accept my Amendment as it stands, they may be willing to agree to a further Amendment giving the duties of this sub-division to the county councils in the first instance, with a power of appeal, if necessary, to the Local Government Board against any alleged injustice.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 25, page 14, lines 31 and 35, to leave out 'Local Government Board' and insert, 'London County Council.'"—(The Lord Tweed-mouth.)
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: The noble Lord desires that the county council, where they have jurisdiction to make the various districts, should have power to alter them from time to time. That suggestion seems a good one, but we have no power to give effect to it in this Bill. I think it should be given effect to in the next County Council Bill that is presented. With regard to the principal suggestion of the noble Lord, the matter was considered in the House of Commons, and it was thought that within the area of these borough councils the Local Government Board was the best tribunal to determine the wards and polling districts. There was no particular reason shown
  why, when you are establishing borough councils with some sort of independence there should be an overruling body to make these provisions other than the Local Government Board. I was struck by my noble friend's willingness to take the Local Government Board as a Court of Appeal from the London County Council, although he does not wish that Department to be the primary body in these matters. Surely, it is better to go direct to the Local Government Board, and to accept the Bill as it stands in this respect, endorsed as it has been, after full consideration, in the other House of Parliament.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I do not think my noble friend's object in bringing forward this Amendment is simply to secure that the county council should have this power in order to preserve any of the privileges or add to the authority of that body. The noble Lord desires that there should be one authority, whether it be the county council or the Local Government Board, because if you do not have one authority you will run the risk of these matters being dealt with on different principles, and you will not have any complete and carefully considered system. Either the Local Government Board should take over the whole of this duty, or the county council should be allowed to discharge it. As the county council is the existing authority exercising this power, it seems natural, unless there is some reason to distrust the county council, to leave the power with them. My noble friend has not brought forward his Amendment merely from a county council point of view.
  On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 98; Not-Contents, 26.

  CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Ailesbury, M.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Bristol, M.

  de Montalt, E.

  Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Lansdowne, M.

  Denbigh, E.

  Salisbury, M.

  Drogheda, E.

  Egerton, E.

  Grafton, D.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.)

  Hardwicke, E.

  Marlborough, D.

  Jersey, E.

  Northumberland, D.

  Camperdown, E.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Portland, D.

  Carnwath, E.

  Lichfield, E.

  Richmond, D.

  Coventry, E.

  Mansfield, E.

  Westminster, D.

  Craven, E.

  Mayo, E.

  Nelson, E.

  Brampton, L.

  James, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Kelvin, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Ravensworth, E.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Churchill, L. [Teller.]

  Llangattock, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Middleton, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry)

  Clonbrock, L.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Colchester, L.

  Morris, L.

  Yarborough, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Muncaster, L.

  Cranworth, L.

  Newlands, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Norton, L.

  Knutsford, V.

  Crofton, L.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Llandafft, V.

  De Mauley, L.

  St. Levan, L.

  Dunleath, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Erskine, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Farnham, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Farquhar, L.

  Southampton, L.

  Ashcombe, L.

  Forester, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Balfour, L.

  Glanusk, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Barnard, L.

  Harris, L.

  Tweeddale, L. (M. Tweeddale.)

  Belper, L.

  Herries, L.

  Bolton, L.

  Hood of Avalon, L.

  Wantage, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Northampton, M.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Lingen, L.

  Ripon, M.

  Monkswell, L.

  Aberdare, L.

  Reay, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Rendel, L.

  Chesterfield, E [Teller.]

  Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Crewe, E.

  Burghclere, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Davey, L.

  Thring, L.

  Morley, E.

  Hawkesbury, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Russell, E.

  Hobhouse, L.

  Welby, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," agreed to.

  THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER: I do not propose to move the Amendment to Sub-section (a) standing in my name, which provides that an Order in Council under this Act shall give an appropriate name to each of the Metropolitan boroughs other than Westminster, which shall be continued to be called the City of Westminster. Westminster has enjoyed that title since the time of Henry VIII., and we desire to retain unbroken that historic connection. As an arrangement has been arrived at by the Government, in order that the title of the City of Westminster may be retained, I do not propose to move the Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: It is very doubtful whether the Borough of Westminster would not have the right to the title of City under the charter of Henry VIII. In the opinion of the Government that title ought to be conferred by the Queen by a supplementary charter, and not by the provisions of any Act of Parliament. It would, of course, be irregular for me to state what advice will be given to Her Majesty as to the granting of a supplementary charter, if that should be found necessary. But I
  1250
  think my noble friend may rest assured that the wishes which he has expressed in the name of the inhabitants of Westminster will not be lost sight of, and I trust that a means will be found of giving effect to them.
  First Schedule:—
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I move to insert the words "including the Tower of London and the Liberties thereof," after the words "the area consisting of the parishes of Mile End Old Town, and St. George's-in-the-East, and the districts of the Limehouse and Whitchapel Boards of Works." It is thought that the words "Whitechapel Board of Works" do not include the Tower of London, and that the words I suggest ought to be added.
  Amendment moved,
  "In the First Schedule, in page 20, line 15, after 'Works,' to insert, 'including the Tower of London and the Liberties thereof.'"—(The Lord Tweedmouth.)
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: It is doubtful whether the words are necessary, but they will do no harm, and I will accept them.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The next Amendment standing in my name deals with the great Borough of Wandsworth, which it is proposed to constitute under this Bill. It seems to me that this borough is as excessive in its area and acreage as the new Borough of Westminster is in its rateable value. The proposed Borough of Wandsworth will contain 9,285 acres, which, in my opinion, is altogether too large an area for local government purposes. My Amendment proposes to divide the district of the Wandsworth Board of Works into two boroughs, one consisting of the parishes of Wandsworth and Putney, which contain 4,668 acres, a population of 78,667, and a rateable value of £542,053; and the other consisting of the parishes of Clapham, Streatham, and Tooting, which contain 4,617 acres, a population of 108,597, and a rateable value of £812,119. The Board of Works, which administers the district at the present time, is divided into five Committees—one Committee for each parish; and I am informed that these five Committees act practically independently, though they report, of course, to the District Board. Still, for all intents and purposes, the local government of Wandsworth is carried on by these five separate Committees. The Amendment I propose will divide the area naturally by means of the common. The population of Wandsworth has increased during the last twenty-five years by more than 150 per cent., and it is estimated that in the next twenty-five years that rate of increase will be still further accelerated, so that this area twenty-five years hence will contain at least 500,000 people. I think the administration of the district will be greatly facilitated if it is divided as I suggest, and, if this is not done, it will be found necessary at no distant time to subdivide the borough in order to secure its proper administration.
  Amendment moved—
  "In line 17, to leave out 'the district of the Wandsworth Board of Works,' and insert, 'the area consisting of the parishes of Wandsworth and Putney. The area consisting of the parishes of Clapham, Streatham, and Tooting'; and in line 29, to leave out 'of the ancient Parliamentary borough of Westminster.'"—(The Lord Tweedmouth.)
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I do, not say this question is one upon which the arguments are of an overwhelming character on either side. But I think it would be better to maintain the decision of the other House, which has the advantage of containing representatives of the localities concerned, and thererefore is in a better position to form a judgement as to the wishes of the inhabitants than your Lordships. So far as we have been able to ascertain, the inhabitants are strongly in favour of the larger area. The only vestry election which has taken place since these proposals were made has resulted in the return, by a very large majority, of vestrymen who were in favour of unity as opposed to division. It would be quite useless and unnecessary for me to enter into any discussion of the figures, either of population or area, of the proposed borough; but, believing that the other House was in a better position to form a judgment on this subject, I would ask your Lordships to support the decision which was arrived at by the House of Commons.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The information which I have does not seem to be in accordance with the information which has been supplied to the noble Duke, as I have received a memorial from the Vestry of Wandsworth which goes the other way. Possibly some vestry election may have taken place since the memorial was drawn up, but, so far as I can judge, the district, as proposed in the, Bill, will be inconveniently large, and will have to be divided at no very distant date by means of another Bill for that purpose.
  LORD HAWKESBURY: I beg to move to amend the schedule by omitting the provision that one of the boroughs should be the area of the ancient Parliamentary Borough of Westminster, in order to divide that area into two boroughs—one consisting of the parishes of St. Margaret and St. John, Westminister, and the parish of St. George,. Hanover Square; and the other of the parish of St. James, Westminster, and the parish of St. Martin-in-the-Fields, and the district of the Strand Board of Works.

  1253
  In moving this Amendment, I hope it is unnecessary for me to disclaim any hostile feeling as regards this Bill, for I Assure your Lordships that I agree entirely with many noble Lords who spoke during the Second Reading Debate, that the Bill is not a Party measure, but is welcomed from all sides of the House as an honest attempt to deal with the question of London Government. It is a Bill which we hope will improve the condition of affairs in the Metropolis, and induce the inhabitants to take a greater interest in their local affairs than they have done hitherto. It is in that spirit that I have placed this Amendment upon the Paper. The area proposed in the Bill is, I urge, far too large to be economically worked, and, I am informed, the immediate effect will be a very considerable addition to the burdens of the ratepayers. It certainly will be so in St. George's, Hanover Square, and St. James's, Piccadilly, and in the latter parish I am informed, by those who have the best means of knowing, that the rates will be increased by sevenpence in the £. The rateable value of the new borough will be £5,000,000, and that is larger than the rateable value of any municipality in England, and larger than that of the City itself. It does seem to me that no valid reason has been given why this very large area should be created, and why the privileges of local self-government should be taken away from districts which now possess them, and have possessed them for so many centuries. No doubt some of the proposed municipal areas are as large; Wandsworth, for instance, but I need scarcely point out the difference of circumstances between Wandsworth and the districts to which my Amendment refers, running as they do into the very heart of London. Areas in the centre of London should be smaller, that supervision may be better I carried on, and local government better conducted. I notice that Her Majesty's Government have borne this in mind, and evidently feel the propriety of it, in the two districts which adjoin the one of which I am speaking—Holborn and Finsbury—which are very much smaller, as a glance at the map will show. Holborn, Finsbury, Chelsea, and the City of London are all smaller than Greater Westminster, and, with the exception of the City, none of them are of the importance of the districts to which
  1254
  my Amendment refers. What is the reason for the exceptional treatment of these districts? I refuse to listen to the suggestion that it is due to Party or to political motives. I put that on one side at once. Then, what is the reason? Is it that these districts have shown inability to manage their own local affairs? I do not think that can be said. I believe that the parishes of St. James's and St. Martin's have been managed as well as any parishes in London. It cannot be said that the inhabitants of these parishes have asked for the great change which is proposed to be made. As a matter of fact, all but one vestry have petitioned Parliament against this proposal. So far as I am able to ascertain, the only reason given is that the proposed area formerly constituted the ancient Borough of Westminster, and that the historic associations of the ancient City of Westminster ought not to be interfered with. I have a very great love for antiquarian research and the study of history, and I should be the last person in the world to desire that historic associations should be forgotten. But, in legislating in matters of this kind, surely we must think of the needs of the present day and the vast and increasing population of the Metropolis. There is no question but that Westminster is an ancient and historic city, and if it was not so from early times as being a Royal Peculiar, it certainly became so when Henry VIII. made it a bishopric by letters patent dated 18 December, 1540 and appointed Thomas Thirlby, the dean of the King's Chapel, Bishop, allotting the county of Middlesex, except the vill of Fulham, as his see, which, however, only lasted nine years and three months, for on the 29th March, 1550, Edward VI. dissolved it, and translated the first and only bishop to Norwich. That it continued a city, however, is evidenced by its being so described in the Act of the 27 Queen Elizabeth, 1585, whereby the Government of the City of Westminster (which in earlier times was in the hands of the abbot and monks) was vested in the dean and chapter, they appointing the lay officers, the high steward, high bailiff, sixteen burgesses, and twelve assistants. But the parishes and districts I have alluded to have enjoyed the right of self-government for centuries, and because they are liberties of Westminster, why should that right be taken from them? The parish of St. James has managed its

  1255
  local affairs since 1685, and the parish of St. Martin for a much longer period. Westminster returned Members to Parliament from the first year of Edward VI. down to the year 1885. The old Parliamentary borough was then divided into the three boroughs of the Strand, St. George's, Hanover Square, and Westminster, which are to be amalgamated for municipal purposes by this Bill, and if the ancient Parliamentary boroughs are to be taken as the units, why is it only done in this case? This great area includes three poor law unions, four vestries under Schedule A of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, one district board, and ten distinct parishes, with a rateable value, as I have said, of five millions. The tendency in recent years has been to create smaller districts where the need arose. Such has been the case in the last few years, and Hammersmith has been taken from Fulham, Battersea from Wandsworth, Stoke Newington from Hackney, and there are other instances of a similar kind. The question is not, as the noble Earl (the Earl of Onslow) put it, Why should not this important district receive municipal privileges? but, rather, Why should not its component parts continue to enjoy those privileges and administer their own affairs, in the same way as in years past? The recent Royal Commission, after hearing evidence in 1894, recommended that not only the Strand borough, but St. George's and St Margaret's and St. John's parishes would each of them be a suitable area to be constituted a separate borough; and, prior to the introduction of this Bill, the Vestry of St. Margaret's was in favour of being left to manage their own affairs separately, in accordance with that recommendation. In the early part of last year the Home Secretary (Sir Matthew White Ridley), in addressing a public meeting at the Battersea Town Hall, organised by the London Municipal Society, is reported to have said that no Government in its senses would desire to propose that any vestry should be compulsorily amalgamated to form an area for incorporation. What is intended, said the right hon. Gentleman, is that if districts come and ask for a charter of incorporation, the law shall not prevent them from receiving it. The Strand borough has an incontestible claim to be incorporated as a separate municipality. It is a Parliamentary borough (not a mere Division), a county
  1256
  council division, and includes the area of three local authorities, covering 615 acres in the centre of London, and also of two unions of the rateable value of rather more than £2,000,000—almost as much as Birmingham, considerably more than Sheffield or Leeds, nearly double Newcastle-on-Tyne, Cardiff, Bristol, and Bradford, and more than twice that of Nottingham, Hull, and West Ham. It is more than any of the proposed areas in the Schedule, with the exception of Kensington, and that only exceeds it by a very small amount. The district has a night population of 60,000, but you must bear in mind the character of the district and the fact that the day population is four or five times larger. Even its population of 60,000, however, is more than that of such large towns as Barrow-in-Furness, Bath, Coventry, Devonport, Hastings, West Bromwich, and Oxford. The borough has all the requisites necessary for a municipality. It has an excellent town hall in the centre of the district, two sets of public baths and washhouses, a public library, and a riverside wharf, and at the present moment a dust destructor is in course of erection. My noble friend (the Earl of Onslow), during the Second Reading Debate, was rather inclined to disagree with the statement that the opinion and wishes of the inhabitants were against the creation of the borough proposed in this schedule. The noble Earl spoke of one public meeting which was sparsely attended. That meeting took place before I returned to London after Easter, and therefore I can only speak with regard to it from inquiries I have made. I find that there were four public meetings held in the Strand borough, and I imagine that it was the first of these to which the noble Lord alluded. This meeting took place on the 28th of March of this year. It was called somewhat in a hurry, with only two days' notice. At the second meeting, which was held in the St. Martin's Vestry Hall on 11th April, the room was filled, and the resolution against the creation of this borough was carried with only two dissentients. The third meeting was held in St. Martin's Town Hall on the afternoon of 14th April. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate the difficulty of getting a meeting together in a district like the Strand in the afternoon; but, notwithstanding this difficulty, there were over 200 persons present. The

  1257
  fourth meeting was also held at the Town Hall, on 25th April, when the room was filled and the resolution passed unanimously. I think that shows clearly what the opinion of the inhabitants is. I ought to add, that the majority were not members of the vestry. I am told that, though there were some of the officials and members of the vestry present, by far the greater number were not officially connected. I mention this because the noble Earl rather deprecated much weight being attached to the expression of opinion of the present vestries, in which I scarcely think he can have spoken seriously, seeing not only that he has done good service himself on one of them, but that it is to the present vestries that we shall look for our future councillors, the members of the new bodies proposed by this measure. What the Strand borough says in effect to Westminster is: "Divide et impera." Leave us alone to manage our own affairs, and retain the rest of the old Borough of Westminster, which has a rateable value of £3,000,000, which surely will establish a great and important municipality of Westminster. I thank your Lordships for the kind attention you have paid to the remarks I have made, and I earnestly hope the Government will be able to accept the Amendment, believing that it will greatly improve the Bill, that it meets with the approval of the great majority of those concerned, and that it will conduce largely to better government, and economical administration in these districts.
  Amendment moved,
  "In the First Schedule, page 20, line 29, to leave out from "The area of the' to the end of line 33, and insert 'parishes of Saint Margaret and Saint John, Westminster, and the parish of Saint George, Hanover Square. The area of the parish of Saint James, Westminster, the parish of Saint Martin-in-the-Fields, and the district of the Strand Board of Works.'"—(The Lord Hawkesbury.)
  LORD HOBHOUSE: My Lords, as a vestryman of St. George's, I beg to support the Amendment. I do not wish to conceal my apprehension that those who build very sanguine hopes on the re-arrangement that will be effected by this Bill will, so far as the regions I know best are concerned, be considerably disappointed. I quite agree that to give substantial power and to lay responsibilities upon men is the way to appeal to the
  1258
  most honourable of all ambitions—namely, the ambition to give free service to a man's neighbours; but I do not think the enlargement of areas and the alteration of names will have that effect, unless with it you enlarge the powers which you confer upon the body you are dealing with. You may make Westminster as large and as rich as you please, you may call it a borough or a city, you may unite its vestries and call them a council, you may give to their members the title of councillors and aldermen, and to the chairman the title of mayor; but unless with all that you give a larger range of power, I, for one, believe that you will not attract a different class of men to the new bodies. It will, be the men who prefer show to substance who will be attracted, and that is not the class which infuses vigour into municipal or any other affairs. This Bill does not profess to give a larger range of power. In fact, nothing can prevent Westminster, large and rich as you may make it, being only one fragment of the much larger and richer community that encircles it on every side, and therefore the Bill does not profess to give any materially different range of power to that which the vestries now exercise. Just consider what this Bill is going to do. The number of houses in the parish of St. George's is 11,000, the rateable value is £2,000,000, and we have a body of 120 men to administer the affairs of the parish. If your Lordships will bear with me for a few minutes, I should like to give you some idea of the sort of work which our vestry does by its committees, and I will take as a specimen the committee which deals with valuation and assessment matters. Their duty is to keep the assessed or recorded value of the houses in the parish in accord with their real value. The importance of that duty is manifest when you understand that this is the basis of all local taxation, not merely parochial, but for income-tax, house duty, water rate, and other purposes. The necessity for that work to be done by men of intelligence and integrity, possessing an adequate knowledge of detail, is evident, and it is also important that the community should be satisfied that it is well done. As regards the greater number of houses, the value does not shift much from year to year, or from one quinquennial period to another, but the duty of the Committee is

  1259
  always to be watching for alterations of various kinds, and this work involves a great deal of labour. I will not lead your Lordships into intricate questions of assessment, but I make this broad assertion, that the value of the houses in our parish is ascertained in the first instance, and, as to almost every one of them, in the last instance, by the agency of volunteer workers who are elected by the parishioners for that purpose. Of course, there are other committees whose duties are equally laborious, but I have taken this one as an illustration of the work which it is desirable to have well done. The Bill proposes to join to St. George's an area containing 12,000 houses, with a rateable value of £3,000,000. At the same time, it is proposed to reduce the number of the working body by one-fifth. This will necessitate the greater amount of the work connected with the administration of the area being done by paid officers, whose work is never so good as that of volunteers. I believe that even the area suggested by my noble friend's Amendment would be too large to work satisfactorily, but it is, at least, better than the one which increases the population of the parish by 125 per cent., and the rateable value by 150 per cent., and at the same time reduces the working body by one-fifth.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, the argument of the noble Lord who has just sat down appears to me to be mainly directed against the principle of the Bill, or, at all events, to be more directed against the principle of the Bill than against the particular proposal we are now considering. The noble Lord says that this proposal will not enhance the dignity, or increase the power, of the bodies to whom the municipal government of London is entrusted, and that, therefore, it will not in the end attract to that government the service of the ablest men. Well, my Lords, that is an argument against the measure altogether, and it does not appear to me to apply particularly to the proposal we are now considering. The noble Lord has urged, as a reason for his Amendment, the great size of the municipal borough which we propose to create; but, considering the variety of interests affected, I think the proposal has met with a remarkable amount of acquiescence, if it cannot be called enthusiasm. The noble Lord said he believed
  1260
  a great majority of the ratepayers were opposed to the proposal. It is somewhat remarkable that all the three Members who represent in Parliament the districts which will be included in this Bill are warm supporters of the proposal. If the statement of the noble Lord were true, these Members must be remarkably and unusually indifferent to the wishes of their constituents if they have not thought it necessary to make any protest against this proposal. They have, on the contrary, warmly supported it. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley), on the Second Reading of the Bill, said he could not conceive what had induced us to make this proposal. I admit that the reasons which have induced the Government to make this proposal are, to a certain extent, reasons which may be described as of a sentimental character. We do not contend that the area which is to be included in this municipal borough ever possessed municipal government of the character which we propose by this measure to confer upon it, but although the City of Westminster has not possessed municipal government of this kind, it has, as the noble Lord who moved the Amendment said, a history which is intimately connected with the history of England, and although electoral and municipal legislation of modern date has done its best to terminate that history, and although there is no possibility at present of restoring to it the political unity which it once possessed, yet we have thought that it was not an unworthy idea to recognise in the ancient Parliamentary borough of the City of Westminster an area which might fitly receive municipal incorporation. We do not consider that the great size or the great wealth of the proposed area are necessarily any disqualification for incorporation, or for the distinction which we propose to confer upon it. The population which will be contained within this borough is not larger than the population of some of our great municipal boroughs at present in existence, and when the noble Lord who last spoke endeavoured to argue that the work which was now done by the Vestry of St. George's could not possibly be properly done when a smaller body was entrusted with the same functions over a much larger area, I would ask him whether the business of the great municipal boroughs of Birmingham, Liverpool, and Manchester, whose affairs

  1261
  are all carried on by a municipal corporation of a similar character to that which we propose to establish, is conducted in an inferior manner to that of the Vestry of St. George's. It is true, I believe, that this borough, although it will not have a larger population, will have a larger rateable value than any other municipal borough in the kingdom, but I do not know that the possession of great wealth and of great resources necessarily adds to the difficulties and labours of municipal administration. It certainly has been no part of our design to provide that all these municipalities should be on a dead level of equality, equally overshadowed by the London County Council. It does not appear to us that there will be any disadvantage in the City of London on the one hand, through the possession of its antiquity, its great wealth, and its historical traditions, and the City of Westminster on the other hand, by its wealth and by its historic associations, being placed in a position in which they may assume, as we think it is not unlikely they will assume, a sort of leadership among these newly-created municipalities, and in which they may be able to give an example, as from their great resources they will be very well able to do, of the benefits which it may be possible for a great and well-governed municipality to confer upon its inhabitants. Reasons of this character, my Lords, have induced us to make this proposal, and I certainly am not aware that there has been, on the part of any great body of the inhabitants of the parishes which it is proposed to incorporate in tins area, any manifestation of strong opposition to the proposal of the Government.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I certainly never thought I should have lived
  to hear the noble Duke advocate a measure on sentimental grounds. I could not help feeling at first that it must be due to a dearth of real argument in favour of this measure. I was quite relieved when what I imagined to be the true ground was afterwards allowed to peep out. In point of fact, I can see exactly that what we have all suspected is the true ground. The noble Duke said they did not wish that the areas in London should be so constructed as to be equally overshadowed by the London County Council. That is the reason for the Bill. He further developed it by saying that this great area would assume a kind of captaincy over the other areas. That is to say, this huge borough of Westminster will put itself at the head of the various other newly-created municipalities in London for the purpose of overshadowing the county council, and diminishing its powers. I always thought that was the object of the Bill, and now I know it is. I am not insensible to the antiquity of the ancient City of Westminster, and the great interests which, for many reasons, attach to it, but a sentimental argument may be pushed too far when it is used for creating a body which for administrative purposes will not be as convenient as if there had been a division of area. This new borough is to be created for the purpose of minimising the county council and of detracting from its utility and power, and I shall therefore give this proposal my strenuous opposition.
  On Question, "Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the schedule,"
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 22.

  CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Ancaster, E.

  Nelson, E.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Camperdown, E.

  Northbrook, E.

  Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Carnwath, E.

  Onslow, E.

  Coventry, E.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Grafton, D.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Ravensworth, E.

  Marlborough, D.

  Dartrey, E.

  Rosse, E.

  Northumberland, D.

  Denbigh, E.

  Selborne, E.

  Westminster, D.

  Dundonald, E.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Egerton, E.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Ailesbury, M.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Bristol, M.

  Lichfield, E.

  Yarborough, E.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Mansfield, E.

  Salisbury, M.

  Morley, E

  Falkland, V.

  Knutsford, V.

  Cranworth, L.

  Llangattock, L.

  Llandaff, V.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Middleton, L.

  Crofton, L.

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway)

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  De Mauley, L.

  Morris, L.

  Dunleath, L.

  Norton, L.

  Ashcombe, L.

  Farnham, L.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Balfour, L.

  Forester, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Belper, L.

  Glanusk, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Harlech, L.

  Southampton, L.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Harris, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Churchill, L. [Teller.]

  Hood of Avalon, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Clonbrock, L.

  James, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Cottesloe, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Northampton, M.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Kinnaird, L.

  Ripon, M.

  Leigh, L.

  Aberdare, L.

  Lingen, L.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Reay, L.

  Chesterfield, E. [Teller]

  Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Crewe, E.

  Burghclere, L.

  Welby, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Hawkesbury, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Hobhouse, L.

  Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT (1879) AMENDMENT BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
  EDUCATION OF CHILDREN BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  ISOLATION HOSPITALS (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords].
  Read 3a (according to Order); Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at a quarter-past Seven of the clock, till Tomorrow half-past Ten of the clock.