Sitting of 4 July 1899

STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW, ETC.
Ordered, that the Standing Committee on Law, etc., have leave to sit this day until half-past Three of the clock during the sitting of the House.—(Sir James Fergusson.)
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords].
  No Standing Orders not previously inquired into applicable.
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills that in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders not previously inquired into are applicable, viz.:

  FYLDE WATER BOARD BILL [Lords].
  Ordered, that the Bill be read a second time.
  BARRY RAILWAY BILL.
    LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY (NEW RAILWAYS) BILL.
      LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE HAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
      Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  ST. JAMES'S AND PALL MALL ELECTRIC LIGHT BILL (by Order).
  Consideration of Lords Amendments deferred till Thursday.
  COBHAM GAS BILL [Lords].
    STRETFORD GAS BILL [Lords].
    Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  YORKE ESTATE BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  GLASGOW AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed

  WARRINGTON CORPORATION BILL.
  Ordered, that, in the case of the Warrington Corporation Boll, Standing Order 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

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

      GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
      GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [Lords].
      Read a second time, and committed.

  WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.
PETITIONS.
  GROUND RENTS (TAXATION OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Petitions in favour—From Mossley and Lambeth; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petition from Ffrwd, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  Petition from London, for extension to women; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1845.
  Petition from Meldrum, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour—From Padwell and Exeter; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL.
  Petition of the Leicestershire Trade Protection Society, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS ACT, 1897 (ASSOCIATIONS).
  Copy presented, of Returns of (1) Associations constituted under the Voluntary Schools Act, 1897; (2) Associated Schools and amounts of Aid Grant paid; (3) Unassociated Schools and amounts of Aid Grant paid [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL FORTIFICATIONS ACT, 1877.
  Copy presented, of Representations, dated 3rd July 1899, of the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury that it is expedient that certain properties held in trust for the defence of the Colony of New South Wales should be transferred to the Government of that colony, and Draft of an Order in Council for giving effect to above Representations [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Copy presented, of Returns of Accidents and Casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several railway companies in the United Kingdom during the three months ending 31st March 1899, etc. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR LICENSING LAWS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented, of Final Report of the Royal Commission on the Liquor Licensing Laws, with Index [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SAVINGS BANK AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
  Accounts presented, showing the interest accrued in respect of the securities standing in the names of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to the credit of the Post Office Savings Banks Fund for the year ended 31st December, 1898, and of the Fund for the Banks for Savings and the Fund for Friendly Societies for the year ended 20th November, 1898 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 260.]

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos.

  1405
  2,305 to 2,308 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRAMWAYS (STREET AND ROAD).
  Return ordered, "of Street and Road Tramways authorised by Parliament, showing the amount of capital authorised, paid up, and expended; the length of tramway authorised, and the length open for the public conveyance of passengers, down to the 30th day of June, 1899; the gross receipts, working expenditure, and net receipts; the number of passengers conveyed, and the number of miles run by cars during the year ended the 30th day of June, 1899; together with the number of horses, engines, and cars at that date (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 355, of Session 1898."— (Mr. Ritchie.)

  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: Mr. Attorney-General and Mr. Butcher; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Solicitor-General and Sir Albert Rollit.
  Mr. HALSEYfurther reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures: Mr. Solicitor - General; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Attorney-General.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

  TRAWLERS' CERTIFICATES SUSPENSION BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 257.]
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 16) BILL,
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL,
      CORK CORPORATION (FINANCE) BILL,
      Without Amendment.
  LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.

    SCUNTHORPE URBAN DISTRICT GAS AND WATER BILL.
    GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL.
    With Amendments.
    Amendments to—

  DUNDEE GAS, STREET IMPROVE MENTS AND TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
  Without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill intituled "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Waterworks Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Farnham Gas, Fresh, water Gas, Morecambe Gas, and Newtown and Llanllwchaiarn Gas." [Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords.]
  And also a Bill intituled "An Act to amend the Isolation Hospitals Act, 1893." [Isolation Hospitals Amendment Bill Lords.]

  LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.
  Lords Amendments to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 258.]
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 259.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  QUESTIONS.

    WEI-HAI-WEL.
    SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the approximate estimate of the additional annual expenditure to be borne by the Navy Estimates as a consequence of the adoption of Wei-hai-wei as a permanent secondary naval base.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): Till the final arrange-merits are made I could not say. The amount, I think, is not likely to be very large.
    SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what is the approximate estimate of the additional annual expenditure to be borne by the Army Estimates as a consequence of the adoption of Wei-hai-wei as a permanent secondary naval base?
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELLWILLIAMS,): The annual charge for the garrison is estimated at £67,000, with an eventual addition many years hence of £12,000 for non-effective charges. This is irrespective of the initial outlay on works and barracks, and on armament.
    SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the area of the belt of land tell English miles wide along the entire coast line of the Bay of Wei-hai-wei, leased to Great Britain as part of the arrangement for providing Great Britain with a suitable Naval harbour; and what is the length of the land boundary thus dividing territory in British occupation from territory under the influence of Germany.
    MR. GOSCHEN: The exact area of the belt of land cannot be given until the boundary line of the leased territory has been finally delimitated. The meridian 121 deg. 40 min. east of Greenwich is the dividing line between the territory, the subject of the lease, and the rest of Shan-tong; but until it has been surveyed it is not possible to say what is its exact length.
    SIR J. COLOMB: Then are we not in a position to know what must be the military arrangements for the defence of the harbour?
    MR. GOSCHEN: We may be in possession of that information without knowing the exact area.

    HASLAR HOSPITAL.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a Deputy Inspector-General has recently been appointed in charge of the Royal Hospital at Haslar, instead of an Inspector-General, though there are three officers of the latter rank available for service at Haslar; and if such appointment has been made, will he explain why the three Inspectors-General have been passed over.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, Sir, the facts are as stated. The reason for my choice is that I was determined to select the best man I could find, irrespective of seniority or etiquette, for the administration of the great Naval Hospital at Haslar, which I regard as one of the most important hospitals in the kingdom, and for the efficiency of which I am responsible.

    CARNOUSTIE LINKS.
    CAPTAIN SINCLAIRhad the following question on the Paper: To ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can now give any information as to the interference of the Military authorities at Barry Camp, on Saturday last, with the playing of golf on Carnoustie Links, which are the property of the burgh; and whether he will take steps to prevent any further occurrence of the same kind.
    On being called on to put the question, the hon. Member said: I understand the matter has been settled, and I do not wish to press it further.

    BRITISH OFFICERS IN THE SOUDAN.
    LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, as to the conditions under which British Military officers were employed in the Soudan, whether he will state to the House the terms of the regulations under which they served as to time and pension; and whether the officers referred to were allowed to count the time employed in the Soudan towards their time for promotion and towards their time for pension.
    MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The officers referred to are permitted to reckon their service in the Soudan towards their time for promotion under Article 22 of the Royal Warrant for Pay and Promotion, and for retirement under Article 500 (a) and (e).

    MILITARY WORKS EXPENDITURE.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether Her Majesty's Government propose to give any further information than is contained in the memorandum of the Military Works Bill of 1899 (C. 9367, of 1899) relative to the item of £1,000,000 for defence works; whether it is to be understood that this

    1409
    item is to be expended for defence works of the nature of fortifications alone, or whether it is proposed to expend any portion of it for any other purpose; and, whether further details, of the nature of those afforded under Head 2, with regard to barracks will he given with reference to the particular places and purposes for which this £1,000,000 is to be expended before the House is asked finally to pass the Bill authorising the expenditure, or whether Her Majesty's Government propose that they should he authorised to borrow and to expend this £1,000,000 without giving any details whatever as to the purposes to which it is to be applied.
    MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: As was stated to the House in introducing the Military Works Loan Resolution, the Secretary of State does not consider it expedient to give details in respect of the proposed defence works.
    SIR J. COLOMB: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these details were given both in the Treasury correspondence in 1884 and in the Works Bill of 1880?
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Am I to understand that the Government propose to carry out the works without giving any details?
    MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I have already answered the question, and I suppose that would follow from the answer I have given.
    CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will state, for the year 31st March, 1898, to 31st March, 1899, the amount expended under the Barracks Act, 1890, and the Military Works Act, 1897?
    MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The approximate figures are under the Barracks Act, 1890, £176,000; and under the Military Works Act, 1897, £725,000; making a total of £901,000.

    WAR OFFICE ESTABLISHMENT.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state when the Committee appointed last year to consider the Civil Establishment of the War Office expects to have presented its final Report; what progress has already been made in the reorganisation of the Adju-
    1410
    tart - General's, Quartermaster-General's, and Financial Secretary's Departments; and whether the Secretary of State will, without waiting for the final Report of the Committee, cause the redundant first division clerks and supplementary clerks who have been superseded to be placed on retired pay.
    MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I am unable to state when the Committee will be able to present its final Report. The inquiry, as far as it affects the Departments of the Adjutant - General, the Quarter-Master General, and the other high military officials, has only just begun. The Secretary of State is not prepared to anticipate the Report of the Committee.
    GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the Committee appointed to consider the Civilian Department of the War Office has yet agreed on its Report; and whether this Report will be laid upon the Table of the House before the War Office Vote is taken.
    MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: As I stated in reply to the hon. Member for South Donegal a few days ago, the inquiry into the Civil Establishment of the War Office, though it has made considerable progress, is yet incomplete. It is impossible to say whether any Report will be made to the Secretary of State before the War Office Vote is taken, hut, even if it were, it is not customary to lay upon the Table of the House Departmental Reports of this kind, and no assurance can be given that this rule will be departed from in this instance.

    INDIAN PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
    SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his despatch, approving of special terms of retirement for certain service officers of the Indian Public Works Department from Cooper's Hill, has yet arrived in India; and whether he will arrange for its simultaneous publication in this country and in India.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The despatch of the Secretary of State has been in the hands of the Government of India for sonic days, and doubtless the officers who are eligible for

    1411
    the special terms of pension sanctioned in that despatch have been communicated with. The Government of India do not propose to publish the terms sanctioned by the Secretary of State.

    SAMOA.
    MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Major Nair, Judge of the New Zealand Native Lands Court, has been appointed a British Consular authority in Samoa; whether he was so nominated at the instance of the Joint Commission; what are the nature and extent of the functions be will exercise; and does he temporarily supersede the regular British Consul in Samoa.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): The officer who has been appointed to act as Consul at Apia during the absence of Mr. Maxse is Mr. Hunter, Chief Police Magistrate of Fiji. During the period of his acting appointment Mr. Hunter will exercise the same functions as Mr. Maxse, whom he temporarily replaces but does not supersede.

    NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have received any information regarding any disputes or difficulties which have recently arisen with reference to or in connection with the French shore in Newfoundland; and, if so, whether be can state what is the nature of those difficulties or differences, and what methods are being taken to remove them.
    MR. BRODRICK: A telegram was received on the 21st ultimo from the Governor of Newfoundland, reporting that the French senior Naval officer had removed salmon nets belonging to British fishermen on the Treaty shore. No additional particulars have since been received. The British Naval officers will, doubtless, take the requisite steps for the settlement of this difficulty.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the Government make inquiry as to how this matter is proceeding, or do they intend to leave it to be fought out by the Naval officers?
    [No answer was given]

    TENURE OF HOUSES ABROAD.
    MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state when the continuation Report, concerning the tenure of houses in towns in foreign countries, ordered last session, will be printed; and whether, seeing that it was promised early this session, be can explain the reason of delay.
    MR. BRODRICK: The Paper was laid before Parliament on the 26th of April last—Commercial, No. 3, 1899.

    OUTRAGES ON CHRISTIANS IN ARMENIA.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office has received any information as to the alleged Kurdish outrages in Kazabulinik; and whether five villages, chiefly populated by Armenians, were nearly destroyed by Kurds, and over 100 Armenians were massacred, and a number of Armenian women reported as missing; and, if so, will the Foreign Office communicate with the Government of the Sultan with a view to prevent the infliction of further outrages upon the Christian Amenian population.
    MR. BRODRICK: No such information has reached Her Majesty's Government.
    MR. FLYNN: Has the Government received no information in the course of the day?
    [No answer was given.]

    THE TRANSVAAL FRANCHISE.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state approximately what number of Uitlanders in the South African Republic, have the right to exercise the franchise for the first Volksraad now, and what number would have it presuming the conditions were the same as in the Orange Free State; and if he could state what number would receive it within a reasonable time under Sir Alfred Miner's proposals, and how this would compare with the latest proposals of President Kruger.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): I have not yet

    1413
    received the information from Sir Alfred Milner. No doubt he has found it necessary to communicate with the British Vice-Consul at Johannesburg, and it may take some time before the information reaches me. I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as it does, and ask him then to repeat his question.

    THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE TRANSVAAL GOVERNMENT.
    SIR JOHN BRUNNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the present negotiations with the South African Republic, Her Majesty's Government are acting in co-operation and consultation with the responsible Ministers of the Cape Colony.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The Cape Government is not a party to the negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the South African Republic, but the High Commissioner is in communication with the Cape Ministers.
    MR. J. E. ELLIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the House will receive any representations that may be made by the Cape Government and sent to Her Majesty's Government by the High Commissioner?
    Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot give any promise. All I can say is that we have received no such communication.

    THE PACIFIC CABLE.
    MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the business of the approaching Conference of representatives of the Imperial and Colonial Governments will be limited to a re-adjustment of financial responsibilities in connection with the construction and working of the proposed Pacific Cable, or whether it is proposed to discuss questions generally affecting the telegraphic service of the Empire.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The only purpose of the Conference is to discuss matters relating to the proposed Pacific Cable.

    NORTHERN LIGHTS.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet communi-
    1414
    cated with the Northern Lighthouse Commissioners in regard to the necessity for a beacon on Sgixda Rock, near Port of Ness, Island of Lewis; and, if not, will he communicate with the Commissioners on the subject.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): As stated in my reply to the hon. Member on May 19th, the question of erecting a beacon on Sgixda Rock is one, in the first instance, for the consideration of the Northern Lighthouse Commissioners, as the Board of Trade have no power to initiate. In these circumstances, I have not thought it desirable to make any suggestion to the Commissioners on the subject.
    MR. WEIR: May I ask if it is not the fact that the Northern Lights Commissioners are under the control of the Board of Trade?
    MR. RITCHIE: The responsibility rests with the Commissioners, and I cannot do anything to interfere with it.

    THE "GASPESIA."
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the steamship "Gaspesia" is under detention at St. John's, Newfoundland, for salvage claim; that the captain and crew, upwards of seventy, were ejected from the vessel by the police, and that these men, being unable to obtain their wages, are in a destitute condition at St. John's; and will he state what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
    MR. RITCHIE: The circumstances in which this vessel has been seized at St. John's, Newfoundland, on account of salvage claims, and the master and crew ejected from it, are known to me, and are substantially as stated by the hon. Member. Instructions by cable were given to the Superintendent of the Mercantile Marine Office at the port, on the 1st ultimo, to relieve the crew if destitute, and in accordance therewith twelve members of the crew have already been sent to this country, and the remainder are believed to be on their way hither. The claims of the seamen to wages is not a matter with which the Board of Trade can interfere.

    THE LIZARD LIGHTS.
    MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the allegation that the electric light at the Lizard lighthouses is not efficacious in thick weather, he will cause inquiry to be made of the coast guards in the neighbourhood of the Lizard lights whether, either from their stations or from any points on their cliff walks, they noticed, in the early morning of 22 May last, when the "Paris" stranded on the Manacles, the Lizard lights were visible or invisible, and, if visible, how far from shore they estimate they could be seen in the direction of the course of a vessel steaming from Cherbourg to clear the Lizard Point.
    MR. RITCHIE: I am informed that for navigation reasons the Lizard lights have been so constructed as to be practically obscured from the adjoining coast, but in any case I do not think that the inquiries suggested by the honourable Member could lead to any useful result.
    MR. FIELD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that oil or gas light penetrates a fog further than the electric light?
    MR. RITCHIE: I believe it to be true that it does so in certain circumstances.

    CATTLE-CARRYING VESSELS.
    MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the steamship "J. W. Taylor" which was black-listed on 10th February, 1899, arrived at Deptford on 4th January, 1899, and reported loss of 130 bullocks out of 150 shipped, and loss of 740 sheep out of 1,079 shipped; and whether it is intended that in future an expert outside those having any interest in the vessels shall give a certificate before the prohibition is removed.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,): The facts are as stated in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question. We do not contemplate any change in our existing procedure in regard to these cases.
    MR. FIELD: Is it a fact that the restrictions have been removed from this vessel, and that it is now free to carry cattle?
    MR. LONG: I told the hon. Gentleman so a fortnight ago.
    MR. FIELD: This is another vessel. MR. LONG: No, no.
    MR. FIELD: Yes.
    Mr. LONG: I think the hon. Member referred to both vessels in his previous question. Both were dealt with at the same time and for the same reason.
    MR. FIELD: Am I to understand that all the restrictions have been removed from all vessels that were black-listed?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. FIELD: I will put another question on this.
    MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Is it a fact that the owners of these steamers have given guarantees as to the suitability of their vessels to carry cattle from the Argentine?
    MR. LONG: Yes, Sir; or the restrictions would not have been removed. They have given the guarantees, and have undertaken to conform to the requirements of the Department.

    TITHE RENT-CHARGE (RATES) RILL.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether the total rates paid by the owners of tithes attached to benefices is £175,000 a year, and whether the sum of £244,569 was, at the time of the commutation, added to the titheowners' income for the payment of rates; and whether he will present a Return before the Committee stage of the Tithe Bill, showing what sums were granted for payment of titheowners' rates.
    MR. LONG: I only received notice of the question at three o'clock.
    MR. LAMBERT: In view of the fact that the Bill is not to be taken on Thursday, I will postpone the question.
    MR. LONG: No; unfortunately, I cannot be here on Thursday, but I can answer the question now generally. The figure of £175,000. a year I believe,

    1417
    quite correct. With regard to the £244,569 stated to have been added at the time of commutation to the tithe owners' income, I cannot say whether that amount is correct without examination, because it may possibly include the additions made by the Tithe Commissioners where they considered that the bargain between the titheowner and the tithepayer was not a fair one. I would point out that it is not a correct description to use the words "added to the tithe-owners' income for the payment of rates." The sum in respect of rates was only added in those eases where a private composition had been made between the titheowner and the tithepayer. The difference between the rates and the commuted sum was received by the tithe-payer, so that it is not correct to say that the sum was generally added in respect of rates. It was only added where the rates had been previously paid by the tithepayer and not by the titheowner. It is impossible to present a Return before the Committee stage of the Bill, and I do not think it is necessary, as the whole of the information is obtainable in the Reports and Returns presented by the Tithe Commissioners.

    THE PWLLHELI DISASTER.
    MR. WILLIAM JONES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the boating calamity that occurred at Pwllheli on Saturday, 1st July, by which twelve persons lost their lives; and whether he can take steps to prevent the overloading of pleasure boats, and so lessen the risks of similar disasters.
    MR. RITCHIE: Yes, Sir, my attention has been called to the sad accident to which the honourable Member refers, but the Board of Trade have no power to deal with the question of overloading pleasure boats. Under Section 172 of the Public Health Act, 1875, any urban authority may make bye-laws for the licensing of pleasure boats and the number of persons to be carried therein. Any bye-laws so made are submitted to the Local Government Board.
    SIR J. W. MACLURE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Corporation of Pwllheli do not require licences for sailing and rowing boats used for passengers, and that there is no limit
    1418
    enforced as to the number of persons carried; and whether, after the deplorable accident on Saturday, he will compel the authorities to make necessary regulations to prevent such catastrophes.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN,): The Corporation of Pwllheli are empowered to make bye-laws for regulating the number of persons to be carried in pleasure boats and vessels, but they do not appear to have exercised the power in this case. I cannot undertake to compel the corporation to make bye-laws of this kind, for I doubt if the powers of the Local Government Board extend so far, and, indeed, I hope it would be unnecessary. But I have already directed a communication to be sent to the corporation on the subject, and I have no doubt they will take the necessary steps forthwith.

    CARLOWAY ROAD.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the engineer to the Scottish Office has yet reported as to the manner in which the unspent balance of the grant for the construction of the Carloway Road can best be utilised.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): On the recommendation of the Consulting Engineer of the Scottish Office, it was determined to utilise the unspent balance of the grant for this road on the completion of the section next to the Carloway Harbour. The work is getting on very satisfactorily, and is now far advanced.

    SMALL HOLDINGS—BERNERA.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state what progress has been made with the scheme for creating small holdings in the Island of Bernera.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: Considerable difficulties have been encountered in this case, and the proposal made to the Board has been more than once changed, but negotiations are still in progress, and it is hoped that the matter may yet be carried through satisfactorily.

    CROFTERS' COMMISSION.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that in an action re-

    1419
    cently raised by Mr. R. S. Wilmot-Sitwell, of Strathkyle, Ross-shire, against William MacLeod, a decision of the Crofters' Commission, under which MacLeod had been held to be a crofter within the meaning of the Act, has been set aside by the First Division of the Court of Session; and will he consider the expediency of introducing such legislation as may be necessary to render decisions of the Crofters' Commission final.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I have already stated, in reply to a question by the hon. Member in April last, that the Secretary for Scotland cannot undertake to introduce any legislation on the subject referred to, and I should wish to add that it is, in my judgment, quite impossible, consonant with the ordinary principles of liberty, to take away the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in questions of ultra vires

    SECONDARY EDUCATION IN THE HIGHLANDS.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state what portion of the grant of £35,000 for secondary education will come to each of the six Highland crofting counties under the Minute of the 27th April last.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: It is impossible to say what portion of the grant referred to will fall to any particular county until the various claims have been submitted through the various burgh and county committees, and have thereafter been considered.

    SCOTTISH CLERGYMEN AND POOR RATES.
    SIR J. W. MACLURE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Presbyterian clergy in Scotland are relieved front the payment of poor rates and other burdens on their manses and other ecclesiastical buildings.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: Ministers of the Church of Scotland are not liable to poor rate in respect of their manses. I may point out that, as churches do not belong to the ministers, there are no ecclesiastical buildings in the sense of the question other than manses.

    TELEGRAPH CLERKS' HOLIDAYS.
    MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to
    1420
    the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it can he stated what steps are being taken to give effect to the promise contained in Paragraph 9 of the Postal Circular of Tuesday, 10th August, 1897, with reference to the winter holidays of telegraph clerks in London; and whether it is intended to introduce any reform in that city next year identical with the scheme now in operation at Glasgow.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY, Preston): In the provinces it has generally been found practicable to arrange for a better distribution of holidays at a moderate cost, but there are exceptional difficulties in the Central Telegraph Office, and the schemes hitherto framed have been too costly for adoption in that office. It is proposed to refer the question to a Departmental Committee at an early date.

    THE PARLIAMENTARY RELATES.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it has been brought to his notice that the Hansard reporters have failed to obtain from the late Government contractor the back reckonings due to them for copy furnished and money advanced for typewriting the transcript of notes; whether he is aware that the average amount due to each reporter is £60, and that several of these reporters are now, as a consequence, in grave financial straits; whether any guarantee was taken as to the financial position of the contractor when his tender was accepted; and, if not, will he explain on what grounds; and whether, seeing that the Stationery Office has obtained its copy up to date, and that Government business has been facilitated by the reporters having surrendered their notes and transcripts, and in consideration of the conduct of those reporters, who are practically officials of the House, steps will be taken, by means of a special Vote, if necessary, to secure for them payment for labour of which Members of the House have had the benefit.
    The following Questions also appeared on the paper:
    MR. HEDDERWICK: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury

    1421
    whether the Government accepted the tender of the late contractor for The Hansard Debates without any guarantee of his financial ability to carry on the work; whether he is aware that from time to time the late contractor failed to pay the members of the staff employed to report the Debates of the House the sums due to them for their services; and that, in spite of such failure, the members of the staff loyally carried out their part of the agreement, and have, since the bankruptcy of the late contractor, supplied the Government with their reports, and so facilitated the business of the Government; will he explain why, seeing that there are now due to the members of the staff arrears of pay amounting to £60 per man on an average, the Government have refused to make good these arrears; whether the Treasury are aware that more than one member of the staff has been reduced to severe financial straits in consequence of the treatment mentioned; and whether he will consider whether he can take any steps to remedy the grievance referred to.
    MR. MCcLAREN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has fully considered the ease of the members of the reporting staff of Hansard Debate, who, on the failure of the Treasury contractor, were left with considerable arrears of salary, and in some cases of disbursements, unpaid; whether these officials carried on the work of the Department and ensured the publication of the weekly parts of Hansard to Members of the House, notwithstanding that their weekly salaries were not met; and whether he can come to some arrangement, either directly with them or with the present contractor, so as to reimburse them for losses earned in the public service.
    MR. HANBURY: The Government did satisfy themselves as to Mr. Bussy's financial ability, and they further required two guarantees of £500 each from two responsible guarantors. The contract was a remunerative one, and the price paid to the new contractor is the same as that paid to Mr. Bussy. His failure was not due to the contract. The Government cannot, of course, make good arrears of pay due to the employees of all its contractors; but in this instance I desired to pay the employees out of the payments
    1422
    due to the late contractor, and was only prevented from doing so by the fact of his bankruptcy, which, of course, made it impossible to favour one set of creditors at the expense of others. In order to assist them as far as possible, we purchased from them copy not delivered to Mr. Bussy, and thereby ensured payment to them for it. Perhaps I may read a letter I have received from the chief of the staff:
    "on behalf of the Official Debates staff I desire to inform you that the letter Which we understand has been addressed to several Members of Parliament with reference to our position in connection with the late contract is totally unauthorised by us or anyone on oar behalf, and has been circulated without our consent. We have written to the person whose signature is attached, demanding an explanation."
    MR. McKENNA: May I ask whether the money the right hon. Gentleman desired to pay to the employees was money due to Mr. Bussy or money to be paid out of the Treasury?
    MR. HANBURY: It was money due to Mr. Bussy for copies of Hansard.
    MR. TENNANT: Is it not true that at least two employees of Mr. Bussy have suffered distress of their personal goods on account of this failure?
    MR. HANBURY: I cannot answer that.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is it proposed to take any steps to enforce the liability of the guarantors?
    MR. HANBURY: I have considered that, but I am afraid that, as these reporters were the employees of the contractor, we shall not be able to call upon the guarantors for that.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the case of the distressed Member of Parliament who, on the faith of the arrangement which the right hon. Gentleman made with Mr. Bussy, gave him a cheque for the supply of Hansard during the session, and is now stranded without any copies of Hansard, while other Members who did not show such promptitude in fulfilling their part of their arrangement have been receiving Hansard for nothing?
    MR. HANBURY: I am afraid the man who pays in advance before he receives a thing must run the risk of not getting it. What I have done in this instance is to take every step I could to see that these volumes should not be run up to a very high price, and that Members should be able to get them on reasonable terms. I therefore took upon myself to authorise the Stationery Office to buy up the whole of these spare volumes from the Official Receiver at 20 per cent. below their price, and we shall be perfectly willing to let Members have the benefit of that.
    MR. BARTLEY: Inasmuch as we have had this trouble in publishing these Reports for the last ten years, cannot the Treasury now do it properly?
    MR. HANBURY: The main difficulty in regard to the Government's undertaking the work is that there is a general opinion throughout the House that we do not want to have speeches reported at full length. If the Government did undertake the work, we should have every Member attacking them for not reporting his speeches fully.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: Is it not a fact that the House, and each Member individually, has a certain responsibility towards these reporters, inasmuch——
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is now, in the guise of a question, making a speech.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last paragraph of my question?
    MR. HANBURY: I do not see the necessity for a special Vote.

    LIFTS IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS.
    SIR J. W. MACLURE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider the advisability of providing reasonable facilities in the shape of lifts and hoists at Somerset House and other public offices for persons compelled to attend, and for the officials of the departments, and also for the old servants of the country who have now to mount three or four flights of stairs.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): Lifts are being gradually
    1424
    introduced, as funds permit, in those public offices where the necessity for them has been found to exist. Priority is given to those cases which, in the opinion of my Department, are most urgent.

    ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES.
    MR. WOODALL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now in a position to say when the long-promised Return as to the nature and extent of the provision made for the University Education of Roman Catholics in Foreign Countries and certain British Colonies will be reported to Parliament.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I hope to be able to lay the Papers before the end of the session.

    CRIMINAL BUSINESS AT ASSIZES.
    MR. PICKERSGILLI beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the recent Report of the Bar Council on criminal business at assizes; and whether the Government will, by Royal Commission or otherwise, cause inquiry to be made into the existing circuit system.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe there is no reason for a Royal Commission on this subject, as all the facts are already in the hands of the public, or of that part of the public which takes an interest in the matter. Some remedy has already been applied; but I understand that that remedy is insufficient. The matter has for some time been under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor, and I believe he will have some proposals to make of a legislative character before long, either in this House or in another place.

    METEOROLOGICAL OFFICE.
    LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that, owing to the necessity of providing pensions for old servants, the Meteorological Office is about to cut down its expenses by withdrawing the small payments made for observations at York and other stations; and whether, in view of the important national work done by the Meteorological Office, he can see his way to increase the present Government grant, which is only £15,300 a year.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This question should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Can the First Lord of the Treasury state what business will be taken for the rest of the week?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In the first place, I have to correct a statement I made yesterday. We shall not take the Colonial Loans Fund Bill to-day, which stands third on the Orders Paper, but proceed with the other Orders as they stand on the Paper. To-morrow the first Order will be the Irish Industries Bill. I think it would be more convenient not to take the Tithe Rent-Charge (Rates) Bill on Thursday. I shall propose to take it on Monday next, and continue it de die in diem. The first Order on Thursday will be the Lords' Amendments to the London Government Bill.
SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the Military Works Bill came on unexpectedly last night, he will undertake that due notice shall be given of the Bill being brought on again, and that the Bill shall not be brought on before Wednesday.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. The House will see that this is a matter over which I have no control. Hon. Members must be prepared for business coming up in certain contingencies when an ordinary forecast would not suggest its coming up as likely. I hope to take the Bill as second Order on Thursday.
MR. COURTNEY: The Lords' Amendments to the London Government Bill have not yet come down. Will the First Lord adhere to his intention of taking the Amendments on Thursday, if they have not been printed and circulated by that time?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no reason to suppose that we shall not have the Amendments down from the Lords today; and, if so, they will be, of course, printed and circulated at once.
MR. COURTNEY: And in the event of their not coming down to-day?
[No answer was given.]

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
As amended, considered.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,):The House will remember that when we were in Committee on this Bill, a certain agreement was arrived at on Clause 5. The object of the clause, of which I now have to move the Second Reading, is to carry out the arrangement that as far as possible the Commission should be formed out of Parliamentary material, Members being drawn from each House. But it is perfectly obvious that it would be necessary, whoever selected the Commissioners, they should not have to go cap-in-hand to every one of the twelve hundred Members of the two Houses of Parliament. The hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow has put down on the Paper some Amendments in which he embodies the idea of having what I may call a Parliamentary panel. I confess that that idea struck me with favour, because it would not only shorten the labours of the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, but it would provide a body from which it would be possible to select the members, and a body which would not be too large. It would, in fact, be a process of winnowing the material from which the members of the Commission could be selected during the succeeding period of twelve months, and it would also always leave a sufficiently large number of Members available for the work. But I could not accept the Amendment for two reasons. In the first place, it so far departed from the scheme which which we had arranged as to make the tribunal consist of five Members instead of four. It will be within the memory of the House that in Committee we stated that we thought five would be too cumbersome. And again, there is the further disadvantage that he suggested that the panel should consist of exactly fifty Members.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I did not say exactly fifty, I said not more than fifty.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: Be that as it may, I am stating what I think are the objections to the hon. Gentleman's proposal. We wish to make the provi-

1427
sions as elastic as possible, and the clause of which I am now moving the Second Reading is the outcome of our consideration of the subject. This clause, as hon. Members will see, without exactly prescribing the panel, gives a very strong hint in regard to the manner in which it should be constituted. We provide that the Commission shall consist of four members, and, in the first instance, we suggest that two shall be taken from each House of Parliament; but, in the event of that being impossible, we make it permissible for three to be taken from one House and one from the other. In the last resort, all four may be taken from one House. Then, if all that fails, it is left to the Secretary for Scotland to select a member from the extra Parliamentary panel. There is also power given to him to fill up casual vacancies. I hope hon. Gentlemen will see that I have done my best to carry out the agreement to which we came in Committee, and that I have done so on common-sense lines. There must be some limit in this matter, and I repeat it should not be necessary for the Chairman of the Selection Committee to go cap-in-hand to every Member of the two Houses before he can fill up the Commission. At the same time, we do make it possible that the Commission shall consist entirely of Members of Parliament.
New clause:—
"Formation of Parliamentary Panels: Appointment of Commissioners, in lieu of Clause 5, to be omitted subsequently:—
"(1) When it is determined that Commissioners shall lie appointed for the purpose of inquiring as to the propriety of making and issuing a Provisional Order or Orders under this Act, the chairman shall, with due regard to the character and magnitude of the provisions in the proposed Order or Orders, appoint four Commissioners for that purpose, and shall at the same time nominate one of the Commissioners as chairman.
"(2) Standing Orders may, if the two Houses of Parliament think fit so to order, provide for the formation of panels of Members of the two Houses respectively to act as Commissioners under this Act (hereinafter referred to as the Parliamentary panels).
"(3) Subject to Standing Orders as aforesaid, two of the Commissioners shall be taken from the Parliamentary panel of Members of the House of Lords, and two shall be taken from the Parliamentary panel of Members of the House of Commons.
"(4) Subject to Standing Orders as aforesaid, if the chairman shall be unable to appoint Commissioners as in the immediately preceding
1428
sub-section mentioned, three, or if need be all, of the Commissioners may be Members of the same Parlimentary panel.
"(5) Subject to Standing Orders as aforesaid, if the chairman shall be unable to appoint Commissioners as in either of the two immediately preceding subsections mentioned, so many persons as are required to make up the number of Commissioners shall be taken by the Secretary for Scotland front the extra-Parliamentary panel hereinbefore mentioned.
"(6) Any casual vacancy among the Commissioners, or in the office of Chairman of Commissioners, caused by death or resignation, or inability to give attendance, such resignation or inability to attend being certified by a writing under the Commissioner's hand, shall be filled up by the Secretary for Scotland by appointing a member of the extra-Parliamentary panel, and in the case of a vacancy in the office of chairman, by nominating as chairman one of tile remaining Commissioners.
"(7) Notwithstanding a dissolution of Parliament, any Member of either House of Parliament may continue to act as Commissioner in any inquiry for the purpose of which he has been appointed to act.
"(8) The persons appointed as Commissioners shall have no personal or local interest in the matter of the proposed Order or Orders, and shall, as a condition of such appointment, make a declaration to that effect, provided that Scottish Members of either House of Parliament, shall not be disqualified front acting as Commissioners to deal with proposed Orders in which they have no personal or local interest,"—(The Lord Advocate.)
Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made and Question proposed—
"That the clause be read a second time."—(The Laid Advocate.)
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I quite recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has fully adhered to the general principles which we insisted upon when we were considering this Bill in Committee, and to the understanding which was agreed to at that time by the Government. The right hon Gentleman has not accepted the clause proposed by my hon. friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division, because he prefers words of his own, and in regard to that I think he is right, if only on the ground that, as he is the architect of the measure to which we are now placing the copingstone, it is only right that he should furnish the design of the ornamental part of the structure. I think his general conception is the right one. There would be an obvious inconvenience in saying that the whole of the list of Members of

1429
both Houses of Parliament must be exhausted before a nominated member could be appointed, because, if that list had to be gone through, it might possibly occur that, when the last name was reached, the first one or two who had accepted might have changed their minds on the subject. The arrangement which the right hon. Gentleman proposes is a much better one. He leaves it to the Committee of Selection, and gives them a discretion which, having, as I have, a knowledge of the way in which they perform their duties, I think is thoroughly justified. I have, in fact, the utmost confidence in that body. I think the right hon. Gentleman's proposal will prevent a great deal of useless labour, while it will fully carry out the intentions of the arrangement winch was agreed to in Committee between the two sides of the House. I recognise fully, not only the spirit in which the clause has been proposed, but the skill with which it has been drafted, and I think the House is indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for having brought the clause forward.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I quite recognise the spirit, also, in which the right hon. Gentleman has framed his proposal, although I do not agree with my right hon. friend as to the manner in winch he has carried it out. I hold that if there was any possibility of defeating the intention of the agreement by mere drafting, that possibility has been seized upon in the present instance. What I wish to point out is, that under tins clause, as it is now framed, it might be possible never to have recourse to the Parliamentary panel at all. If hon. Members will look at the Bill, they will see that, under Clause 4, it is provided that from the 1st day of January there shall be an extra-Parliamentary panel. Now that provision must be read along with the new clause. The extra-parliamentary panel is constituted definitely and at once, but before the Parliamentary panels can have any existence it is necessary that Standing Orders shall be passed in both Houses. What guarantee have we that the exigencies of Government business will not prevent such Standing Orders being passed. It may be that the passing of them will be postponed until the end of next session, when, if opposed or criticised, they may be allowed to drop. But,
1430
without these Standing Orders having been passed, the Committee of Selection can do nothing in the matter. I think this is a decided retrogression. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he cannot accept my Amendment. I do not care what Amendment is accepted, or in what words it is couched; all I want is that we shall have machinery which will enable this work to be done. What I wish to point out is that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment does not compel this Parliamentary panel to be formed. He may, it is true, give hints as to what is to be done, but, on the other hand, those hints may be taken no notice of, or in the absence of a standing order the Committee of Selection may never have an opportunity of considering them at all. It is not my business to make the Bill a workable one, but it is the business of Members on both sides of the House, at all events, to see that the Amendments put upon the Paper carry out the agreement which has been come to. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury gave a most sweeping undertaking on tins point. He said the intention was that the Commission should be composed of Members of Parliament, and my complaint is that the constitution of the new Commission from Members of Parliament is not secured under this clause. I trust my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition will look into this matter a little more closely. The clause, as it stands, embodies an absolutely incorrect principle against which we protested when the Bill was in Committee, and its drafting exactly reverses the compromise and understanding at which we arrived with the First Lord of the Treasury.
MR. ARTHUR ELLIOT: I am one of the oldest friends of the proposal to hold these local inquiries, and on the motion for the Second Reading of this Bill I gave it my support. But, now we have reached the Report stage, I find that a great transformation has been effected, and the Bill which I supported is utterly and entirely gone. This is an entirely new measure, which rests far more on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition than it does on the authority of my right hon. friends the Lord Advocate and the Leader of the House. We had before a Bill winch set up a

1431
tribunal which was to be a paid tribunal, and which was to hold local inquiries, and to do judicial rather than administrative work such as is now conducted by the Private Bill Committees upstairs. That tribunal was to send the result of these inquiries to Westminster. But now we find it is proposed to substitute for it something in the nature, not of an established tribunal, but a system of sending down four legislators—two Peers and two Commoners—to Scotland to hold inquiries on the spot. And this is done with the assent of the Leader of the Opposition. It has been represented time after time, for many years, that an admirable principle adopted by the Chairmen of Committees of the two Houses was to discourage the appointment on these committees of local politicians; but in the clause of the Lord Advocate there is a provision, amounting, as he says, to a hint, that Scottish Members shall be appointed as members of the Commission. That is a great departure from the principle which has always been laid down. No doubt it is desirable that the members of the Commission should be gentlemen experienced in the examination of witnesses, but instead of that it is merely proposed under this clause to send two Peers and two Commoners to conduct the inquiries. You will get a far more limited number of Members to select from than if the present system were continued of conducting the inquiries upstairs. The extraordinary character of this proposal is only appreciated when we look a little further into the Bill. What was wanted was to set up a strong tribunal which was to report to this House, and was to have the same authority, and even more authority than that possessed at present by the Committee upstairs. But now we find that it is proposed to establish a Court of Appeal from the decision of this new Commission, and it will be quite possible, if the decision of the local inquiry is not satisfactory, for all the witnesses to be brought up to London and to be again examined here.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must remind the hon. Member that he is now discussing the Bill generally, whereas the question before the House is as to the form of the tribunal.
MR. ARTHUR ELLIOT: I feel that I was going a little wide of the mark.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: We are making no change in respect of the power of appeal.
MR. ARTHUR ELLIOT: I think there is a considerable difference being made. My objection is to your giving an appeal from a Parliamentary inquiry to a Parliamentary Committee upstairs. If these proposals had been made in the Bill originally, I confess that I should have let the measure alone. But we have to deal with things as we find them. I must confess that the right hon. Gentleman has taken all taste for the Bill out of my mouth, and has robbed me of a good deal of the pleasure with which I contemplated it. I do not think that in its new form it is calculated to give general satisfaction.
DR. CLARK: I very much regret that we only had laid before us the terms of this new clause this morning. We certainly ought to have had more time to consider it. I am afraid that the Chairmen of the Selection Committees will never have the power it is proposed to give them of appointing Members of this House on the Commission. I further object to the proposal for filling up casual vacancies. The power of filling up these vacancies is to be taken away from the Chairmen and given to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and our contention is that the Chairmen, and not the Secretary for Scotland, should have this power. I certainly cannot understand why these changes have been made, and I am astonished that my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition has not seen their importance, and has not realised that they are entirely contrary to the principle of the agreement at which we arrived when the Bill was in Committee.
MR. CRIPPS: I am heartily in accord with the proposals of the Lord Advocate, because the changes which have been made really bring the Members of this House into greater prominence than they were under the original scheme. I support the clause for three reasons—first, that without some such clause the Bill would never have been workable. It is absolutely essential that a private panel should be formed from which the Chairmen may make their selection. In the second place, I am very glad that the Secretary of State for

1433
Scotland is only brought in in order to fill casual vacancies. I think it is right that he should have power of that kind, as it might possibly occur that the whole proceedings of the Commission would be stopped because of the inconvenience of communicating with the Chairman of the Committee of Selection in the event of an emergency. Thirdly, I have always objected to putting a procedure of this or the other House under Statutory obligations. I think each House should be at liberty to deal with its procedure in its own way. That is the true constitutional principle, and it has always been acted upon in the past. I heartily congratulate the Lord Advocate on having recognised and given effect to this doctrine, and I therefore give his proposal my cordial support.
MR. CROMBIE: I somewhat disagree with the hon. Gentleman, the last speaker. I do not think he attached sufficient importance to the question of filling up casual vacancies. I think it is important that the Secretary for Scotland should be removed as far as possible from this Bill, and I certainly do object to the provision that any vacancy that may occur on the Commission shall be filled up from the extra Parliamentary panel. I hope the Lord Advocate will see his way to alter that arrangement.
MR. COLVILLE: I also hope that some arrangement will be made by which vacancies will be filled up from the Parliamentary panel. I think that the Commission should be composed exclusively of Members of Parliament, and I trust that the Lord Advocate will do his best to secure that end.
Question put, and agreed to.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to move an Amendment to this new clause of the Lord Advocate's, in order that the Commissioners may be, as nearly as possible, alternately Members of the House of Lords and Members of the House of Commons.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Clause—
"In line 6, after the word 'Commissioners,' to insert the words, 'being alternately, or as nearly as may be alternately, a Member of the House of Lords and a Member of the House of Commons.'"—(Sir Charles Cameron.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I really think this is unnecessary. The hon. Member will remember that the two selecting persons are the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means in this House, and the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, and it would be extremely unlikely that the claims of either House would be disregarded. It seems to be almost ludicrous to suggest such an Amendment as this. I should have thought it would become a question of choosing the man with the most experience. I do not think there is the slightest chance of there being a run, so to speak, on either House, and in my opinion it is almost degrading to suggest it.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am also disposed to believe that no unfairness would be exercised by the selecting persons, but at the same time there is a little ambiguity about the word "alternately." Two or three of these tribunals might be appointed at the same time, and they are not to be appointed in sequence, and I do not see, then, how they could be alternative. I think we had better leave it to the good sense of the Chairmen of the Committees.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I do not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: There is another Amendment which I beg to move upon this new clause. The Lord Advocate has said all along that these tribunals should be, as much as possible, taken out of the hands of the Secretary of Scotland, and left with the Chairmen of Committees; but the proposal here is that if a vacancy occurs the Secretary for Scotland should fill it up from the extra Parliamentary panel. I propose that the Chairmen of Committees should fill up any such vacancy, not from the extra Parliamentary panel, but from the Members of this House. It is very desirable, in the interests of all parties concerned, that the selection of the tribunal should be made by persons who could have no interest in the matter.

1435
Amendment proposed to the proposed clause—
"In line 29, to leave out the words 'Secretary, for Scotland,' and insert the word 'Chairmen' (Sir Charles Cameron)—instead thereof."
Question proposed—"That the words 'Secretary for Scotland' stand part of the proposed clause."
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I do not know whether the hon. Member's memory carries him back to the Committee stage; if it does, he will recollect that he made a speech diametrically opposed to his present remarks. He then thought that the Secretary for Scotland should select from the Parliamentary panel. This power now comes in only in case of a casual vacancy at the last moment, after the date of the inquiry has been fixed. If the vacancy occurs before that, it would, of course, be filled up by the Chairmen; but after the date of the inquiry despatch is essential, and then the Secretary for Scotland should act, because he is responsible for the carrying out of the Provisional Order. I am perfectly willing to meet hon. Members by allowing members to be selected from any of the panels; but if I do so, it must be under-stood that it shall not be taken as a test of bad faith if the Secretary for Scotland should select from the extra Parliamentary panel, because I intend that he shall take the man who is ready to his hand.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause amended—
"In line 29, by leaving out the words 'the extra Parliamentary panel,' and inserting the words 'any of the panels.'—(The Lord Advocate)—instead thereof."
Clause, as amended, added.
MR. CALDWELL: This Amendment is one of a series, and the object of it is that the Chairman should decide, before the meeting of Parliament, when notice is given in November, whether a Bill shall be proceeded with under the Scotch Procedure or as a Private Bill. The result of this Bill is that you have practically two different systems of notices. But you get rid of all complication if you determine in the first place whether a Bill is to proceed as a Scotch Bill or as a Parliamentary Bill.
1436
If it is to proceed as a Parliamentary Bill the notices must be given in accordance with the Standing Orders of this House. If, on the other hand, the Bill is to proceed under the Scotch Private Legislation Procedure, let the notices be given under that procedure. It would facilitate matters very much to have this distinct procedure, because it would give more room for cheapness of procedure. Whilst my Amendment is practically to leave out the sub-section, it is afterwards put in as, applicable to Scotch Procedure; and then I have a subsequent Amendment in the case of Bills which must proceed by Order in this House. That makes the whole procedure uniform so far as regards any Bill which, ultimately, must come to this House.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 20, to leave out Sub-section (3) of Clause 1"—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Question proposed, "That the words of the subsection, to the word 'give,' in line 21, stand part of the Bill."
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I will put before the House just what we wanted, and explain what the difficulties of the situation are. We all feel that under the present procedure there is a great deal of unnecessary expense in the matter of notices and advertisements, and we were very anxious in the new procedure to remedy that if possible. Also, if the Chairman decided that a proposal should proceed by Private Bill instead of by Provisional Order, we wanted that whatever steps had been taken should not be wasted. Keeping those objects in view, there were, obviously only two ways of proceeding. One is the method proposed by the hon. Member opposite, and the other is that proposed by the Amendment which stands in my name. The idea of the hon. Member for Lanark is a very good one so far as it goes. He says:—
"Let the Chairman decide this question, and after he has decided let the procedure be either the modified notice for a Provisional Order or the other notice for a Bill."
The difficulty about that is this, that it is almost impossible for the Chairman to decide unless he has some sort of notice to begin with. He must, in deciding these questions, give some heed to such representation as may be addressed to him by

1437
opponents to the Bill. But opponents can hardly make their representations unless there has been some notice. Obviously the question of time is also of great moment. The other plan is what may be called a modified form of notice, which would do everything necessary to begin with. If the Chairman then decided that a Provisional Order is to be the method of procedure, all that is necessary will have been done. If, on the other hand, it is decided the matter must proceed by Private Bill, let what has been done be available; but, of course, leave it to the House to prescribe by Standing Order what more they want done. I certainly think the latter is the better plan.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Other Amendments made.
Another Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 16, after the word 'Order,' to insert the words 'or relate to any matter which had already been refused by the Secretary for Scotland in any previous application for a Provisional Order under this Act.'"—(Sir Charles Cameron.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am afraid I could not accept this Amendment. In the first place, it would be one that would be very difficult to bring to the test—" or relate to any matter which had already been refused." That is rather a difficult question sometimes to determine, and it would really open the I door to getting out of the provisions of the Act altogether. If the Secretary for Scotland was impervious, and was refusing everything, I think the way would not be altogether blocked, because that would be quite a proper matter to bring before the Chairmen on the next occasion, with a view to influencing their decision as to whether it should be by Private Bill or not.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. CRIPPS: The House will remember that there was a Division on this point in the Committee stage. This Subsection 5 is not necessary as regards the procedure, because it is safeguarded by the word "shall" in Sub-section 1, Section 1. It is not possible to foresee what
1438
possible conditions may arise in the future. I do not want at this stage to start a prolonged discussion, because it was discussed on the Committee stage; but I should like the Lord Advocate to explain how it is that, after the promise was made that this constitutional point should be considered, no steps have been taken. I should like the Lord Advocate to explain why he wishes to retain this sub-section.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 29, to leave out Sub-section (5) of Clause 2."—(Mr. Cripps.)
Question proposed, "That Sub-section (5) of Clause 2, stand part of the Bill."
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I confess that the matter has been really overlooked; but if the hon. and learned Member will be content with another promise, I will see what can be done to meet the case.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
DR. CLARK: An inquiry may be required, or may not be required. If it is not required, there is no need to send it up; but if is required, then it can be carried on. I beg to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 26, to leave out the word 'shall,' and insert the word 'may.'"—(Dr. Clark.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'shall,' stand part of the clause."
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I accept this Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I think that if the Commissioners and the opposing parties desire to hold the inquiry elsewhere, it is only reasonable that their wishes should be respected. I beg to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 4, line 17, after the word 'relate,' to insert the words, 'or they may hold such inquiry elsewhere as the Commissioners may, with the consent of the parties promoting and opposing tile Order, fix.'"—(Sir Charles Cameron.)

1439
Question proposed—" That those words be there inserted."
Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I think if the hon. Baronet will look carefully at the clause, he will see that it has been carefully framed to guard against the difficulty he has raised. Of course, the holding of these inquiries will be regulated by common sense.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Other Amendments made.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: The object of this Amendment is to meet a case in which a condition may be attached to the issue of an Order to which neither the promoters nor the opponents agree, and in such a case it is proposed to allow an appeal.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 34, after the word 'held,' to insert the words '(c) or Amendments have been nettle on the Order since it was originally submitted.'"—(Sir Charles Cameron.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: This Amendment introduces what I may call an absolutely cross division. Under Clause 7, where there is no opposition, or where the opposition has been withdrawn before inquiry held, then the Secretary for Scotland issues the Order. Of course, if there has been no inquiry, all the Secretary for Scotland has to go on is the Order as it is put before him. Under Clause 8, although there may be no opposition, the matter may be thought of sufficient importance to have an inquiry, and the Secretary for Scotland shall refuse to issue a Provisional Order if the Commissioners report that the Order should not be made. He is therefore bound by the result of the inquiry. The Amendment, however, introduces a new consideration altogether, and would make the section unreadable. Where we have divisions of this kind we must work them out on the lines of the division.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Other Amendments made.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: Unless some such provision as this Amendment is inserted in the Bill, the Secretary for Scotland will be an absolute autocrat, and there will be no getting past any refusal on his part. He will, in fact, be a despot in matters of Private Bill legislation.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 11, after the word 'prescribed,' to insert the words, '(2a) If the Secretary for Scotland shall refuse to issue any Orgler under either of the two preceding sections of this Act, the promoters may, within ten clear days after the date of such refusal, present a petition to either House of Parliament praying that the Order so refused may be referred to the Joint Committee provided for in the next succeeding section in the same way as is provided with respect to a Confirmation Bill under the said section.'"—(Sir Charles Cameron.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there insetted."
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: Of course, there are two positions under which the Secretary for Scotland will act. First, where there is no inquiry and no opposition, and I think I have already dealt practically with that. But really that is not the important case. Second, when the Commissioners report against the Order. This Amendment would give an absolute right of appeal to Parliament, and that is entirely against our Parliamentary traditions in such matters. If a person loses his Bill before a Committee of the House of Commons at the present moment, he has not the right to appeal to the House of Lords, but has to wait for another year and then start again, and we propose that that should continue. I would remind the hon. Member that the very fact that we have now a tribunal practically consisting of Members of Parliament is an additional reason why the Amendment cannot be accepted. I think the House will see that it would be an innovation on our present practice which is not needed in the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. THOMAS SHAW: I think it will be necessary for me to trouble the House with a Division on this Amendment, because it goes to the root of the question as to

1441
whether the Bill, as framed, will in its operation be successful or not. The blot on the Bill as it now stands is undoubtedly Section 9. After the elaborate provisions in the first eight sections for an inquiry on the spot as to the merits or demerits of a Provisional Order, we find there comes a section for subsequent procedure in Parliament, and we ask ourselves the question, What was the use of all our attempts to save expense and to simplify procedure in the preceding sections? It seems to me that if Clause 9 remains in the Bill, we might have saved all our time and trouble in enacting this measure. I would call the attention of the House to the fact that, while I am proposing a certain Amendment as an addition to Sub-section 3 of Clause 8, it is really a substitution for Section 9, regarding which I have a further Amendment to delete it altogether. I come now to the precautions already taken in the Bill now before us. The new system which is to be introduced has a variety of conditions and restrictions. In the first place, it applies to Bills which are mainly or wholly Scotch; in the second place, there are to be excluded from the advantages of the measure all cases except those which are small and relatively unimportant; and in the third place, it is expressly provided in the Bill that no Provisional Order with the advantage of this procedure can be carried through the House if there is any question of public policy involved. With all these conditions and restrictions we ask ourselves, What more can anyone desire to make it quite clear that the measure is only applicable to what I might call relatively trivial and unimportant Scotch Private Bills. Parliament itself has, in the previous sections, sufficiently asserted its power to deal even with these matters by providing for an inquiry on the spot in which both Houses shall be represented. I would call the attention of the House to the following express provision in Section 6, Sub-section (3): "Commissioners may hear and decide upon the preamble before discussing clauses." What I want to put to the House is this. If you have a local inquiry by a Parliamentary tribunal which shall pass the preamble of the Bill and discuss its clauses, and which will frame suggestions and Amendments ultimately to be adopted by this House, what more does anyone want
1442
in the shape of an inquiry? Surely the Government will take this view into consideration. Supposing the Bill had practically concluded at Section 8, and supposing we had proposed an equivalent to Section 9, and had said that, notwithstanding all that was done in the first eight clauses, yet there should be an elaborate subsequent procedure in Parliament, and that an Order which had already been inquired into on the spot should be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, and that the opponent should, subject to the practice of Parliament, be allowed to appear and oppose by himself, his counsel, agent and witnesses—I wonder what the Government would have thought. That is the view I take, from whatever quarter this clause has originated. I say that Section 9 is a provision under which the real object of the Bill is to be completely undone and obliterated, because the most obstinate and fastidious and overbearing opponent has all that he can desire or deserve under the Parliamentary procedure up to Section 8. Therefore, what I propose is to substitute for Section 9, that there shall be power to bring in at once a Confirmation Bill, but with a reserve power to either House of Parliament, when the Bill stands as an Order of the Day, to refer the Bill back to the Commissioners for further inquiry and report, either generally or with special instructions. Now, a good deal has been said in regard to reserving the powers of Parliament. I ask if this is not sufficient reservation of the powers of Parliament. First, Parliament may visit the spot and make inquiry; and, second, when the Bill returns here it may be thrown out on the Third Reading, or when any new point has emerged, Parliament may refer that point back to its own Commissioners for further inquiry and report. There are only two objections which can be made to the proposal I now venture to make. The first is, that the Government is committed by precedent; and the second, that the opinion of Scotland is in favour of this wrecking proposal or scheme in Clause 9. In regard to precedents it is wholly wrong. I may frankly tell the House that I have framed the language of the Amendment from the language of the Bills of 1891 and 1892, introduced by the Unionist Government of that day, in which this

1443
very provision for the re-remit upon a particular point was reserved. And it was emphatically declared by these Bills that there should be no power to remit to a Select Committee of either House or a Joint Committee of both Houses. I say that instead of the Government sheltering themselves under precedents, I am sheltering myself under precedents formed by the Government themselves or their predecessors in title in 1891 and 1892. The further question is: "Does Scotland want this wrecking proposal?" Scotland has not had very much time to consider it, but we have two very important pieces of evidence as to the feeling of Scotland, which we can bring before the House. The first is, that the best friends which this measure ever had—the Convention of Royal and Parliamentary Burghs—seems rather aghast at the idea that Section 9 is to be enacted by Parliament. In a memorandum which the Convention has been good enough to furnish to the Members of the House it is said:
"Probably, too, since Parliament clearly means fairly to try how Local Inquiry and Report would work, as coining in the place of the present Private Bill Committee's Inquiry and Report, the Bill will emerge shorn of Clauses 8 and 9, and containing only the provision for a public Confirming Bill, to be held on introduction as at the Report stage, and requiring only a formal rendering in all cases of Provisional Orders, whether these have been opposed or unopposed."
I had not seen that when I framed my Amendment. I have shown that the Convention of Royal and Parliamentary Burghs is in favour of my Amendment, and that it follows the precedents made by the predecessors of the Government themselves. But the Convention of Royal and Parliamentary Burghs has not stopped there. It has petitioned this House, and in that petition, which was presented by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh, it is said:
"Your Petitioners are of opinion that the privilege conferred on opponents by that Section (9) should not be given, as in opposed measures it virtually deprives the public of the benefits which it is the object of the present Bill to confer."
I do not want to refer to Section 9 in any stronger language than is here employed. I do not shut my eyes to the fact that there is a representation of Scotland in this House. I have already raised this identical question in the House, and I ask
1444
the impartial consideration of the House of Commons to the result. We had a Division substantially on this question, and we had in favour of Her Majesty's Government's wrecking proposal, thirteen Unionist Scotch Members, while we had against it 25 Liberal Scotch Members and 6 Unionist Scotch Members—in all, 13 against my proposal and 31 representatives in favour of it. Now, I am bound to say that we have had just a little too much this Session already of suffering from adverse decisions on purely Scotch questions. On a non-party question of this kind, why will not Her Majesty's Government allow the Scotch Members to have some say in the government of their own country? And I do not for the life of me see why Her Majesty's Government should be so obstinate in a matter which is going to make the Bill positively ridiculous and useless. We have got to the fact that Parliament is going to the spot to make inquiry and to report, and why then should there be brought in afterwards all the paraphernalia of an opposed Bill before the two Houses of Parliament, with counsel and agents and no end of a plethora of expense involved before a Select Committee or a Joint Committee of both Houses? Every man who wishes well to this scheme of reform will support this Amendment, and I know that every man who wishes to hamper that scheme and make it absolutely useless for the purpose it is designed to serve will oppose the Amendment. I wish Clause 9 to go out of the Bill, and that the local inquiry should be first and final; and in order to I do that, I call on all hon. Members of the House to support the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 15, after the word 'and,' to insert the words, 'said Bill after introduction shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages up to and including Committee, and shall be ordered to be considered in either House as if reported from a Committee.
"(4) Either House may, when the Bill stands as an Order of the Day, refer the Bill back to the Commissioners for further inquiry and report, either generally or with special instructions, but shall not be entitled to refer the Bill to a Select Committee or a Joint Committee of the two Houses."—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. CRIPPS: The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member would really alter the whole framework of the Bill as introduced. He has stated that Clause 9, which has been part of the Bill from the commencement, would render the whole of the Bill useless. But before I go into the merits of that, I should like to refer to another statement of the hon. and learned Member. He seems to think that only Scotch Members have an interest in this Bill. I deny that altogether, and it has been denied over and over again in the course of the Debate. What we are dealing with here is the right method of dealing with Private Bill legislation, and almost every Member has admitted that we ought to see whether the scheme is in itself a good scheme, not only in regard to Scotland, but a scheme which will fit any devolution that may be made of the powers of Parliament to other parts of the United Kingdom. From that point of view every Member of this House may, and ought, to express his opinion, and give the weight of his opinion, if there is any Division, on any subject connected with it. There is another point on which I differ from the hon. and learned Gentleman. He talks about precedents; but I question whether he can really say that a Bill formerly before the House is a precedent in the way he used the term. I say that you cannot have any precedent in regard to legislation unless the Bill has been actually passed into law.
MR. THOMAS SHAW: The Bills I cited were the Bills which a Unionist Government introduced as expressing their views.
MR. CRIPPS: I maintain that no one can suggest that any proposal in a Bill which does not get beyond the Bill stage is a precedent at all. It may be valuable as exhibiting the opinion of a certain Government or of the hon. Member who introduced it, but it is not a legislative precedent. Besides, matters are not to be decided merely by questions of precedent. We undoubtedly entertain new principles from time to time. This Provisional Order system, in one form or other, is not new; and at the present time there is an appeal both to a Committee of this House and to a Committee of the House of Lords. I totally disagree
1446
with the hon. and learned Member that it is in accordance with experience that you get a large number of appeals in regard to Provisional Orders of this class. It is comparatively seldom that you get a point of sufficient importance to make it a matter of appeal either before this House or a Committee of the House of Lords. But why should it always be thought necessary to have appeals of this character? With matters of large pecuniary interest to be settled, it is most necessary, to ensure against the miscarriage of justice, that you should in certain cases give the right of appeal. I recollect the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for West Monmouth, who discussed these matters very much in the past year, always pointing out the necessity of some appeal of this kind; and here you put the appeal in a form which will cause the least expense to the suitor, and at the same time guarantee the best possible tribunal when the appeal comes to be heard. I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will not say, if he has had experience of these local inquiries, which, after all, are held in a rough-and-ready manner, that where you may have very important issues involved, you ought to have no power for their reconsideration. That would be contrary to the experience of everyone who has dealt with questions of this character. It is carrying the idea of economy too far, unless yon can ensure the administration of justice. Although, of course, everyone wants all judicial inquiries of this kind to be as economical as possible, you must not sacrifice the interests of justice to the interests of economy. When there are important issues, you must have some tribunal where they can be ultimately discussed after the true issue between the parties is thoroughly understood and appreciated. We have an illustration of that in the practice of this House in regard to other legislation. It sometimes transpires, when matters reach the Report stage, that they have been insufficiently considered in the Committee stage, and require further consideration. I must say that I hope the Government will not at the last moment alter what really is the framework of the Bill. I hope they will preserve this right. It is necessary, to my mind, in the first instance, in order to ensure a proper system under which justice can be done in what may be a complicated inquiry;

1447
and, secondly, in order that this House may have a reasonable and just control over all the more important questions with reference to which objections have been made. On these two grounds I hope the Lord Advocate will retain his position.
MR. HEDDERWICK:I regard this point as one of the utmost importance. I am perfectly satisfied that if this clause is retained the measure will be almost rendered nugatory. As far as I understand the desire on the part of my fellow-countrymen for a measure such as this, it was founded upon certain definite grounds. One was, that Scotch matters, in the nature of private Bills, should be settled by the local decision as far as possible in Scotland; in the next place, that that settlement should be achieved with despatch; and, in the third place, that it should be accompanied with as great a saving of expense as possible. Now, the hon. and learned Member for the Stroud Division seems to labour under the hallucination that we object altogether to the great interest which he has shown in this Amendment. I do not think that that is the case. I think we have been very grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the experience and the amount of light that he has cast upon the whole subject. Nor do we object to the expression of opinion which has been heard very freely, I confess, upon this measure, which really, however, concerns Scotland alone. If I may, without offence, say so, I think the hon. and learned Member for the Stroud Division seems to be under the misapprehension that if this clause is withdrawn, the whole of the Parliamentary control which would be left in this Bill would be purely nominal. So far from that being the case, under the Bill as it now stands the whole of these proceedings are, in the first place, to be before the Commissioners, who are to be appointed by the Chairman of this House and the Chairman of the House of Lords; and when these Commissioners have done their work, no Order under the Secretary of State is to be of any validity at all until it has been confirmed by Parliament and become what is known and referred to in the Bill as a Confirmation Bill. But what the Lord Advocate now proposes is that when the Confirmation Bill is intro-
1448
duced if anyone chooses to present a petition seven days before the Second Reading, all that has taken place in Scotland under those selected Members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords is to become absolutely of no effect, and the whole of the proceedings are to be rendered absolutely nugatory. And, more than that, the Joint Committee before whom the proceedings are then to come are to have a new power, namely, a power of loading one or other of the parties, as they may think fit, with the whole of the cost, from the initiation of the proceedings. That, I think, is a very serious consideration. If the object of the Lord Advocate is to satisfy the genuine and honest desire on the part of the people of Scotland to have such matters as would come before the House under existing circumstances, in a private Bill, decided locally, after a competent inquiry, before two selected Members of this House, and to have that done with despatch and at small cost, then I say, this Section 9, if it is to remain, will be absolutely fatal. But why should the hon. and learned Member suppose that the Amendment of my hon. and learned friend proposes that the control should not be left in the hands of this House? What is the Amendment which my hon. and learned friend proposes to substitute? After the Commissioners inquiring into the matter in the locality have made their report, and after the Order which the Secretary for Scotland has to lay upon the Table of this House has, in due course, become a Confirmation Bill, the House, if it were to exclude the Amendment of my hon. and learned friend, would then be able, if it thought fit, to send back that Bill to the Commission from whom the Report emanated, with instructions for a further report, or with instructions for further information upon any point which this House thought necessary or desirable. What more does the hon. and learned Member for the Stroud Division desire? Does he desire at one and the same time, in one and the same measure, to give to Scotland the pretence of deciding upon its own affairs, and then, after the cost of the inquiry has been incurred,—a cost which, I am afraid, will be by no means small; probably very much more than the promoters of this Bill anticipate—that it shall be rendered of no effect, but that the matter shall be inquired into and gone over before a Joint Committee

1449
of this House, as if no local inquiry had ever taken place before? I must say that this matter seems to me to be more absurd when yon consider the number of Orders that are likely to be applied for. I understand that the average number of Bills from Scotland that come before the Committees is something like twenty-two yearly, and out of those twenty-two one might, I think, very fairly say that there is not one which does not involve property of very great value. But if these twenty-two Bills are of great value, and if we are to take the Provisional Orders that are likely to approximate to that number, or even exceed it, how absurd it would be to suppose that any one of the parties to the application for a Provisional Order would rest satisfied with the decision, no matter how fair or how just it might be, arrived at by the Commissioners appointed by the Chairmen of the two Houses of Parliament, when he was aware that the whole matter would be tried again before a Joint Committee of this House? I venture to think that there is scarcely an opposed Bill at the present moment which, if it came before the new tribunal which the learned Lord Advocate is about to set up, and if it were defeated, would not again be brought before the Joint Committee on the chance of getting the decision of the court repealed. I am confident that if this section is retained it will not only have a nugatory effect, but will create a feeling of great dissatisfaction throughout Scotland. In illustration of that, I think the paragraph which has been quoted by my hon. and learned friend, coming from so well-known and so representative a body as the Royal Convention of Burghs in Scotland, is the best evidence that could be obtained of the measure of approbation that is likely to be meted out to this particular section.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I do not know that I have really anything to add to what I stated on this matter in Committee. I gave the reasons then which made it impossible for me to withdraw this clause, and I have not heard of anything since to make me change my position. But I am bound to say that in the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech he used words which I must say were either somewhat exaggerated, or show his soul to be filled with dismal foreboding as to the effect of the clause. He spoke
1450
of this clause as a "wrecking clause." That phrase would lead one to think that it referred to something new that had been sprung upon the House. But that is not the case. On the contrary, this clause has been in the Bill since the very beginning, and it was also in the Bill of last year. The hon. Gentleman also said that Scotland has had little time to consider it. Scotland has enjoyed two years in which to consider it, in addition to which the existence of this clause was made a great matter of argument during the Second Reading discussion. The hon. Member for Wick said that hon. Members were really afraid that the result of this clause would be to render the whole matter nugatory. Hon. Members will please remember that at this moment, under the Provisional Order system, any opponent who thinks that his interests are damnified by the Provisional Order has the chance of coming to Parliament and taking the opinion, not only of one House, but of both Houses. How has that been taken advantage of? We have the figures of 1888 to 1897 inclusive. During that time there were 1,980 Provisional Orders dealt with, only 75 of which were brought by way of appeal to Parliament. Now, 75 is something less than 4 per cent., and what was the fate of the 75? Of this number the decision of the original tribunal was confirmed in every case except seven, or less than ·04 per cent. Apply this percentage to the figures which the hon. Member for Wick gave. He said that on an average there are 22 private Scotch Bills a year. If the experience of the future, however, is the experience of the past, what will happen to the 22 Bills is that there will be one appeal a year, and only every four years will one appeal be successful. Under this Bill the Government propose to give the Joint Committee a power of awarding costs by a majority. The reason of that is to check anything like undue appealing. I should be going back on the pledges given to the other sections of the House, and going against the right of individuals to secure justice, if I yielded on this question. I have treated the matter all through as a Parliamentary, and not as a Scotch question.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the fact that this matter was very fully discussed in Committee, and those hon.

1451
Members who take an interest in it at all have no doubt said all that there is to be said for and against the Amendment of my hon. and learned friend. But there is one argument which has arisen since the Debate in Committee which deserves a little consideration. I was astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman put that aside on the ground that it was a time-honoured argument. I should have thought that a time-honoured argument would have had all the greater weight; but that argument, obscure and perhaps useless according to the view of the right hon. Gentleman, is the decisive expression of opinion of the Scotch representatives in the Division on this matter, the proportion being 13 to 31, and a great many going out, in the manner with which we are so familiar because they could not get their own way, but did not like to vote against a Member of the Government for whom they have such very high respect as the right hon. Gentleman opposite. We none of us like voting against him, but we have to do it sometimes. My hon. and learned friend the Member for Stroud referred to this as being a Scotch question, and said that he did not wish to look at it from a Scotch point of view. I quite understand that; but let me say that we have welcomed all through the discussion of the Bill the right of the hon. and learned Gentleman to take the part he has in the discussion, because, although we have often been obliged to take an opposite side on some Amendments, we all recognise his great knowledge of the subject and the great desire he has shown to make this a thoroughly practicable and useful measure, and we appreciate the benefit of his assistance in maintaining from first to last the authority and competence of Parliament in this matter. But although that is true, and although it is natural that the hon. and learned Gentleman should consider rather the larger question of Parliamentary expediency, we have to consider the Scotch aspect of this question, namely, the desire to have a thorough local inquiry into these contentious proposals. Well, how in the world, if your object is to make that local inquiry as good and as effective as possible, can you think that you assist that object in saying that the inquiry and all its results shall be subject to be overruled by a Committee here? The Lord Advocate spoke of the existing and past system of Provisional Orders, and to the
1452
fact that there have been few appeals in the cases of these Provisional Orders; and my hon. and learned friend the Member for Stroud spoke of these local inquiries as being inquiries of a rough-and-ready kind. The local inquiry under the Provisional Order system was undoubtedly an inquiry which might deserve that name; but here we are going to set up a great constitutional tribunal, and to import to Scotland Members of the House of Commons and Peers from another place in order to give dignity, as well as stability, to the tribunal which we are setting up. That cannot be a rough-and-ready inquiry. It will be as thorough and complete an inquiry as was ever held in any of the Committee-rooms upstairs. And then, having had this joint Committee of the two Houses going down to Scotland, you are going to have another joint Committee of the two Houses to review all that has been done. I cannot understand the pertinacity with which the Government adhere to this proposal. We must consider the effect of this upon the attitude of the Members and Peers who are to go to Scotland to conduct the local inquiries. I am sanguine that they will be glad to go. If they consider their own health and pleasure they will go, but in any case I think there will be little difficulty in filling this tribunal from the two Houses of Parliament. But if they are to go down for the mere purpose of having their work done over again, and their decisions reversed by another Committee in London, they will say, "No, if I am to do this thing I will do it up here in my own way. I will wait until it comes to me instead of going down to it." There would be less disposition to go to Scotland than if this new tribunal had the duty upon it of ultimately deciding the matters submitted to them, subject, of course, to the general review of Parliament in the two Houses. I am surprised that the Lord Advocate should be so stubborn, because he has been so reasonably and pleasantly plastic on some other matters of importance, and there is an unmistakable verdict in favour of this Amendment of 31 to 13, which are figures which we must never forget in connection with this matter. These figures are a clear indication of the opinion of Scotch Members on both sides of the House, because this is not a Party question. The Lord Advocate pointed out how few of

1453
these Bills would come up, and said there would be little or nothing for the Committee to do. Therefore, we are to set up this Committee in order that it may do nothing! It seems such a novel argument to use. But the right hon. Gentleman is so persistent in his adherence to the proposal in the Bill, that there is nothing left to do—after a few more fervid Scotch Members have discharged their emotion on the subject—but to repeat and, if possible, better the 31 to 13.
SIR MARK STEWART: here are two reasons for bringing forward this Bill, to my mind. One is the development of railways to a larger extent than has hitherto been found to be expedient in Scotland; and the other to avoid the great expense of coming up to Parliament to obtain the Acts of Parliament necessary for the making of new railways. I am satisfied, from my own experience, and from what I know of the opinion of Scotland on the subject, that this Bill is weakened and marred by the ninth clause. You cannot develop railways in these districts if you are opposed by the wealthy landowners, and though you may be successful at the local tribunal, you have another tribunal to face at Westminster, and that fact will deter many promoters from endeavouring to extend the railway system. I much regret that the Government have not given way in this matter, as the purpose for which this Bill is wanted is to save expense.
MR. R. WALLACE: The hon. Member for Stroud is asking the House to reject this Amendment, upon the ground that it alters entirely the framework of the original Bill, but the hon. and learned Gentleman has forgotten that the Bill we are now dealing with is not the Bill which received a Second Reading in this House—it has been entirely altered in its character. This clause was necessary in the original Bill for the purpose of preserving the control of Parliament, because the local inquiry was to be conducted by Commissioners outside of this House. Now, the proposal is that the inquiry is to be conducted by a Joint Committee of the two Houses, which is to go down to Scotland for that purpose. In the original Bill the inquiry was to be held by an outside Committee. Now it is proposed to do a thing which has never been done
1454
before, and that is to have an appeal from a Joint Committee of the two Houses sitting in Scotland to a joint Committee of the two Houses sitting in London. That is a great disappointment to Scotland. We believe if that is allowed the Bill will be deprived of its chief recommendation. Instead of cheapening proceedings, this will add to it expense. Money having been spent in Scotland to begin with, this simply drags the promoters up to London to spend more. I earnestly urge, in order that this Bill shall be a great success, and that it may enable the people of Scotland to promote schemes for the benefit of the country, that he will reconsider the determination he has come to and accept this Amendment in some form.
MR. STUART WORTLEY: I think we ought to adhere to the provisions of the Bill, because Parliament must have the right ultimately to say whether a Provisional Order shall become law or not. It is only going to be asked to say so in opposed cases. If this Amendment is passed, opposed Orders could only be dealt with on the Report stage or upon Third Reading. On these stages the representatives of the promoters on the one hand, and of the opponents on the other hand, will make statements absolutely contradictory to one another, the relative value of which the House will be totally unable to try; and in cases of that kind the House ought to be able to refer the matter to a Committee upstairs. It may be said that the Joint Committee should have the power of sitting locally. Well, for my part, I do not see that it should necessarily sit at Westminster; but for the purpose of trying cases where the facts are in dispute, I certainly think we ought to have the power of ordering the Committee to hold a second inquiry.
MR. CROMBIE: The difference between the contention of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down and the Amendment is infinitesimal. The reason why we Scotch Members wish this clause to be taken out is solely that of expense. That, indeed, is the sole raison d'être of the Bill. There is no objection to the present procedure except on the ground of cost. If it was not for the expense, we should not be here considering this

1455
Bill. The paramount argument is that if it is an expensive procedure then it is a wrong one. The whole question is a very small one, and I hope when the Lord Advocate comes to reconsider the matter he will adopt a more conciliatory attitude upon this particular Amendment.
MR. JOHN WILSON: Many of us would like to see this Bill carried through, and I, as a supporter of the Government, am sorry to see the Lord Advocate so stiff-necked on this Amendment. I should like to urge upon him the opinion of Scotland with regard to this matter. The whole idea is to save expense, and we are going by this clause to increase the expense. I shall be bound to vote against the Government in this matter, and I believe I am voicing the opinion of many Scotch Unionist Members in supporting this Amendment. If there is to be a local inquiry and a second one at Westminster, the expense will be greater than ever, and I appeal to the Lord Advocate to reconsider his attitude.
MR. J. P. SMITH: I hope the Government will adhere to the line which they have taken up. The Lord Advocate is on sound ground when he shows how this clause is likely to be used. Our principle has always been to have a chance of appeal, but my hon. friend talks as if it were an appeal from one Committee to another. I cannot see the difference between an appeal to a Joint Committee, and an appeal to a Committee of the House of Lords and Commons. I think the Government are perfectly right in the stand they have taken.
DR. CLARK: I should like to know whether the Government are willing to accept any compromise on this subject.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I have gone as far as I can upon the matter, and cannot accept any compromise.
MR. C. M. DOUGLAS: I think the argument of the hon. Member for Partick is tantamount to a defence of the present system of Private Bill procedure. What he said in defence of the Amendment is simply that this clause is against the principle of simplicity and economy which this Bill is supposed to advance. It is not as an attack upon the Bill, but as a justification and defence of it, that we desire to omit this clause. What has been said on the subject of Provisional Orders appears to me rather to miss the very point of the purview of this Bill. The Bill is intended to deal with a class of business which is not really identical with that dealt with by Provisional Orders. The proposal in the clause is not in any true sense an appeal. The Amendment really gives an appeal in the same sense as the original clause; in either case you have a possibility of a recommittal, but in the clause as it stands you do not have that which I believe is essential, viz., a tribunal different it in its character from that the decision of which is appealed against.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 114; Noes, 159. (Division List, No. 218.)

AYES.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

Harwood, George

Allen, W. (Newc-under-Lyme)

Crombie, John William

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Arrol, Sir William

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Dalziel, James Henry

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

Austin, M.

Davies, M. Vaughan(Card'g'n)

Hobhouse, Henry

Bartley, George C. T.

Davitt, Michael

Hogan, James Francis

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Denny, Colonel

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

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Dewar, Arthur

Horniman, Frederick John

Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

Dilke, Rt Hon. Sir Charles

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Billson, Alfred

Dillon, John

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Donelan, Captain A.

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Doogan, P. C.

Joicey, Sir James

Caldwell, James

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Kilbride, Denis

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Evans, S. T. Glamorgan)

Lambert, George

Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Langley, Batty

Channing, Francis Allston

Flynn, James Christoper

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

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

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Leng, Sir John

Clough, Walter Owen

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lewis, John Herbert

Colvile, John

Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

Lyell, Sir Leonard

Macaleese, Daniel

Palmer, Geo. Wm. (Reading)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

MacDonnell, Dr. M.A. (Q'n'sC

Paulton, James Mellor

Tennant, Harold John

M'Ewan, William

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

M'Killop, James

Pickard, Benjamin

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wallace, Robert

M'Leod, John

Price, Robert John

Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe.

Randell, David

Wedderburn, Sir William

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

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

Weir, James Galloway

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

Moss, Samuel

Robson, William Snowdon)

Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Schwann, Charles E.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Shaw, Charles Edw.(Stafford)

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

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

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Wilson, John (Govan)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

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

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Yoxall, James Henry

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Oldroyd, Mark

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durham

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Mr. Munro Ferguson

NOES.

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

FitzWygram, General Sir F.

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

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Morrell, George Herbert

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Morton, Arthur H.A.(Deptford

Baird, J. George Alexander

Garfit, William

Mount, William George

Balcarres, Lord

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

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

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

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Murray, Chas. J. Coventry)

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

Gilliat, John Saunders

Newdigate, Francis Alex.

Banbury, Frederick George

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Pollock, Harrick Frederick

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Goschen, Rt Hn GJ (St.George's

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Bethell, Commander

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Gretton, John

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Blakiston-Houston, John

Gull, Sir Cameron

Purvis, Robert

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Pym, C. Guy

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Brassey, Albert

Heath, James

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Helder Augustus

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

Bullard, Sir Harry

Henderson, Alexander

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Butcher, John George

Hill, Arthur (Down, West)

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Carlile, William Walter

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

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

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

Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Howard, Joseph

Rutherford, John

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

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

Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)

Seely, Charles Hilton

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Spencer, Ernest

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Kenyon, James

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

Keswick, William

Stock, James Henry

Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Cranborne, Viscount

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Strauss, Arthur

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton)

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

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

Cruddas, William Donaldson

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Valentia, Viscount

Currie, Sir Donald

Lucas-Shadwell, William

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

Curzon, Viscount

Macartney, W G. Ellison

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

Dalkeith, Earl of

Macdona, John Cumming

Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.)

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Maclure, Sir John William

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Doughty, George

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

Douglas, Et. Hon. A. Akers-

Maple, Sir John Blundell

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

Doxford, William Theodore

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

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

Drucker, A.

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Ellis, John Edward

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

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

Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Young, Commander (Berks, E.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Milton, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Fisher, William Hayes

Monk, Charles James

Sir William Walrond and

Fison, Frederick William

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Mr. Anstruther.

Question put and agreed to.

MR. THOMAS SHAW: I had given notice to omit Clause 9, but I shall loyally accept the decision of the House, and not move it.
DR. CLARK: Seeing the result of the last Division, and knowing the feelings of Scotch Members on both sides of the House, perhaps the Lord Advocate will consider the permissive aspect of the case, and give the House the option of either having a second inquiry or referring it back to the Commissioners. The Government might consent to one of two things—either to give the House the option to which I have referred, or, by Statute, to permit the new Joint Committee to sit in Scotland, and by that means carry out the principle of always having a local inquiry.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 23, after the word 'orders,' to insert the words, 'and if the petition has already been considered and reported on by a Commission of two Members of each House of Parliament, either House may refer the Bill to the Commissioners.'"—(Dr. Clark.)
Question proposed,—" That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I think I must adhere to the Bill as it is in this respect.
DR. CLARK: As certain Standing Orders have to be drafted, and this point can be dealt with then, I will withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 26, to leave out the word agent.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Question proposed,—" That the word 'agent' stand part of the Bill."
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am willing to consider this point, and, if necessary, alter it afterwards.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Other Amendments made.
MR. CALDWELL: I desire to move to leave out Sub-section 3. The Lord
1460
Advocate claimed that the object of this Bill was to protect the man with the smaller interests. But what would be his position under this Bill in the event of an appeal? The present practice is that, so far as the Committee are concerned, there must be unanimity on the question of awarding costs. If you put in here a clause that the Joint Committee by a majority may award costs, what is to become of the man with the smaller interests? It new mean ruin to him. I can perfectly well understand how the Lord Advocate may wish to discourage appeals, but he cannot have it both ways. He cannot leave in a clause like this and still say his scheme is intended for the benefit of the smaller interests in Scotland. The smaller interests, as a matter of course, would be overborne by the larger, because the larger interests would threaten the smaller that, in the event of their appealing, costs would be awarded against them. If a clause of this kind is put in, the Committee would necessarily consider that they ought to award costs. It would be said "Why did Parliament put the clause in, unless it was an indication that costs were to be awarded?" I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 36, to leave out Sub-section 3, of Clause 9."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'the Joint Committee,' stand part of the Bill."
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I really practically dealt with this question in the discussion just over. I am sorry I could not go so far as the hon. Members desired, but certainly part of my argument was based on the provision to give costs, and I cannot possibly accept the Amendment.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: In the case of a Private Bill Committee, if the Committee are unanimous, costs may be awarded in the event of vexatious and unreasonable opposition. The Lord Advocate proposes to go two steps further. In the first place, he does not require unanimity on the part of the Commissioners, but a majority may award costs; and in the second place, he takes away the safeguard of "vexatious and unreasonable opposition."

1461
I am quite certain this section with regard to costs will deter the small objectors from coming forward. My Amendment does not go so far as that now before the House, in that it proposes to allow the Commissioners by a majority to award costs, but safeguards the proposal by requiring that they should be awarded only in the case of unreasonable or vexatious opposition. I shall, however, support the Amendment of my hon. friend.
DR. CLARK: I cannot agree with either of the Amendments of my hon. friends. As the clause stands, it really means that a three-fourths majority will be required. This clause seems to me to be one of the wise clauses in the Bill to prevent corporations who do not care about spending money from coming here and putting the smaller men to great expense. I hope the House will adopt this clause in its present form. If, after the matter has been fully threshed out at a local inquiry, anyone is going to come here and thus double and treble the cost, then they should do so with the fact before them that they may possibly have to pay the whole of the costs.
Other Amendments made.
MR CALDWELL: In the case of county districts, it is generally found that it is not exactly a court of justice but simply a court of inquiry, and therefore it is advisable that these duties should be performed also by a man who occupies the position of a notary public. I hope the Lord Advocate will accept this Amendment, and I move.
Amendment proposed—
"After the words last inserted, to insert the words, 'any notary public.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I do not know exactly what are the duties of a notary public, but I have heard that official described as "something a little lower than an agent." A notary public,
1462
as a rule, has had no practical experience in courts, and I think it is necessary that we should not have persons who have not had some experience in the conducting of these inquiries.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: The object of my Amendment is to bring up this question for review at the end of five years. The whole thing is an experiment, and if it works satisfactorily there is no reason why the Act should not be permanent; but if it should be found unsatisfactory, it should be amended. It is intended, if the measure prove successful, to extend it to other parts of the Kingdom. I beg to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 9, line 34, after the word 'and,' to insert the words, 'shall remain in force until the expiration of five years from the passing thereof, and to the end of the then next Session of Parliament. It.'"—(Sir Charles Cameron.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The hon. Baronet will remember that I could not see my way to accept this Amendment at the Committee stage. We do not intend that this Bill shall be a temporary measure. If there is any reason at any time for an Amendment, there is no reason why an Amending Bill should not be brought in in the ordinary way. I am anxious not to give an incentive to any class of persons to make this measure work badly during the next five years, and therefore I cannot accept this Amendment.
MR. COLVILLE: I think it is very advisable that tins Bill should be tried as an experiment for five years, and therefore I shall support the Amendment.
DR. CLARK: This is an important question, and we have some very important laws carried out in this way. The Irish Coercion Act is still continued in this fashion, and I think you ought to try an experiment of this kind for five or seven years, and then reconsider it. At the end of five years you would not necessarily be compelled to bring in a new Bill to amend it, but the House would then

1463
have an opportunity of reconsidering the measure. I think you ought to try this Bill for five years. I know any Member may bring in a Bill to amend, but he cannot always get a chance, and he has to run the risk of the ballot. If this Amendment is accepted, then we shall have an absolute right to reconsider this measure, and compel the Government to place it in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which would give us power to bring pressure to bear upon the Government to amend this measure if we should find that it requires it. This Amendment is simply to give the House a chance of discussing the measure at the end of five years.
Question put and negatived.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I would suggest that we should take the Third Reaching now.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: So far as I am concerned I have nothing more to say, but I think there are other hon. Members on this side who desire to say something further.
Motion made and Question proposed—"That the Bill be now read the third time."—(The Lord Advocate.)
MR. DALZIEL: I object to the Third Reading being taken at this hour, and I think I should be in order in moving the adjournment of the debate.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Although I think we might have taken the Third Reading now, as this is an important Bill, I will not now press the motion.
Debate adjourned till Thursday.

BOARD OF EDUCATION [SALARIES.]
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Question again 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
1464
provide for the establishment of a Board of Education for England and Wales."—(Sir J. Gorst)
DR. CLARK: My objection to this motion is that you have been constructing, or attempting to construct, a secondary education for Scotland; you have been transferring from one class of Estimates to another new powers to the Education Board in Scotland, and you have never given us a proper Opportunity of discussing them. From our share of the grant we have been spending £60,000 a year for a number of years under conditions that are not satisfactory to Scotch Members, and we have had no proper opportunity in Parliament of having the question considered. We have been having all these changes made in England, and yet time cannot be found to let us have a similar Bill for Scotland. I think as far as education is concerned we were in Scotland quite a century ahead of England, but we are getting terribly in arrear now. You are acting now contrary to the principle laid down years ago by a Unionist Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that was that the system of giving special grants should be discontinued. This principle has now been changed by the present Government.
THE CHAIRMAN: I fail to see what the argument of the hon. Member has to do with the resolution now before the Committee, which is simply one to enable the members of the new board, if established, to have salaries.
DR. CLARK: But you are asking for money to be voted now out of the common purse.
THE CHAIRMAN: That will be done On the Estimates, but there is no money being asked for now.
DR. CLARK: My opposition is that such a proposal is more necessary for Scotland, and yet this Resolution relates to England only. In Scotland we are in this position, that you really have got not only the money granted by Parliament, but also the money granted from Scotland, and that money is not now being properly used. Therefore we require organisation in Scotland first.
THE CHAIRMAN: That might be an objection to the Bill itself which is now

1465
before a Standing Committee, but it is not an objection to this motion.
DR. CLARK: Then I do not understand what this Resolution is for.
THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will look at the Order paper he will see that this Resolution is to enable the Standing Committee to consider this question. Until the House passes this the Standing Committee cannot consider the question of allotting salaries to the offices of the new Board.
DR. CLARK: Then I desire to oppose that course being taken, and I have opposed this measure at every stage. Here you are proposing to give power to the Committee upstairs, and I do not want it to have that power. My opposition may look like a dog-in-the-manger policy, but what I wish to grumble about is the scandalous state of things in Scotland, and I desire to protest against the course taken by the Government. Of course, the predominant partner can always have its own way, but I think we have a right to appeal to the Government, because the action in Scotland by the Department is scarcely legal and very unconstitutional. I think that it is time that this matter was put in a proper constitutional and legal fashion. I do not want to hinder England from spending her own money on secondary education which will be valuable to this country, butt I am anxious that such education in Scotland should be properly organised, and I wish to protest against what the Government have done in this respect.
MR. YOXALL: I object to this Resolution from an entirely different point of view—namely, that I think the money may not be required. I gather that the whole scheme and intention of the Bill is that the President of the Board of Education shall be the Lord President of the Council. Therefore you propose to authorise a payment which in the case I anticipate and apprehend will not be necessary, and accordingly this motion is superfluous. If the Vice-President of the Council, speaking on behalf of the Government, will now assure me that in his opinion this payment will be required for the President of the Board of Education, who will not be the Lord President of the Council and who will not
1466
sit in the other House of Parliament, and that it is the intention of the Government that the first President of this Board shall be a person other than the Lord President and shall be a Member of this House, I will not oppose the grant. But I must take exception to it so long as we have not a Government statement in this Committee. The first appointment will strike the key-note for all future appointments, and the Government should be pledged to secure that the first President of this Board shall be a Member of this House and shall not be the Lord President of the Council. It is most important that the Minister responsible for the education of the country should be a Member of this House. The Education Estimates are discussed here, and the administration of the Minister is called into question here.
THE CHAIRMAN: That surely is a matter for discussion in Committee on the Bill, where it would be perfectly open to the hon. Member to move that the President of the Board of Education shall be a Member of this House. It cannot be decided on this Resolution but in Committee on the Bill.
MR. YOXALL: I have asked for an assurance, and unless it is given I think it will be my duty to oppose this grant.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir J. GORST,): I can give the hon. Member this assurance: that if the Committee does not pass this Resolution it will be impossible for the President of the Board of Education to be a Member of this House. There will be no power whatever to give a salary to the President of the Board of Education at all unless the Committee passes this Resolution, and therefore if the hon. Member desires to have the President of the Board of Education a Member of this House he had better agree to the Resolution.
MR. YOXALL: I am led to the conclusion that we shall not, by passing this motion, secure that the President of the Board of Education shall be a Member of this House. The right hon. Gentleman has given no answer to the important point which has been raised. I will therefore move to insert in the motion the following words: "Unless he holds

1467
another salaried office." Am I in order, Sir, in moving that?
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will be perfectly in order to do that in Committee on the Bill, but we are not in Committee on the Bill.
MR. BRYCE: The intention of the Government apparently is that the salary of the President of the Board of Education should be £2,000. We had a discussion earlier in this session as to the desirability of raising the salary attached to another office. I take it, however, that this Resolution is not intended to govern the future action of the Government or to express any permanent view on the subject of salary. I think it is deserving of consideration whether the office of President of the Board of Education will not become so important that a larger salary than £2,000 should be attached to it. I merely mention the matter now in order that we may not be supposed to assent to the view that the salary mentioned in the Resolution is sufficient for the President of the Board of Education, who will have his work very much increased by the Bill to which this Resolution refers, and who will become one of the most important Ministers of the State. I hope it will be borne in mind that we are not assenting to the salary being fixed at £2,000.
MR. YOXALL: I beg to move "in line 3, after the word 'Education,' to insert the following words, 'provided he is a Member of this House.'"
THE CHAIRMAN: That Amendment will not be in order. The proper time to raise the question will be when the operative part of the Bill is reached. This Resolution must be adopted before any Amendment of the Bill in this matter can be considered.
MR. YOXALL: Is it impossible then to apply a condition to a grant of money from this House?
THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly not. The hon. Member can attach whatever conditions he likes to the clause in the Bill, but this is not a clause in the Bill. It is only a Resolution enabling the Committee to consider the
1468
Bill, and when the clauses of the Bill are reached it will be open to the hon. Member to attach whatever condition he pleases.
MR. YOXALL: Then I beg to move that the amount be reduced from £2,000 to £1,000. I do so because we have not received any assurance from the Vice-President or from any Member of the Government regarding the important point which has been raised.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out '£2,000' and insert '£1,000."—(Mr Yoxall.)
Question proposed, "that '£2,000' stand part of the Question."
SIR JOHN GORST: I hope the hon. Member will not persist in his Amendment. He asked for an assurance which it is quite impossible to give. No Member of the Government—not even the Leader of the House—could give an assurance as to what it might please Her Majesty to do when this Bill comes into operation. The Bill will not come into operation until the 1st of April next, and how could even the Prime Minister pledge Her Majesty now as to what she would then do, when she might have wholly different advisers to those she has at present? The hon. Member will therefore see that it would be a most improper pledge to give.
MR. BRYCE: I think it is to be regretted that no member of the Government is present to express what I believe to be the view of the Government that the Minister of Education should hold a seat in the House of Commons. Clearly it would be to the interests of the public service that he should sit in this House.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order That is not the question before the Committee. The question before the Committee is whether the President of the Board of Education should receive a salary of £1,000 or £2,000.
MR. BRYCE: Then I would suggest to my hon. friend not to pursue his objection now. I think it would be better for him to reserve the point he desires to make, and in which he will find sympathy in the House generally,

1469
until the Bill comes before the Standing Committee, when he can demand the assurance he desires and which I hope he will receive.
MR. YOXALL: The Amendment entirely opposed to my desire in the matter, but I have moved it in order to obtain an assurance from the Government on a point to which I attach so much importance, and I must persist in it.
MR. CALDWELL: I think the action taken by my hon. friend is perfectly reasonable. We do not know whether the President is to be in this House or in the other House, and we ought to know the class of man who is to be appointed before we proceed to fix his salary. If a Member of this House is to be appointed, the House will probably consider that £2,000 will not be an unreasonable sum to give him, because there will be a feeling of satisfaction that the House will be receiving value. But if he is not a Member of
this House, then we shall not be receiving the benefit of his services, to which we would otherwise be entitled. In view of the uncertainty of the matter, and as a protest against the want of information under which we are labouring, it is quite reasonable to move that the sum should not exceed £1,000.
DR. CLARK: My hon. friend is in this position. Some of the questions he desires to raise cannot be raised until the Bill comes back from the Standing Committee, and he may find it impossible to have them considered on the Report stage. My hon. friend is now raising this question in perhaps the only form he can constitutionally do so. The only other way is to have the Bill re-committed.
Question put, "That £2,000 stand part of the motion."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 127; Noes, 50. (Division List, No. 219.)

AYES.

Arrol, Sir William

Doxford, William Theodore

M'Killop, James

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

Malcolm, Ian

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Balcarres, Lord

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Man.)

Fisher, William Hayes

Monckton, Edward Philip

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Bartley, George C. T.

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Morton, Arthur H.A.(Deptford

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Mount, William George

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

Goldsworthy, Major-General

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

Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Bethell, Commander

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Biddulph, Michael

Gretton, John

Pease, Herbt, Pike (Darlington

Bigwood, James

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Blakiston-Houston, John

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

Pilkington, R (Lancs.Newton)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hill, Arthur (Down, West)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith.

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Brassey, Albert

Howell, William Tudor

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

Purvis, Robert

Bullard, Sir Harry

Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

Pym, C. Guy

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Richards, Henry Charles

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm,

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Richardson, Sir T.(Hartlepool)

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Cochrane, Hn. T. H. A. E.

Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Kemp, George

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Kenyon, James

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Keswick, William

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbyshire)

Colston, C. E. H. Athole

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

Stanley, Lord (Lancashire)

Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

Cruddas, William Donaldson

Long,Rt.Hn.Walter (Liverp'l)

Stock, James Henry

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Lopes, Henry Yard Buller

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Curzon, Viscount

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

Denny, Colonel

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Triton, Charles Ernest

Doughty, George

Macdona, John Cumming

Usborne, Thomas

Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

Maclure, Sir John William

Valentia, Viscount

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

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

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

Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Williams, J. Powell-(Birmg.)

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

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

NOES.

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

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

Billson, Alfred

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Oldroyd, Mark

Burns, John

Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

Paulton, James Mellor

Burt, Thomas

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Caldwell, James

Hogan, James Francis

Price, Robert John

Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow)

Horniman, Frederick John

Randell, David

Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Rickett, J. Compton

Clough, Walter Owen

Joicey, Sir James

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Colville, John

Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

Kilbride, Denis

Souttar, Robinson

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Steadman, William Charles

Dalziel, James Henry

Leng, Sir John

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Dewar, Arthur

Lewis, John Herbert

Weir, James Galloway

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Macaleese, Daniel

Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)

Donelan, Captain A.

MacDonell, Dr. M. (Queen's C.)

Wilson John (Durham, Mid.)

Doogan, P. C.

Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

M'Ewan, William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Yoxall and Dr. Clark.

Flynn, James Christopher

Moss, Samuel

Bill read the third time, and passed.

Resolved, 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.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

SMALL HOUSES (ACQUISITION OF OWNERSHIP) BILL.
[THIRD READING.]
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
SIR CHARLES DILKE: The Bill which is before its for the Third Reading is one which, on its Second Reading, was carried by more than the ordinary party majority. The Amendments which some of us who have always opposed similar Bills when in the hands of private Members, might have moved in order to carry out our views, either in Committee or on Report stage, would have struck so completely at the whole fabric and foundation of the Bill that it would hardly have been
1472
respectful to the House which had pronounced distinctly in favour of the Bill, to have proposed them. Moreover, we should probably have had very small support from them. Therefore, we determined to preserve the expression of what we think of the nature of the Bill till the Third Reading. The view which some of us take of this Bill is that, as regards its principles, it is distinctly retrograde on the land question and likely to have a prejudicial effect on the future treatment of that question. It is retrograde not only as regards our own views, but the views of those who taught us in generations past on the land question; and retrograde as compared with the views of those who led the way in the trial of social experiments in our great self-governing colonies. Recently there has been a great deal of legislation both of this description and in regard to small holdings in the colonies of New Zealand and South Australia, under democratic ministries; but in the highly Conservative colony of Queensland there has been a complete departure from the principle of using public money, either from the State taxes or the rates for the purpose of conferring freeholds on individuals. This Bill is contrary to the whole course of modern legislation in these colonies, which are generally our guides in matters of legislation. I have to confess that I do not know why legislation of this kind should have been a failure in this country, and a success in Ireland. I see my hon. friend (Mr. Dillon), behind me, who can

1473
speak for a very large section of the population there, and possibly he may be able to throw some light on the subject. But undoubtedly the whole series of Shaftesbury Acts, which embody the principle of this Bill, have been a dead letter in this country, and yet almost similar legislation in Ireland has been a success. Probably the opposition to this Bill is modified by the fact that the power which it confers on local authorities is permissive only. What will be the practical effect of this Bill? My right hon. friend who introduced the Bill evidently looks forward to its being used largely by the suburban populations in the neighbourhood of rapidly-growing towns. There are two classes by whom this Bill may be utilised—namely, the suburban populations and the inhabitants of mining districts, where there is frequently considerable difficult with regard to housing. As regards suburban districts, when you use public money drawn from the rates to confer freeholds upon individuals, you are conferring upon them a property which is very rapidly rising in value, and out of which great numbers of people live in this country at the present time. In my opinion that unearned increment ought to go, when it has been obtained from the use of public money, not to the individual, but to the community, the rates of which you are spending for that purpose. As regards the mining districts, there is a danger of loss from an exodus of the population such as has taken place in the Cornish mining villages. There is only one other argument that I desire to address to the House. In the constituency which I represent I have had a good deal of experience of what is likely to be the effect on labour of freehold tenure. The mining population of Dean Forest are either freeholders or lodgers. They have the freehold franchise or no franchise at all, as the valuation of the houses is not sufficient to confer the lodger franchise. These persons are, to my mind, tied by the leg, and the effect of this Bill will be to fix labour and force the workmen to accept a lower wage than would otherwise be the case. I know that some Members on the opposite side imagine that the objections that some of us take to this Bill are of a political nature. I can assure those hon. Members that they make a great mistake. The freeholders in my constituency are overwhelmingly Radical,
1474
and, indeed, much more Radical than the ordinary occupier.
MR. CALDWELL: From a Scotch point of view I thoroughly approve of the object aimed at in this Bill. The land rights in Scotland, however, are so essentially different from those in England that a Bill drawn simply to meet the English case cannot be successfully put into operation in Scotland. One important provision as between Scotland and England is the question of expense under the Bill. Under Clause 8 a house may be transferred for fees not exceeding ten shillings in the case of England; but in the case of Scotland there is no limit whatever as to expense. The local authorities may make a scale of fees, but there is no limit imposed; and I maintain that an attempt should have been made to deal on a plan of uniformity with the case of Scotland. Again, supposing that a working man in Scotland obtains a house under the Bill. If he were to die, it would, in all probability, be found that there were two heirs to the property. The widow possesses a certain right under the law of Scotland; then there is the eldest son, or it may be found that the legal heir is an entire stranger. There is no provision in the Bill to meet a case of that kind, and I think it is a matter of regret that no attempt has been made to bring the Bill into some kind of conformity with the state of the law in Scotland in respect to these cases. Again, in the matter of title I think that the Government should have provided for a statutory form of bond which would have been exceedingly simple and inexpensive. It is quite evident from the defects I have mentioned that when this Bill comes to be applied to Scotland there will not be the enthusiasm for it that there ought to be, simply because the Bill has not been adapted to suit the particular needs of the country.
MR. JOHN WILSON: I quite agree with the right hon. Baronet that this is not a political question. I do not, however, exactly agree with him as to this Bill being useful to miners. If there is one class who might, be dubious of the benefits of this Bill it is the miners of this country, because they are the most migratory portion of the population. The Bill is not designed to help men of migratory character, but those

1475
whose occupation is permanent and little liable to change. I may, perhaps, be allowed to state that I am one of a committee who are trying to purchase a mining village for the purpose of providing for the old and worn out miners. We have already bought 113 houses. Now, if this Bill had been in force the whole thing would have collapsed, because three miles from this village is one built on building society lines by working men, and the honses can be bought now for £10 or £15 apiece. The effect of the clause in this Bill that the owner is bound to reside in it, and if he leaves the district he must sell it, is to give a man a poor inducement to build. There are three or four reasons why it will not be of use to men that are migratory. First of all, this Bill is not meant for a man of that character. Then if a man wants to build he would get better terms from a building society. £40 is a fabulous amount to many working men, and I think it would be better if the municipalities were to build bouses and let them out at a fair rent. Then, again, a man can only sell to a man who is going to live in the house, and that naturally limits the demand for sale and depreciates, in consequence, the value. Then there is the lot of the widow. Working men, as well as others, have some regard to their wives and children, and if a man knows that if he dies after he has paid half the money his widow can only reside in that house another year, it will be a very serious bar to working men availing themselves under the Act. I should propose that the widow, so long as she fulfils the conditions required by the Act—the same as the husband would had he lived—should be allowed to continue to reside there. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the sub-section of Clause 7, because without such an Amendment as I suggest the Act would not be complete.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): We have now reached the third and last stage of this Bill, which was placed in the front rank of the measures which Her Majesty's gracious Speech recommended to Parliament. In the opinion of the Government, at all events, it is an important measure, and I rejoice that it has passed through its
1476
several stages with so little opposition. Both on the First and Second Reading a number of hon. Members opposed it, but since then there has been no serious opposition. The Bill, in the first instance, was introduced by me as a non-controversial measure, but the treatment it received on the other side of the House tended to place it in the category of measures the credit and responsibity for which will have to go to the Party which introduced it. If it is a success we are entitled to the credit; if it is a failure we must take the responsibility. The hon. Member for Mid Durham has dealt with certain questions of detail, and has been kind enough to suggest an Amendment which he thought would make the Bill more satisfactory, I think the object of the hon. Member is already secured. There is nothing in the Bill to turn a widow out if she decides to remain in the house fulfilling the conditions of the Act. If, however, she desires to make other arrangements—she might like to go back to her relations—she is allowed twelve months to turn round in and negotiate a satisfactory settlement. The hon. Member also said, very truly, that probably this Bill was not calculated to give advantages to a migratory population. Whether a mining population comes within that definition I am not certain; but during the course of the Bill I received a deputation from the miners of Northumberland and Durham on another matter, and after that had been disposed of they spoke to me about this Bill, and expressed the opinion that it would be largely used even in such districts as the hon. Gentleman alluded to. But experience alone will show. I agree, however, that if a population is really migratory their good sense would show them that it was not advisable that they should burden themselves with a house. Still, it is no objection to the Bill that it does not benefit every class. If it benefits a large number of the working class the Government will be perfectly satisfied. With regard to the speech of the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, I cannot understand for what reason his speech was made. As far as I can see, the right hon. Gentleman recognised the fact that the Bill was supported by the vast majority in the House, and that therefore it was useless to oppose it; but the right hon. Gentleman took the opportunity of laying down

1477
a great principle which I have never heard laid down before, and which I believe has been created and established by my right hon. friend himself and another hon. Member who usually votes with him—that it is wrong that assistance should be rendered by the municipal authorities or by the State to enable anybody to acquire a freehold. I differ from that principle entirely. It seems to me I could find cases in which it is most desirable that the State should create freeholds. For instance, there is the case of Ireland. On the ground of securing the prosperity and tranquillity of Ireland it was held that it was desirable to stimulate and encourage the creation of freeholds in Ireland. Why should it not be a desirable thing to create freeholds in this country? If such a thing were feasible, I would like to see every working man the owner of his own freehold house, and if there is anything that legislation can do to assist towards that consummation it will have my cordial sympathy and strong support. This Bill in its general treatment has been received with contemptuous depreciation on the part of hon. Members on the other side. The Government has been accused of gaining votes by making promises. I do not know whether we have gained votes or not, but undoubtedly at the last election many supporters of the Government put this Bill in a very prominent position indeed, and apparently it was a very popular measure, or it had at all events an enormous amount of support. I believe hon. Members on the other side, when they were questioned with reference to it, speaking generally, professed to be even more enthusiastic about it than the Unionist party were themselves. There were some exceptions. There was the right hon. Member for East Fife, who denounced the proposal in the country, and I fully expected he would denounce it in scathing terms when the Bill was brought forward—that he would come down red hot; but he came down in the mildest possible way, and although he did suggest it was an "infinitesimal adumbration of the real problem," still he went on to say he could not on any account oppose the Second Reading. The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean also opposed it, but on entirely different grounds from any he had given in the House. The right hon. Gentleman when speaking in the country, said before a
1478
Yorkshire constituency that he objected to the Bill because it would create a great number of working men Conservatives.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: I have repeatedly declared that I never said anything of the kind. What I did say was that Mr. Wrightson, the original author of the scheme, was reported to have made a statement to that effect, but that personally I believed the opposite. I, myself, represent a great many working-men freeholders, who are more Radical than those who are not.
MR. J. CHAIMBERLAIN: In the House, at all events, the only reason given against the Bill has been the general reason that it would not be of any use. That issue has now to be tried. Whether it is of use or not depends, of course, in a great measure on the working classes, whether they desire it, now that the Bill is passed, as much as they appeared to do when it was only promised. If I may judge by the very large correspondence which has reached me from all parts of the country on the subject, there must be a great number of working men who will gladly take advantage of it. But, in the second place, the success of the Bill depends on the local authorities. It is true that the small holdings legislation has been taken much less advantage of than its promoters anticipated, but that is because, in my opinion, the carrying out of that legislation has been left to the authority of the county councils, which have to deal with so large an area that they have not the requisite local knowledge of individual circumstances. I hope some Amendments may be made in that Act and further opportunity afforded for testing it in the country districts. In the present case we have given the execution of the Act into the hands of authorities which are really local, and upon whom such persons as desire to take advantage of it would bring personal pressure. I do not like to be optimistic, so I will content myself by saving that here is a Bill which carries out one of the most important promises the Unionist party gave at the General Election. We believe and hope it will be successful, and that it will be a great advantage to the working-class population. We have received no assistance in carrying it through the House from the other side, and the other

1479
side is committed by those who hitherto represented them to the opinion that the Act will be useless. I simply awaited the judgment of the community.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING (CLAUSES) BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

IMPROVEMENT OF LAND BILL.
(SECOND READING.)
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Solicitor-General.)
MR. SAMUEL EVANS: I am somewhat surprised that the Solicitor-General, who is in charge of this Bill, has not given us any information at all as to why it should be accepted. Generally speaking, the policy of the Bill is to give further facilities to landlords for the purpose of making improvements upon their estates. It this were a Bill which would have the effect of bringing into cultivation land not already improved, there might be a great deal to be said in favour of it. But we know from published Returns that the principal cases in which owners of estates have gone to the Commissioners under the old Act were not for the sake of bringing land into cultivation at all, but chiefly for the benefit of the land which is still in the hands of the owners of the estates. It appears from tables supplied from the Board of Agriculture that the expenditure for mansion-houses during the period of depression between 1879 and 1894 was no less than £430,737; whereas during that period only £377,920 was borrowed and charged under the Act for the erection of labourers' cottages. It was the policy of the Improvement of Land Act, 1864, to enable landowners who might be limited owners of their estates to borrow money upon favourable terms, not for the purpose of increasing the mansion-houses, but of making improvements in favour of their tenants, and particularly for the erection of labourers' cottages. The expenditure
1480
upon farm buildings during that same period was £1,831,718, and for drainage £1,047,274. It cannot be said that the expenditure for farm buildings and drainage was as much in excess of that in connection with mansion-houses as was intended by the Act of 1864. Take the year 1890, which is a fair sample. The amount spent on mansion-houses was nearly £80,000, whereas the expenditure on labourers' cottages was only £8,000, or merely one-tenth. While forfarm buildings the amount was £67,000, or £10,000 less than the expenditure on mansion-houses. These figures show what has been the chief use of the Act of 1864. If it could be shown to the House that the object of giving yet more favourable terms to the landowners was to bring more land into cultivation, to give compensation to tenants for the improvements they effected on the lands, and to provide labourers' cottages, the House might, in these days of agricultural depression, listen to such a case. But what case can possibly be made out for giving further facilities to landowners to borrow money on favourable terms, and to extend the period for repayment from twenty-five years to forty, as is now proposed? It is true that under Clause 1 it is only intended that the extension should be in respect of future advances, but under a subsequent sub-section, where advances have been made "either before or after the passing of the Act," the period may be extended. After the figures which I have given I think the House is entitled to ask what case has been made out for extending the period of the repayment of these loans. I hope it will not be said that this is a non-controversial measure. I think I have indicated some reasons why the Bill should not be given a Second Reading without some explanation, and I beg to move "That the Bill be read a second time this day three months."
MR. A. C. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I beg to second that.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Mr. Samuel Evans.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,): As the hon. Member takes some objection to this Bill, it cannot be described as being non-controversial, although I had hoped it might be. As to the criticism of the hon. Member, he will see that there is a distinction between the power granted in Sub-section 4 and that in the preceding sub-section of the clause. Everybody who has watched the history of the expenditure of money upon landed estates knows that there is no form of expenditure more precarious or so little likely to give a return to the owners as that which takes the form of tree cultivation. The reason for the extension of the period for the repayment of loans already contracted is that if the trees planted survive the first seven years they have got through the most critical time, and there is then every reasonable probability that the enterprise will be successful. The expense attendant upon this particular form of cultivation is very great, and everyone who has studied the question will agree that everything which is reasonable and fair and just ought to be done to encourage landowners to develop those portions of their estates which are suitable for nothing else by devoting them to tree planting. I do not know what the hon. Member calls "favourable terms," but anyone who has experience knows that the charge becomes a very heavy one indeed, awl it can really only be undertaken from a feeling of patriotism told a desire to develop the estate in order that the future generation rather than the present may benefit by it.
MR. LEWIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what amount has been expended on trees and woods during the last thirty-five years?
MR. LONG: I cannot state that without reference. I should think it would probably be very small. I cannot conceive anybody embarking upon any expenditure of that kind under conditions such as now exist. It is because we want to encourage expenditure under that head that we ask the House to give these further powers. With reference to the earlier part of the Bill, the hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that a large amount has been expended on mansion-houses. I do not know that that expenditure is one which deserves the condemnation of the House. It is paid for by the tenants for life
1482
and their successors, and I should certainly have been under the impression that anything the House could reasonably do which threw all the responsibility upon the tenant for life and his successor would have, as one result, the encouragement of people to live on their own properties, and spend their money in the development of those properties. This is surely an object the House would further rather than retard. Yet to judge from the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, that is an expenditure which ought not to be encouraged. Everyone knows that the limited owner of an estate has the greatest difficulty in finding capital for the permanent development of the estate. The buildings of labourers' cottages is an undertaking which I defy the ordinary tenant for life to embark upon unless he can get money upon reasonable terms such as are here proposed. In regard to the extension of the period of repayment, the whole thing is in the discretion of the Board of Agriculture, and the whole policy of the Board has been to act in these matters with the utmost regard for the future generation, rather than to encourage tenants for life to embark on reckless expenditure by giving them too easy terms. The object has always been to see that the tenant for life is not allowed to indulge in expenditure without safeguarding the position of the "remainderman." But unless the facilities enjoyed by tenants for life for obtaining money for these purposes are improved, undoubtedly there will not be the development which we desire to see. The remaining provisions are very simple, and it is not necessary for me to occupy the attention of the House any longer in regard to the Bill, to which I hope the House will, without long debate, give their assent.
MR. LEWIS: We on this side of the House are equally solicitous with hon. Gentlemen opposite that everything that can fairly be done for the development of land told landed property and buildings on landed property should be done, but I should have been glad if the right hon. Gentleman had addressed himself to the remarkable figures which were quoted by my hon. friend, which showed low the money had been expended by landowners. Would it tint be possible in some way to encourage landowners to expend their money on the improvement of the

1483
labourers' cottages on their estates? Surely when the Government undertake a work of this character they ought to do it in such a way and upon such conditions and terms as would induce landowners to improve the labourers' cottages upon their estates. We have to remember that for every single mansion-house there are probably one hundred labourers' cottages. I quite agree that whatever can be done to encourage the afforesting of this country ought to be done. I only wish it were possible for the Woods and Forests Department to do a great deal more in this direction. When we look at what has been done in Belgium, for instance, where in the course of twenty or thirty years large tracts of land which were once waste land have been planted with trees, and are now covered with profitable forests; and when we remember what many landowners with an eye to the future are doing in many parts of this country, I am sure there is nobody who would object to placing it within the power of the comparatively impecunious landowner to plant his land with trees wherever that may be necessary. Such planting not only beautifies the country, but in course of time it increases the wealth of the country. To that part of the Bill I personally should not care to offer any objection whatever. It seems to be a very good and profitable provision, provided it is carried on in a proper manner and the Board of Agriculture exercises a wise discretion. But I would press upon the right hon. Gentleman that, after all, the important question raised by my hon. friend ought to be faced by the Government. Certainly the responsibility of meeting the point lies upon the Government, and I hope they will do their best to induce landowners to improve the small property upon their estates. There are many persons who have not got the means to improve the land, and we ought to make the terms as easy as possible in that direction. When we consider the condition of labourers' cottages throughout the country we must feel that the existing state of the law is certainly not what it ought to be, and this Bill does not improve things in that respect. I appeal to the Government while they have the opportunity to make a necessary change of this character. I think that a short discussion upon the Second Reading of this Bill will not be without value if it directs attention to
1484
this particular question, in the hope that when the measure reaches the Committee stage the Government will be able to introduce such Amendments as will carry out this great and beneficial reform, which does not affect merely a few landowners, but affects the life, the health, and the comfort of a vast number of people in this country.
MR. JEFFREYS: With regard to what has been said about mansion houses, I desire to point out that the money expended upon them provides a great deal of employment, and is consequently of great benefit to a country district. Although I am very much in favour of advancing money to enable owners to build better cottages, I am glad to say that better cottages are already being built. It is a great advantage, nevertheless, to the poor part of the country population to have these large houses in their midst. I am very much in favour of this Bill, because I believe it will tend not only to the good of the owners of these estates, but it will encourage a life-tenant to develop his estate, and this will be to the benefit of his poorer neighbours.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: I should like to say that I quite agree with my right hon. friend with regard to the advantage of developing many of the estates throughout the country, and I think any Bill which provides means by which landowners may go in for work of that kind will not be only useful in the improvement of their estates, but will also be useful in improving the general condition of the country and the working class population. I am disappointed, however, that a Bill which proposes to give much easier terms should make no provision for what is after all the crying scandal of our time, and that is the better housing of the poor in the rural districts. No effort is made in this Bill to secure any improvement in labourers' cottages. We have had in London repeatedly evidence that people cannot find homes in which to dwell in decency and comfort, and the same remark applies to rural districts. There are many labourers in the country who have had to go to the workhouse because they could not find a house——
MR. LONG: I think the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension, for this Bill does not propose to lend money to landowners.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: I shall be glad to meet the superficial criticism of my right hon. friend. At all events, the money of the public will go to these landowners, who will be included in the longer period for repayment. One thing that is necessary for the agricultural interests of the country is that all classes should benefit by a provision of this kind, and I want that class to benefit which has been steadily drifting from the country into the towns simply for the want of decent housing accommodation, and it would be easy for the right lion. Gentleman to introduce some provision which would direct the operation of this Bill into the channel to which I allude. Not long ago I had a census taken of a large portion of rural England in regard to the condition of the poor, and in 1884 a Commission on the housing problem brought forward evidence as to the necessity for an improvement. Returns which have been recently made in the villages of rural England show that 25 per cent, of the cottages there are unfit for human habitation, and that is a condition of things which must necessarily tend to depopulate the rural districts. Such a state of things drives the men away from the villages, and in a Bill like this an opportunity is afforded to make some provision which would not only be good for the landowner, but would also be good for the population, and would also lessen competition in the labour market in towns, and prevent the exodus of the population from the rural districts, where people cannot at present bring up their families in decency and comfort. Almost daily in the rural districts houses are being pulled down because they have been condemned by the sanitary authority, and many of them are allowed to remain simply because if they are pulled down others will not be put up in their places. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the Board of Agriculture to seize this opportunity of bringing in some scheme by means of which some of this money should be utilised for the purpose of providing better housing accommodation for the rural poor. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will have ingenuity enough to insert some words in the Bill
1486
which will carry out the reform to which I have alluded.
MR. WEIR: I should like to know how this Bill will operate in the Highlands of Scotland or in the Island of Lewis, which belongs to one individual. The remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down are very appropriate, and I agree that some provision should be made to prevent this money being spent solely for the benefit of the landlords. Surely it should be expended in the interests of the people. There are two million acres of land in the Highlands of Scotland suitable for agricultural and grazing purposes, the development of which would keep the population on the soil instead of allowing the land to lie idle or be used for the purposes of sport. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will take the advice given by the last speaker and make some arrangement whereby the working classes will be benefited as well as the landlords.
DR. CLARK: I have again to congratulate the Minister for Agriculture upon having withdrawn a Bill which was intended to do something for the benefit of agriculture.
MR. LONG: I have not withdrawn any such Bill. Objection was taken to the measure from the opposite side of the House.
DR. CLARK: We have had a pledge year after year in the Queen's Speech that something would be done to benefit agriculture, and I again congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture upon pitching over the tenant-farmers for the benefit of the landowners.
MR. HEMPHILL: I have been very much taken by surprise by the attempt which has been made to rush this Bill at this late hour through the House. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite smile, but I apprehend that very few of the Members present in the House have the least idea of what this Bill proposes to amend. It is not by any means an easy pleasure to understand, and I think my hon. friends opposite will see that when I tell them that the principle to which this Bill refers, and with which it deals, is that contained in the Improve-

1487
ment of Land Act of 1864, which applies to every part of the Empire, and which contains no less than ninety-one sections. That is not an Act of Parliament which ought to be dealt with in a hasty manner, and, as an Irish Member, all I require is to be allowed sufficient time to understand what the nature of the legislation is that is going on from time to time. This Bill has been brought in without a word of explanation, and I doubt whether any Member present heard the explanation which was given when the First Reading was taken. Certainly no explanation was given to-night upon the Second Reading, and the only information I have as to the object of the Bill is what I have been able to gather from the memorandum, which states that the object of the measure is to extend the period for the repayment of charges made under the Land Act from twenty-five years to forty years. I would remind hon. Members of what occurred last week, when an appeal was made from the Irish benches to get an extension of the time for the repayment of loans for the purchase of glebe lands. A strong appeal was then made by the Irish Members to have that measure of justice done to Ireland. It was then pointed out that interest on money was now lower than it was in 1870, when these loans were advanced for the purchase of these glebe lands in Ireland, and all we asked for was that the period for repayment should be extended from thirty-five to fifty years. On that occasion it was demonstrated that no loss would be sustained by the Exchequer, but we were nevertheless met by a non possumus from which there was no appeal. It is rather remarkable that the first clause of this Bill seeks to do the very same thing for the landowners of England which was refused to Ireland, and I ask if that is reasonable. That is not equal justice to both parts of the country. Why should this concession be refused to Ireland while it is given to the landowners of England by this Bill without any explanation whatever? I say that Legislation of this sort is calculated to shake one's confidence in the Imperial legislature for doing equal justice to every part of the kingdom. This Bill applies to Ireland, and yet no indication has been given to the Irish Members that this Bill would be taken up to-night, and legislation is now being sought for the purpose of enabling landlords who have spent
1488
large sums on the improvement of their mansion-houses and very small sums on the building of labourers' cottages to have tins concession made to them, and to have the time for the repayment of their advances extended. I intend to support the hon. Member who has moved that this Bill be read this day three months, and I do so for the purpose of giving the Members from Ireland and myself an opportunity of studying this Bill and seeing how far the interests of Ireland are affected by a Bill which I confess candidly and honestly I have not had an opportunity of mastering the details of. I shall therefore support my hon. and learned friend if he goes to a division, and I trust that my hon. friends below the gangway will also support this motion.
MR. LOYD: The impression which has been given by the remarks which have been made by gentlemen opposite is that this Bill has been brought in solely in the interests of the landowners. It is suggested that the Government have been remiss in not providing that tile Facilities for loans should extend to purposes from which the labourers might benefit in respect of their cottage accommodation. But Sub-section 3 of the first clause of this Bill affords facilities for advancing money "for the execution of all or any of the improvements mentioned in Section 9 of the principal Act." The principal Act is the Act of 1864, and number 8 of the 12 improvements mentioned in the 9th Section is:—
"The erection of labourers' cottages, farm houses and other buildings and the improvement of and addition to labourers' cottages, farm houses, etc. so as such improvements and additions be of a permanent nature."
Therefore this Bill does refer to the improvement of the condition of labourers' cottages, an object which both sides of this House are, I am sure, equally desirous to promote.
MR. HEDDERWICK: I think it is almost impossible for anyone who reads over tins Bill to comprehend precisely what it refers to at all. From the first clause to the last it is full of cross references, and unless one were to have before him all the numerous Acts which are referred to it would be absolutely impossible to understand the real objects of tins measure. It has been said that this Act is not likely to do anything to im-

1489
prove the labourers' cottages or the condition of the poor population in the rural districts. The hon. Gentleman opposite has pointed out a section in the Act of 1864 in which he says the erection of labourers' cottages is actually referred to. But what has been the effect of that provision? I do not believe that any cottages have ever been built under the provisions of the Act which has been alluded to by the hon. and learned Member opposite; neither do I believe that any farm buildings have been improved in consequence of its operation. I should like to know of any instances where labourers' cottages have been built under that Act.
MR. LONG: I can give you an instance on my Own estate.
MR. HEDDERWICK: There appear to have been some cottages built on the right hon. Gentleman's estate, but those cottages, while nominally built in the interests of the poor labourers, are really built in the interests of the right hon. Gentleman's estate. In most cases where cottages have been built under this Act they have been built as improvements upon the estate. I contend that this Bill has not in any way been devised in the interests of the poor labourers, and for these reasons I shall support my hon. friend.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 140; Noes, 44. (Division List No. 220.)

AYES.

Arrol, Sir William

Godson, Sir Augustus F.

Morrell, George Herbert

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Mount, William George

Balcarres, Lord

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

Mount, Philip A.

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

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

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

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

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Banbury, Frederick George

Gretton, John

Newdigate, F. Alexander

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

Gull, Sir Cameron

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

Beckett, Ernest William

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

Pilkington, R. (Lancs, Newton)

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Bethell, Commander

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Bigwood, James

Helder, Augustus

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Brassey, Albert

Henderson, Alexander

Pryce Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

Purvis, Robert

Bullard, Sir Harry

Hill, Sir Edward Stock (Bristol)

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Cawley, Frederick

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Rentoul, James Alexander

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlepool

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worcester

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Seely, Charles Hilton

Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H.A.E.

Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Kemp, George

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Kenyon, James

Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbyshire

Colomb, Sir J. Charles Ready

Keswick, William

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn.

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Stock, James Henry

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glas'w

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Thornton, Percy M.

Cornwallis Fiennes S. W.

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swansea

Tollemache, Henry James

Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Cranborne, Viscount

Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Liverpl.

Valentia, Viscount

Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

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

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

Curzon, Viscount

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Denny, Colonel

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm.

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Macdona, John Cumming

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Maclure, Sir John William

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool

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

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

M'Killop, James

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Malcolm, Ian

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Fisher, William Hayes

Milward, Colonel Victor

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Monckton, Edward Philip

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Garfit, William

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

Sir William Walrond and

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Mr. Anstruther.

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh)

NOES.

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

Foster, Sir Walter(Derby Co.)

Rickett, J. Compton

Asquith, Rt. Hon, Herbert H.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Bilson, Alfred

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Hemphil, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Burt, Thomas

Horniman, Frederick John

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Caldwell, James

Kilbride, Denis

Steadman, William Charles

Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

Lloyd-George, David

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

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

Macaleese, Daniel

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Colville, John

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Weir, James Galloway

Dalziel, James Henry

Moss, Samuel

Williams. J. Carvell (Notts).

Davitt, Michael

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Wilson, John (Govan)

Dewar, Arthur

O'Connor J. (Wicklow, W.)

Yoxall, James Henry

Dillon, John

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Donelan, Captain A.

Olroyd, Mark

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Doogan P. C.

Price, Robert John

Mr. Evans and Mr.Hedder

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Randell, David

wick.

Bill read a second time.

MR. LONG: I beg to move that the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Law.
MR. SAMUELEVANS: I object entirely to that proposal being made without any notice having been given. The Bill ought to be dealt with in a Committee of the whole House. It was not expected that the Bill would be reached to-night, and I think as a general rule we have a right to protest
against a Bill being sent to a Standing Committee without any indication being given that that course would be adopted. If the Government proposes to go on with the motion I shall ask the House to divide.
Motion made and Question put—
"That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc."—(Mr. Walter Long.)
The House divided:—Ayes, 143;Noes, 44. (Division List No. 221.)

AYES.

Arrol, Sir William

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Balcarres, James (Walworth)

Fellowes Hon. Ailwyn Edwd.

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Balcarres, Lord

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Llewelyn,SirDillwyn-(Sw'ns'a

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Man.)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Loden, Gerald Walter Erskine

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

Fisher, William Hayes

Long, Rt. Hon, W. (Liverpool)

Banbury, Frederick George

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Garfit, William

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St.Albans)

Lucas-Shadwell, William

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

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Littelton, Hon. Alfred

Beckett, Ernest William

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Macdona, John Cumming

Bethell, Commander

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Maclure, Sir John William

Bigwood, James

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

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

M'Killop, James

Brassey, Albert

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Malcolm, Ian

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Gretton, John

Milward, Colonel Victor

Bullard, Sir Harry

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Monckton, Edward Philip

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Gull, Sir Cameron

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants

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

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord Geo.

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. Wm.

Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh

Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Morrell, George Herbert

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

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Morton, Arthur H.A.(Deptford

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Helder, Augustus

Mount, William George

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Henderson, Alexander

Muntz, Philip A.

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

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

Colston, Chas. Edw. H.Athole

Hill, Sir Edw. Stock (Bristol)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Hornhy, Sir William Henry

Pease, Herb'rt Pike (Dalington

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Pilkington, R.(Lancs., Newton

Cox, lwrin Edward Bainbridge

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Cranborne, Viscount

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Cross, Herb.Shepherd (Bolton)

Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Kemp, George

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edwd.

Curzon, Viscount

Kenyon, James

Purvis, Robert

Dalkeith, Earl of

Keswick, William

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Denny, Colonel

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Rentoul, James Alexander

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lawrence, Sir E. D.-(Corn.)

Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

Thornton. Percy M.

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Round, James

Tollemache, Henry James

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

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Tomlinson, Wm. Ed. Murray

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

Seely, Charles Hilton

Valentia, Viscount

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

Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

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

Young, Commander (Berks,E.

Sidebottom, William (Derbysh

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

TELLER FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Stanley Lord (Lanes.)

Williams, J. Powell-(Birm.)

Stock, James Henry

Willox, Sir John Archibald

NOES.

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

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

Rickett, J. Compton

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Scale-

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Burt, Thomas

Hemphill, Rt.Hon Charles H.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawich B.)

Caldwell, James

Horniman, Frederick John

Sinclair, Capt.J. (Forfarshire)

Cawley, Frederick

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

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

Kilbride, Denis

Steadman, William Charles

Colville, John

Lloyd-George, David

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Dalziel, James Henry

Macaleese, Daniel

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Davitt, M.Vaughan-(Cardigan

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Weir, James Galloway

Davitt, Michael

Moss, Samuel

Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

Dewar, Arthur

Nussey, Thomas Willans,

Yoxall, James Henry

Dillon, John

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Donelan, Captain A.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Doogan, P C.

Oldroyd, Mark

Mr. Evans and Mr. Channing.

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Price, Robert John

Resolution agreed to.

Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc.

PALATINE COURT OF DURHAM BILL [Lords].
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. SAMUEL EVANS: On a point of order, I should like to ask whether this Bill should not originate in a Committee of Ways and Means. The proposal of the Bill is that the liability of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to pay the salary of the Chancellor of Durham should be transferred to the Consolidated Fund. Under these circumstances should there not be a Resolution in Committee?
MR. SPEAKER: I have not yet got a copy of the Bill; but I do not think the hon. Member has read the whole of it. It is quite obvious, however, that coming from the Lords it cannot be a Money Bill.
MR. SAMUEL EVANS: My objection to the Second Reading arises from the first mud chief clause, which proposes that the salary of the Chancellor shall be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. I believe these words were not inserted in the Lords.
MR. SPEAKER:I have now a copy of the Bill, and it is quite clear that the ordinary practice has been followed. The Bill contains some clauses which require the preliminary resolution of a Committee before they can be dealt with by the House. These clauses are under-scored, and are really not yet in the Bill at all.
MR. SAMUEL EVANS: We have had no explanation as to why this Bill should be passed, and it is obvious that it cannot be passed without some discussion. The proposal of the Government is to introduce in Committee a clause that the salary of the Chancellor should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. Up to now it has been paid by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and it is provided in the Bill that the Commissioners shall pay to the Treasury a certain capital sum to be agreed upon by the Commissioners and the Treasury. That is an objectionable system, because when the Treasury deals with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners it is very likely to make a bargain favourable to them. When that sum is paid the liability of the Commissioners will cease altogether, and the salary will be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. I am afraid all this is done in order to take from the cognisance and purview of this House certain debateable matters. You are constantly bringing grounds forward as to why the machinery of Bills should be left to the Lord Chancellor. Clause 3

1495
of this Bill provides that the salary of the judge shall be such an amount as the Lord Chancellor shall direct. Is there any precedent for saying that the salary of any particular judge is not to be fixed by this House but by the Lord Chancellor with the sanction of the Treasury? The clause also says that at the expiration of five years the salary will come up for re-vision, but the House will have nothing to do with the matter. As long as his salary is paid out of the Consolidated Fund a judge cannot be removed if he behaves himself. But this case the Lord Chancellor may vary the salary as he thinks fit. A further clause proposes that the jurisdiction of the Palatine Court shall be such as the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court through the Chancery Division. That, again, is not only an extension of the jurisdiction of the Palatine Court, but it may also extend or minimise the locale of the jurisdiction by extending or diminishing the locality over which the jurisdiction extends. I should have thought the best thing to do would have been to abolish the Palatine Court, altogether, and make it an ordinary court. We know that the history of the Palatine Courts is a very old one, but it is only because of the vested interests connected with them that these courts have lasted as long as they have. I have pointed out matters which are objectionable in this Bill. The House loses all power under it to discuss the conduct of the judge or to diminish his salary. I object entirely to legislation by means of reference. It is done, I believe, in order to stop discussion in this House. I am informed that the usual instructions now given to the Parliamentary draughtsman by a Government—whether it be Conservative or Liberal—is to put as much as possible into the schedule, and to make the Bill as short as he can. The result of this is lamentable, as is shown by the Compensation Act of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. I believe he takes the credit for drafting the Act himself. He probably said to the draughtsman, "I Will draft this Bill myself in such a way that common sense will work it." The judges in the Court of Appeal say that it is the most complex Act they have ever had to deal with. I merely mention that in order to show the difficulties the House is constantly faced with by allowing these
1496
matters to go outside its own power and referring them to the Lord Chancellor and the Treasury. We have had no reason given us why the House should pass the Second Reading of this Bill. The fact that it comes from the Lords may show that it is not a Money Bill, but it is to be a money Bill before it passes this House, and we should have some explanation concerning it.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL, (Sir R. B. FINLAY,); I think that every hon. Member with a knowledge of the locality concerned will agree that the existence of this court is desirable. The objections taken by the hon. and learned Member are three. First, he says that the provision with regard to the judge is objectionable, but it has been felt, and properly felt, that it was desirable that an arrangement should be made with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners whereby they should pay a certain sum to the Treasury, and that the salary of the judge should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. The hon. and learned Member complains that the salary is to be fixed by the Lord Chancellor, but it is to be fixed by the Lord Chancellor with the concurrence of the Treasury. It is also necessary that there should be a provision for the revision of the salary according to the amount of business dealt with by the court. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that this provision is inserted by way of reference, in order to prevent the criticism of this House. It is nothing of the kind; it is necessary that there should be some provision for the revision of the salary according to the amount of the business of the court. The hon. Gentleman criticised the clause as to the Registrar. At present there is no qualification for the Registrar, and he is paid by fees. That is very objectionable. It is very much better that the fees should be accounted for, and the Registrar paid by salary. The provision as to the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court has been agreed to by those gentlemen who take a local interest in this Bill. I hope the House will feel that this is a measure which ought, to have a Second Reading.
MR. HEDDERWICK; I cannot say I am entirely satisfied with the explanation of the Solicitor-General. In the first place, this court, which is the Court of Chancery for the County Palatine of Durham, is a very small court. I do not

1497
go the length of saying that it is entirely useless, but in point of fact there is very little business done from one year's end to the other. It seems to me that the entire object of this Bill is to place the judge on the Consolidated Fund. At present he is paid by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and it is now proposed to give the Lord Chancellor power to give such a salary as he sees fit, and also to vary the salary in such a way as may involve a loss to the Consolidated Fund. The salary of the Registrar is also to be on the Consolidated Fund, and like wise the expenses incurred in the maintenance of the court. It may be true that a system of payment by fees is not a very good system, but at all events it has this advantage—that the Consolidated Fund is not a loser by it. As the business is very limited indeed, the probability is that the salary which will have to be paid will be Very much in excess of the fees obtained in the court. But my objection to the Bill is not limited to mere details. I maintain that this is a tinkering little Bill, which merely touches the fringe of a much larger subject. In point of fact, the country is dotted over with Courts of First Instance which have no relation relation whatever to the Judicature Acts. If the Government really wanted to produce a useful measure, they would endeavour to bring all these isolated courts, with their peculiar procedure, into one form, which would relate them to the judicature Acts, and so secure a uniform system through- out the country. For these reasons I oppose the Bill.
DR. CLARK: Eight or nine years ago we passed a Bill with a large number of clauses putting this Court under the High Court of Justice; and now we are asked to pass a Bill to amend that Act. The curious condition is that the Bill places a contingency on the Consolidated Fund. At the present time contingencies have to come before this House on the Estimates, and thus we can have a voice in regard to them. But When this contingency is placed on the Consolidated Fund the House can have no control over it, but it will be controlled by an Officer in the House of Lords. That is a revolutionary practice. I object also to bringing on the reading of such a Bill by the mere lifting of the hat. There are some very important questions involved
1498
in this Bill. In the form in which it stands the Ecclesiastical Commissioners may pay a lump sum or an annual sum, but there is no indication as to what the salary is to be. Probably the Government know, are keeping back the facts from the House of Commons. I do not like the present association of the Treasury and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for any purpose of this kind. I think they are too friendly altogether towards each other, and that the Treasury is likely to do what will please their friends the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I hope the House will not consent to read this Bill a second time until we have very adequate information from the Solicitor-General.
MR. CHANNING: It seems to me that we are fully entitled to have this Bill read a second time this day three months. Obviously it is meant to perpetuate a court which would be much better merged in the judicial system of the country, and to make a grant from the Treasury as a relief to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. It is a thoroughly unsound policy to keep up courts which are practically of very little use, and to draw on the Consolidated Fund for their maintenance. Moreover, we are making a fresh draft on the Treasury for the use of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners at a time when the Ecclesiastical Commissioners ought to be called upon to give relief to the tithe rent-charge owners. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time this day three months.
MR. CALDWELL: I rise to second the motion. The first clause of the Bill introduce, a novel position. Hitherto the salary has been paid by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but the clause provides that it is in future to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund without any intervention of Parliament whatever. We ought to have some explanation from the Government as to the amount of salary the judge receives from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners at present, and as to how much it is proposed that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should give in order to be relieved from that responsibility. It is hardly treating the House fairly that on such an important Bill no information is vouchsafed to us, and that its Second Reading should be moved without explanation. And when we are driven to ask an

1499
explanation, none is given. We shall afford the Solicitor-General opportunity of giving us full information. As to the Registrar, will the Solicitor-General tell us the amount of fees he gets at the present moment, how much business is done, and what salary it is proposed to give him? Although the business done is very little, the Registrar is to have the power to appoint a deputy—that is to say, having little to do he is to have a man to help him to do that little. In Clause 2 another altogether novel position is introduced. I always understood that when a judge was appointed to an important position he had a salary fixed until the end of his tenure of his office; but this salary is to be subject to review every five years, although it is not said that it is to be increased if the business increases, or diminished if the business diminishes. Then, it is altogether novel to put into an Act of Parliament a provision giving power to the Lord Chancellor to fix salaries. If the Bill is read a second time to-night, the Committee stage should be postponed for some time in order that the Solicitor-General may give the House fuller information.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months.''—(Mr.Channing.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question.'
MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: There are some things certain about this Bill, and some things quite uncertain. One thing seems to be certain, and that is that this change is to be effected solely between the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Treasury. As regards the Treasury, my view would be very much affected by which Party was in power. As regards the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, I know they are most excellent hands at driving a bargain in the interest of the Church, and I should be disinclined to place full trust in the Treasury for the purpose of checking them. Another thing certain is that the fees which have hitherto gone to support the court are now to be abolished and, at any rate, the Registrar is to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, and it is left to the Lord Chancellor to determine what the amount of the salary is to be. It
1500
is quite possible that the motives which prompted the production of this Bill are perfectly innocent; but it is equally possible that some job is contemplated. I observe that there is no provision for placing before Parliament the results of the negotiation between the Lord Chancellor and the Treasury. If the Bill becomes law the whole thing passes beyond the control of Parliament, and the Lord Chancellor will be in the position of authority which should be vested in this House. We ought to have more information than is before us in regard to the reasons why this Bill has been brought in. Seeing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners derive very large revenues from that portion of the kingdom to which this court belongs, I think we are entitled to insist that adequate precautions should be taken against the easement of the Commissioners from their present responsibility. I submit that the Bill ought not to be read a second time to-night, but that we should have in our possession much more information than has been vouchsafed to us.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS: This Bill savours very strongly of a job. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners are to be relieved of a charge which they have hitherto paid, and the charges are to be placed on the Consolidated Fund. Having regard to the fact that the Treasury means a Conservative Government at the present time, and having regard also to the record of this particular Government in the way it has treated the Church so favourably, I feel strongly inclined to distrust these secret arrangements between the Government and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. There is nothing to prevent the Lord Chancellor paying a thousand a year to the judge. We know that the Government of the day frequently finds extraordinary reasons for saying that some people are very badly treated, and for dipping their hands into the public pocket in order to pay their friends. There is no restriction or safeguard whatever in the Bill as to the amount of salaries, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners may make the best bargain they can secretly with the officials of the Treasury. Another strong objection to the Bill is that the jurisdiction of the Local Court may be enlarged by a simple Order in Council. These

1501
Small courts ought really to be swept away altogether. There should be no court which is not uniform with the other courts in the country. It is the greatest inconvenience when parties living in other parts of the country have business before these courts, and do not know the special procedure in these courts, and how their rights are to be defended. They feel themselves very much as an Englishman who is obliged to go before the courts in Belgium and France.
It being midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Thursday.

ROYAL NIGER COMPANY [CONSOLIDATED FUND].
Resolution reported—
"That it is expedient to authorise the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund, of sums not exceeding £863,000, and, for the purpose of providing money for such issue, the borrowing, by of terminable annuities charged on and paid out of the moneys annually provided by Parliament for Foreign and Colonial Services, and, if those money are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund, of a 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 and property, and for meeting expenditure rendered necessary by such transfer."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Resolution read a second time.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I must express my utter inability to understand the manner in which this Bill and this proposal are being rushed through the House. Yesterday evening we raised a short discussion on the question, and asked that the I louse should be supplied with Papers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was kind enough to give a verbal statement of the case, which was very lucid and very clear, but which left us without ally documentary evidence whatever on the matter. I ventured to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should postpone the further consideration of the Resolution until the Papers were before the House. Well, the right hon. Gentleman met the suggestion, which also came from several other hon. Members, with a statement that "Papers relating to the subject would
1502
be laid on the Table to-night"—meaning last night. When the right hon. Gentleman made that statement I myself and other hon. Members immediately got up and suggested that that was an additional reason why the Resolution should be postponed till to-day. When I made the suggestion I could not contemplate what has really occurred; for the right hon. Gentleman, not satisfied with bringing this Resolution before the Committee yesterday without Papers, now asks that the Resolution should be reported, not only without Papers, but in the face of his own definite promise that we should have the Papers. The Papers may be somewhere in the House, but I have gone to the Vote Office, and can find no trace of them there; and I have gone to the Table, and can find no trace of them there. It is quite possible that the right hon. Gentleman may not have been able to obtain the Papers—I do not blame him for that—but if he found himself unable to carry out his undertaking to the House, I think the right hon. Gentleman was called upon to postpone the Report of this Resolution until he was able to redeem his promise, and to lay the Papers before the House. I say that this is rushing a most important transaction through the House. Now, it is not my fault that I have to raise this question at this very unreasonable hour. The matter might have been elucidated yesterday, in the course of another hour's discussion; but the right hon. Gentleman, either from a certain perverseness of disposition or irritability of nerves, would not allow us to have that discussion, and, therefore, we are compelled to raise it at this inconvenient hour. The assumption of the government of thirty-five to forty millions of people is a scheme of the gravest and most momentous importance, and I do not see how any rational or impartial man can deny the proposition which is at the basis of our attitude and action in regard to this proposal. It is an assumption of responsibility, serious and grave enough to demand the most deliberate judgment of the House. How can it be said that we have deliberate action, when on two important stages the House is left absolutely without documentary evidence as to this proposal? I am compelled to form the best judgment I Call on the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as reported in the newspapers, and I must say that

1503
the statement is one calculated to excite very strange, if not sombre, reflection. Here let it be understood that I am not at all prejudging the question; I am not declaring against the policy of the Government in assuming the government of these territories from the hands of the Niger Company. I must say, indeed, that the policy of the Government in dethroning the administrative action of the company is more than justified, and does not come a moment too soon. The right hon. Gentleman passed a fine eulogium on the Chartered Company, but that eulogium was in strange contrast with some of the statements in the speech he himself made. What did he say of this Company? He said that it had assumed certain rights and imposed certain duties which were subjects of controversy with certain countries, especially with France. Although the right hon. Gentleman held that the Company was legally justified in imposing these duties, yet it was violating in spirit the Treaty of Berlin. What was the result? I wish the House to mark this. The result of the imposition of these duties, and the international illegality of which the right hon. Gentleman himself admitted the Chartered Company was guilty, was that it brought this country and France to the verge of a terrible and disastrous war.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS-BEACH,)dissented.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman shaken his head; but I shall quote his own words:
"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."
I am within the recollection of the House that if I did not give his exact words I rightly interpreted his words as meaning, that if the Chattered Company had not been held in cheek by the Imperial authority, it would have brought this country into a great and terrible war. I have a second observation to make on that statement. I say quite candidly, that it is to a large extent a justification of the step which the Imperial Government is taking as a necessary means of escape from a most perilous position.
1504
My second observation is, that this company is actually to be rewarded for having brought two great nations to the verge of what the right hon. Gentleman very properly called a great and terrible war, by what the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges to have been an abuse of its powers.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: No, no.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Oh, yes; the abuse of its powers. I must quote the right hon. Gentleman again.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: What from?
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: From The Times newspaper:
"Although I believe they (meaning the duties) were found to be within the legal rights conferred on the company by its charter, they did infringe the spirit of the Act of Berlin, in respect of the navigation of the Niger."
Is not that a statement by the right hon. Gentleman himself that the Chartered Company did abuse its rights, and bring this country into conflict with France? So much in regard to the general question of the charter. I hope the House understands that my objection to the action of the right hon. Gentleman is mainly upon the manner in which he is dealing with so great and important a question. I say at once that I have had very little opportunity—the right hon. Gentleman has not supplied the House with the opportunity—of examining the details of this transaction. It is a transaction that seems to me to require a great deal of consideration; but, roughly, it amounts to this: The Niger Company had two branches of business—the one trading, the other administrative. The trading was profitable and the administrative branch was unprofitable. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman is this, that this country should leave to the Niger Company the trading branch, which is profitable, and take over the administrative branch, which is a losing concern. I put it to any man of business, if any capitalist came to him and said, "Here is a business with two departments, one losing and one profitable; take yon the losing part of the concern. That is my first criticism. I do not deny

1505
that everyone is entitled to drive as hard a bargain as he can. Well, I will slate my objections to this bargain. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman is paying £150,000 for what he calls dislocation of business.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: That includes compensation for land rights and mineral rights.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by the dislocation of business? That requires explanation. Then he talks about land rights, and mineral rights. I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman had been writing a prospectus for the City. "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, till, antimony, and other metals in those regions; and of course there is always the hope of gold." That is a most extraordinary statement for the right hon. Gentleman to make. In that spirit of genial optimism which hitherto, I thought, was confined to company promote asking for the money of confiding people, he says that "there is always a hope of gold," and on that hope the right hon. Gentleman asked us to take the first steps towards voting this vast sum of money to the company. Well, there are several other transactions with this company which I have not been able to grasp. The right hon. Gentleman said that the company raised £250,000 on the customs duties, and that that sum is to be paid off by the Government. But, as I understand the reports of the company, it got back that £250,000 from the public at 5 per cent. interest. I find from the "Stock Exchange Year Book" that the council of the company reported that the £250,000 was a sum expended by the company, and that the Government had given its formal assent to the levying of duties in excess of those required for administrative purposes in order to pay this off. I find also that of this £250,000 £133,000 was set aside in August, 1889, as a distribution at 30 per cent. to the proprietors, and that the balance of £116,000 was retained by the company, This I interpret to mean that the £250,000 already. Then I find that the large sum of £115,000 is to be paid for
1506
steamers, jetties, warehouses, machinery, and plant; and £300,000 for what the right hon. Gentleman calls unexhausted improvements. These are not small things. The transaction itself is a very great transaction, and the assumption of this extraordinary amount of responsibility is a great transaction. For all these reasons I complain most strongly of the hurry with which the right hon. Gentleman is pushing the Bill through the House. In order to mark my sense of these proceedings, I beg to move that the sum of £820,000 be reduced by £200,000.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 6, to leave out '£820,000,' and insert £620,000."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
Question proposed, "That £820,000 stand part of the Resolution."
SIR HICKS-BEACH: The hon. Gentleman complained last night in the most bitter language of my having failed to give the House any information on the subject of the Resolution which I moved. It now appeal's that the hon. Member was not in the House when I happened to deliver that speech.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I said so.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: And that he was entirely ignorant of all I said on the matter. He has now had the opportunity of referring to the newspapers, and has discovered that I explained to the House, as fully as I could, the whole circumstances of the case and the proposals of the Government in regard to the Niger company. I refer to this because it is evident that the hon. Member has now acquainted himself, to some extent, with the facts of the case, and therefore has been able to discuss the statement I made. But even so, the hon. Member is a little premature, for really the speech he has delivered was a speech not appropriate to the Report on the Resolution, which is almost invariably a formal stage, but to the Second Reading of the Bill. When the Second Reading of the Bill comes on he will be in possession of the papers which I have promised, and will be far better able to obtain them. That is the case; but why? I found in the

1507
course of the discussion that hon. Members desired to obtain certain papers which I had not supposed would be asked for, and therefore I delayed the issue of the papers which I had prepared for a day or so, in order that all the papers which hon. Members wanted should be in their possession. I never suggested for a moment that the papers would be in their possession before the Report on the Resolution. What I said was that they would be in their possession a sufficient length of time before the Second Reading of the Bill was proposed. I trust hon. Members wi!1 not feel it necessary to continue this discussion to-night. I do not at all blame the hon. Member for rising. He has made his speech now, and has expressed his opinion, and I trust that in a few days the House will be in possession of the Bill, and of the Papers, and will be far better able to form a judgment on the whole case than now.
MR. DILLON: The discussion of yesterday, and so far as it has gone to-night, must have brought home to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the conviction that he has set about this task in a wrong fashion. It is a very large question, and I hold that in bringing forward a motion like this, which undoubtedly commits the House not only to the principle of the Bill, but substantially to the amount of compensation to be given to the company, the House ought to have had in its hands a fair and full statement of the facts, and of the affairs of the company, and of the alleged profits and assets on which the House is to be asked to provide these funds. I know that the right hon. Gentleman made, in some respects, a very clear statement, but I defy any hon. Member to take in to his mind adequately it complicated statement of figures such as that made by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday; and even if it were possible, for the purposes of discussion, to remember and to take notes, it very soon became apparent, in the course of the discussion, that there were many facts wanting, and a vast deal of information which is absolutely essential to be had before we arrive at a decision as to the amount of money to be paid—particularly in reference to this question of stock. One of the propositions to which the House has been asked to agree is to take
1508
over a debt of £250,000 five per cent. inscribed stock, and in order to deal with that debt, we are to raise a sum of £300,000 and pay it off at a premium of 20 per cent. This debt was raised by the company in 1888, and, so far as I can understand from the only sources of information at our disposal, it was divided into two parts. The money obtained by the company was not spent in administration, but was allowed to be used by the company in the way of re-imbursement of alleged payments that had been made in previous years. £133,000 was distributed at the rate of 30 per cent. to all the shareholders, and £116,000 was retained in the hands of the company, which they have to this day. And now, as part of the payment, this country is to take over the whole of the debt of £250,000, thus leaving; the proceeds in the hands of the shareholders of the company. I find from the "Stock Exchange Year Book" that the latest price of this stock is 100. But I would like very much to see the quotation of this stock next week, the moment it is known that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to take over the 5 per cent. stock on the security of the credit of this country, and that it is to be redeemed immediately at 120. I need not say that that stock will jump up immediately. We ought to have some information as to who are the gentlemen who get the additional advantage of the rise of this stock in the market. I also maintain that some information ought to be given as to whether any effort was made to get hold of this stock, which was selling at par, before this resolution was introduced. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said just now, when he alluded to the sum of £300,000 for unexhausted improvements, that that sum did not include, as I understood him, either the lands on the banks of the Niger or the alleged mineral rights. As I read his speech, I took it that these unexhausted improvements did include the lands and a number of alleged mineral rights. If that sum does not include the land and minerals, I should like to know what the unexhausted improvements are; for all the improvements visible to the naked eye, and which are purchased for a large sum by the Government, are the jetties, warehouses, machinery, and plant. And these are to be purchased at a valuation. Who made the valuation is another

1509
question. What are the unexhausted improvements
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: The unexhausted improvements are, the moneys expended by the company out of trade profits in developing the territory and in administrative work, and applied, beyond the sums raised through customs duties which it was allowed to raise, for the purposes of administration—the benefit of which, owing to the revocation of the charter, it will never be able to receive.
MR. DILLON: We know what is going to be done, but why is the company, which in 1888 got a sum of £250,000 to cover these obligations, to get another sum?
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: The money was expended by the company in acquiring treaties and other rights and privileges.
MR. DILLON: That I quite under-stand, but we must examine the profits of the company. They have distributed a bonus of 30 per cent. to the shareholders. In addition to that there are trade profits, and they hold £116,000 in their hands. for the last six years they have paid 6 per cent. and 7½ per cent. in the last two years. Their stock in the market, in spite of the alleged losses, stands at nearly 100 per cent premium. Now we are told that they are to be recouped for losses incurred by transferring sums from their trading profits to administrative expenses. The whole capital of the company is about £500,000 including debentures, and they are to get a sum of £300,000 altogether apart front trade profits, which will enable them to distribute 70 per cent. as a bonus to the shareholders. I believe that they would be able to return to their shareholders nearly the whole of their paid-up capital, and go on paying a good percentage on their capital as if it were still paid up. It seems to me that the price to be paid the company is enormous.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: The hon. Gentleman entirely forgets that by this change the company will lose that trade monopoly which has enabled them to make these large trading profits, and which they will not be able to make in future.
MR. DILLON: I say that the statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer require to be proved. I noticed that in the newspapers this morning there is the very greatest possible doubt in the public mind of this country as to this transaction, and there is a great body of opinion that the Niger Company after this transaction is over will have as good a trading business as formerly. They have got a long start of possible competitors, and it is perfectly possible that after having made many losses they will be in a stronger position than ever for trading purposes. I think it must be generally felt that it would have been better to have had a full Debate on the Resolution with the Papers before the House, and certainly the attempt to rush the early stages of the Bill will not have the effect of shortening the discussion.
MR. DALZIEL: The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a statement just now that in future the arrangement carried out with the company would materially affect their trading profits. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman has read the circular issued this morning to the shareholders, in which it is stated that the revocation of the charter would not affect the legal position of the company, and that in expectation of the present proposal careful precautions had been taken that the contracts and the corporate existence of the company should depend, not on the charter, but on their earlier registration as a company under the Limited Liability Act. Contracts have been made right up to date which will give them a certain monopoly for years to come. They have a monopoly on the Niger at this moment, and their monopoly is going to continue. There is one other point which I regard as of great importance. It is reported to-day that this company, in view of the proposals of the Government, have been steadily and persistently buying up certain lands which the Government is not taking over, and which will give them practically as big a monopoly as ever.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I have made inquiries as to that statement front Sir George Goldie, and he indignantly denies that there is the slightest truth in it.
MR. DALZIEL: No one is mow glad to hear that statement than I am. I can

1511
only regret that right hon. Gentleman was not in a position to deny the report yesterday, because it was stated on the authority of correspondence from men on the spot. We must take Sir George Goldie's statement, of course. But we have practically no reliable evidence as to the basis on which the valuations have been made; nor have we the balance-sheets of the company. It seems to me that before this proposal goes much further we should have the balance-sheets of the company, especially when it is said that it is a losing concern. It is said that there are mineral rights which are to be transferred to the Government. These mineral rights have been in existence for many years, and it is not likely that the Niger Company would hand them over if they were worth anything. Besides, the company are to get 50 per cent. of all we make out of these mineral rights for a long term of years, while we are to take all the risks. That is a very good deal for the company.
MR. WEIR: The Stock Exchange is said to be a very good political barometer. The right hon. Gentleman, if he consults the lists, will find that the Niger Company's shares, instead of falling, have gone up front £10 to £17 and £18, which is double their value. And I cannot but think that they will continue to go up when there is such a splendid prospect before the shareholders in view of the payment of this £865,000 which the Government is going
1512
to make. Besides, the company have entered into a long lease which will secure a monopoly for many years to come. I should like to know what evidence there is that there are really valuable mineral rights in the territory.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman has made the amende, and I will withdraw the motion I have made.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Brodrick.

ROYAL NIGER COMPANY BILL.
"To make provision for certain payments to be made in connection with the revocation of the charter of the Royal Niger Company," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 260.]

COTTAGE HOMES BILL.
Special Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 261.]
House adjourned at ten minutes before One of the clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
THE LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14).
Also the Certificate that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:—
MILLWALL DOCK.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
Witnesses ordered to attend the Select Committee.
BLACKPOOL, IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  WALKER AND WALLSEND UNION GAS (ELECTRIC LIGHTING) BILL.
    LOWESTOFT PROMENADE PIER BELL.
    Committee to meet on Friday next.
CITY AND BRIXTON RAILWAY BILL.
  MIDLAND AND SOUTH-WESTERN JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
  Committee to meet on Thursday next.
INVERNESS HARBOUR BILL [Lords].
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to, with an Amendment; and Bill returned to the Commons.
ROCHDALE CANAL BILL [Lords].
Reported with Amendments.
DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
  DUBLIN CORPORATION (MARKETS) BILL.
  Leave given to the Select Committee not to sit To-morrow until Twelve o'clock.
LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS AYS BILL.
Moved, that the Order made on the 9th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 27th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed.
DERWENT VALLEY WATER BILL.
Moved that the Order made on the 9th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 27th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed, the Committee to be proposed by the committee of Selection.
TAFF VALE RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
WARRINGTON CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
REFORMATORY SCHOOLS AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
FISHGUARD WATER AND GAS BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
BURY CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  BURY CORPORATION WATER BILL [Lords].
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
MILTON CREEK CONSERVANCY BILL.
The Queen's consent signified; and Bill reported with Amendments.
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Reported with Amendments.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
    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.
    Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROSIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (No. 2) BILL.
    Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  DARWEN CORPORATION BILL.

    LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN (NEW RAILWAYS) BILL.
    LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL.
    BROMPTON AND PICCADILLY CIRCUS RAILWAY BILL.
    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2.) BILL.
    WORCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
    DERWENT VALLEY WATER BILL.
    Report from the Committee of Selection, that the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select
    1392
    Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; viz.,

    E. Abingdon,

    E. Lauderdale (chairman),

    E. Mayo,

    L. Llangattock,

    L. Wandsworth;

    agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: the Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at Twelve o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

GREAT WESTERN AND GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANIES' BILL.
Leave given to the Select Committee not to sit again until Friday next.
RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (1898–99).
  I. Associations constituted under the Voluntary Schools Act, 1897;
  II. Associated schools and amounts of aid-grant paid;
  III. Unassociated schools and amounts of aid-grant paid.

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Returns of accidents and casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several railway companies in the United Kingdom during the three months ended 31st March, 1899; in pursuance of the Regulation of Railways Act (1871), 34th and 35th Victoria, chap. 78; together with reports of the inspecting officers of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain accidents which were inquired into.

  TRADE REPORTS (1899) ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 2305. Roumania;
  No. 2306. Turkey (Damascus);
  No. 2307. China (Chefoo);
  No. 2308. China (Kin Kiang).

  LIQUOR LICENSING LAWS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Final Report of Her Majesty's Commissioners appointed to inquire into the

  1393
  operation and administration of the laws relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors; with a general index to the previous reports, evidence, &c.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  COLONIAL FORTIFICATIONS ACT, 1877.
  Representations, dated 3rd July, 1899, of Secretary of State for the Colonies and Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, that it is expedient that certain properties held in trust for the defence of the colony of New South Wales should he transferred to the Government of that colony; and draft of an Order in Council for giving effect to above representations.
  LAND REGISTRATION (ENGLAND).
  Land Transfer Rules, June, 1899.
  CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.
  List of all pensions granted during the year ended 20th June, 1899, and charged upon the Civil List.

  SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS FUND) (SAVINGS BANKS FUND) (FRIENDLY SOCIETIES FUND).
  Accounts for the year ended 31st December, 1898.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Report from the Committee of Selection for the Standing Committee, that the Committee have added the Lord Wandsworth to the Standing Committee; read, and Ordered to lie on the Table.
  YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS BILL [Lords].
  Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments: The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. [No. 153.]

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (DEFECTTIVE AND EPILEPTIC CHILDREN) HILL [Lords].
  Reported from the Standing Committee with further Amendments: The Report of the Amendments made in Committee
  1394
  of the Whole House and by the Standing Committee to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. [No. 154.]

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT (1879) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments; The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. [No. 155.]
  EDUCATION OF CHILDREN BELL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment, and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  ANCHORS AND CHAIN CABLES BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order) with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.
  Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved—
  "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Vice-President of the Council.)
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 3a, accordingly, with the Amendments.
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I suppose the Amendments which the noble Duke has proposed are all drafting Amendments, but no notice whatever has been given of them, and they are not on the Paper.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): In reply to the noble Marquess, I think I can safely say that all the Amendments I have proposed are drafting Amendments, with the exception, possibly, of one which has been suggested to me on behalf of the County of Middlesex. At present there appears to be some doubt whether the County Council of Middlesex would be entitled to be heard before the Commissioners upon a proposal which has been embodied in the Bill. It refers to the question of compensation for any part of the County of Middlesex which may be taken away.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I think it is worthy of notice that the noble Duke now proposes to give to the County Council of Middlesex the right to be heard, which he refused to give to the London County Council. I do not think the noble Duke is treating the County Council of London justly.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The case is quite a different one. The County Council of London has the right to be heard before the Commissioners and the Committee of the Privy Council in any matter in which it is interested. What the noble Lord opposite desired was that the London County Council should be heard in cases in which that body was not interested.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The London County Council is interested in every scheme promulgated under this Bill, which applies to the County of London. All the proposed boroughs are within the County of London, and, moreover, the London County Council is obliged to find the money for the expense of the schemes.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I have not the slightest doubt but that the County Council will be heard in every case where it can show that it is interested. What we refused to give to the London County Council was power to express its opinion in matters in which it was not interested.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I have placed upon the Paper an amendment to Clause 22, which provides that the election of churchwardens for the ecclesiastical parish remaining attached to a mother church shall be vested in the inhabitants of such ecclesiastical parish. I should be glad to know if the noble Duke the Lord President has any remarks to make upon this Amendment. I shall then he able to judge whether or not it will be necessary for me to move it.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Instructions will be given to the Commissioners to the effect that their general policy ought to be to vest the appointment of churchwardens in the inhabitants of the ecclesiastical parishes. I trust that that will satisfy the right rev. Prelate,
  1396
  because it is considered that the Amendment which he proposes will cause inconvenience, chiefly in consequence of the indefinite meaning to be attached to the expression "Mother Church."
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am quite satisfied with what the noble Duke has said. I believe that if the instructions to which he has referred are given, my object will be achieved. I do not propose, therefore, to move the Amendment.
  The Earl of PORTSMOUTHhad the following Amendment upon the Paper:
  "After Clause 23 to insert as new clause: 'The members of borough cooncils, borough treasurers, and town clerks, during the time that they hold office under this Act shall enjoy exemption from service on all juries.'"
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The Earl of Portsmouth, I understand, is not in his place to move this Amendment, but it could not he accepted in its present. form. I am willing, however, that an Amendment in the following terms should be inserted—
  "Members of a council of a borough, and the town clerk and treasurer for the time being of a borough, shall be exempt from serving on any jury summoned in the County of London."
  The noble Earl's Amendment would make them exempt from serving on juries no matter where those juries were summoned.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: Is there any precedent for such an exemption? Perhaps the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack can inform us.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): I confess that the acceptance of ally such Amendment as the one which the noble Duke has read comes upon me by surprise. I entertain considerable doubt in regard to it as a matter of form, and it seems to me entirely outside the purview of this Bill, in addition to which it is an alteration of the general Jury Law which I think requires consideration.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I had received advice in a contrary sense to that expressed by the noble and learned Lord; but if the noble and learned Lord is of opinion that this Amendment is not with-

  1397
  in the scope of the Bill, I will not move it.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

QUESTIONS.

  LONDON SCHOOL BOARD AND REHOUSING OF DISPLACED PERSONS.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to the action of the London School Board in respect of the site for a proposed school in Bethnal Green, known as the Wood Street site, whereby, although more than twenty houses occupied by persons belonging to the labouring classes are taken, the Standing Orders of the House of Lords as to the re-housing of persons displaced are evaded; and, if so, would Her Majesty's Government, in view of the growing seriousness of the overcrowding problem in East London, take steps to prevent such evasion in the future. The question I have ventured to put on the Paper raises considerations which, I think, are worthy of your Lordships' attention, and I trust Her Majesty's Government will be able to satisfy me and your Lordships that they will take some action in the matter. My question in effect suggests—in fact, it states—that the London School Board have deliberately—I, personally, think wilfully—ignored the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House. The Standing Orders to which I refer provide that, when the London School Board acquire land compulsorily, or otherwise, for the purpose of erecting a Board School, there should be in the Bill which they submit to Parliament a clause compelling them, if they acquire more than 20 houses, to submit a scheme to the Home Secretary for the re-housing of the labouring classes displaced. I will, with your Lordships' permission, read the clause to which I refer:
  "The Board shall not, under the powers of this Act, purchase or acquire in any parish in the Metropolis, as defined by the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, 20 or more houses which, on the 15th of December last were, or have been since that day, Or shall hereafter be occupied either wholly or partially by persons belonging to the labouring class as tenants or lodgers unless and until:—
  "(a) They shall have obtained the approval of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to a scheme for providing new dwellings for such number of persons as were residing in such houses on the 15th day of
  1398
  December last, or for such number of persons as the Secretary of State shall, after inquiry, deem necessary, having regard to the number of persons on or after that date residing in such houses and working within one mile therefrom, and to the amount of vacant suitable accommodation in the immediate neighbourhood of such houses, or to the place of employment of such persons, and to all the circumstances of the case; and
  "(b) They shall have given security to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State for the carrying out of the scheme."
  It seems to me perfectly clear by that clause that if the School Board acquire more than 20 houses, the Standing Orders compel them to submit a scheme to the Home Secretary for re-housing the people displaced. A question was addressed in the other House to the Home Secretary in nearly the same words as my question, which I had intended to ask on Friday last, but which, at the request of Her Majesty's Government, I deferred until to-day. The Home Secretary, in replying to the question in the other House, said he had been informed by the School Board that the facts were as stated in the question, and that no obligation to re-house arose under the Statute. I contend that the necessity did arise. The interpretation which the School Board have put upon the Act is that, if they acquire a site consisting of more than 20 houses, and do not take in any one year the whole number, they by that means can evade the Act. The instance which I am going to refer to is known as the Wood-street site, in the parish of St. Matthew's, Bethnal Green. It contains 21 houses, and prior to 1895 the London School Board acquired the whole of these houses. They did not, however, schedule the whole of them in the Bill which they promoted in that year. They scheduled 13 in 1895, leaving the remaining eight houses to be scheduled in 1896. As your Lordships will see by the plan, this is a square block of buildings, and the Home Secretary, when the Bill of 1896 came before him, obviously did not notice that the 13 houses scheduled in the Act of 1895 were part of the same site as that upon which the eight houses stood which were scheduled in the Act of 1896. The property was taken over in the early spring of this year, and all the tenants were ejected at one given moment. I think that is an important fact, because it shows that there was no special reason why the School Board took 13 houses in one year

  1399
  and eight the next. If this was an isolated case there might be some explanation from the London School Board which might be satisfactory, and which would show that they had not deliberately tried to evade the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House. It is not, however, an isolated case. I could quote many instances to your Lordships which would show that this is a policy which the London School Board has adopted in order, in my humble opinion, to evade the Standing Orders of this House. In 1896 they acquired a site for a School Board consisting of 46 houses. It that year 11 houses were scheduled in their Bill. In the following year they scheduled 19 houses, just the number to escape the notice of the Home Secretary, and they had so far succeeded in deceiving the Home Office that when the Home Secretary replied to a question asked in the House of Commons, he said he understood there were no reasons why the School Board should rehouse the people displaced, because they did not acquire twenty houses. There is no problem which is so difficult to deal with as the housing of the working classes, and there are no evils of so grave a character as the evils resulting from overcrowding. It seems to me that Her Majesty's Government should be able to answer this question and tell us whether the action of the London School Board is legal, and, if it is legal, whether it is a fair and equitable interpretation to be put by a public body upon the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House, and whether in the face of the facts which I have ventured to put before them, they will take steps to prevent the recurrence of such a proceeding.
  LORD BELPER: I am afraid I cannot give a very complete answer to the whole of the remarks which the noble Earl has made, although I can answer the question placed upon the Paper. The noble Earl has already stated the fact that the attention of the Government has been called to this matter by a question which was put to the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the other House. That question was asked on Friday last, and the answer which the Home Secretary then gave was that he would communicate further with the London School Board in reference to the matter, and, if necessary, with the Education Department. The communications are still going on, and, as the Home Office is not
  1400
  fully informed of the whole of the details, the House will understand that I cannot express any definite opinion, upon it. I believe the facts were that the scheme of the London School Board was presented to the House in the two Provisional Orders—one in 1895, and the other in 1896—and that in neither of them were twenty houses taken. The attention of the Home Secretary was not called to the fact that these two Provisional Orders might be said to refer to one scheme. It is not, of course, for me to express any opinion, on the imperfect information which the Home Office has at present, as to what might have been the reasons why the scheme was presented in two Provisional Orders instead of one. I can, however, assure the noble Earl that the Home Office is fully alive to the importance of the point which he has brought before the House, and that it will be their duty, after they have had the fullest information from the parties concerned, to form their opinion on the case and to consider what steps may be necessary in the future—if the facts are as alleged—to ensure that the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House should be strictly conformed with. I cannot go further into the matter until the correspondence has come to an end.
  LORD REAY: My Lords, the indictment of the noble Earl is really directed as much against the Education Department as it is against the London School Board, because it refers to Bills which have been promoted in Parliament by the Education Department. There are two culprits—the School Board and the Education Department, if culprits they are. The School Board cannot act in this matter without the sanction of the Education Department. With regard to the Wood Street site, I will explain to your Lordships how that matter stands. In 1895 power was taken to purchase thirteen houses, Under the Education Department Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Act of 1895 the rehousing obligation only applies to houses which are purchased or acquired under the powers conferred by the Act. There was no clause in the Act of 1895 such as appeared in the later Act of 1896—that the obligation should also apply to houses which were taken by agreement. Of the thirteen houses for which powers were conferred by the Act of 1895, seven were

  1401
  purchased by the School Board by auction. Therefore the obligation of rehousing under the Act of 1895 only applies to six houses. Under the Act of 1896 power is given to take eight houses. Add eight to six and you get fourteen. Therefore the London School Board were well within the limit of twenty houses so far as the Wood Street site is concerned. As regards the answer given by my noble friend on behalf of the Home Office, I need hardly say that he will find the School Board ready in every way to meet the just demands of the Home Office for rehousing in these cases.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I did not quite follow the noble Lord who has just spoken, and who is the Chairman of the London School Board, in his remarks as to there being a difference between the Act of 1895 and the Act of 1896. So far as I can see, they are substantially the same.
  LORD REAY: The noble Earl will see that Sub-section 12 of Clause 3 of the Act of 1896 does not occur in the Act of 1895.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I did not know that the London School Board had acquired eight of the houses on this site by auction; but the point I raised is whether it is legal to acquire a certain number of houses one year and others the next year on the same site, and by that means avoid housing the people displaced. The noble Lord who has defended the School Board has referred to one instance. I have deliberately stated that the School Board has adopted this policy in more than one instance. In the face of this fact, I look forward with some hope to Her Majesty's Government taking action to prevent the School Board, and the Education Department as well, pursuing this course in the future.
  House adjourned at five minutes, after Five of the clock, to Thursday next, at half-past Ten of the clock.