Sitting of 27 March 1899

Preamble
MR. SPEAKERtook the Chair at Three of the clock.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Pro-visional Order made by the Education Department under the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1893, to enable the School Board for the United School District of Swansea in the county of Glamorgan to put in force the Lands Clauses Acts."[Education Dpartment Provisional Order Confirmation (Swansea) Bill [H.L.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the construction of additional waterworks for the city of Perth and places adjacent; for conferring further borrowing powers for the purpose of the construction of the bridge and certain other works and the gasworks authorised by the Perth Harbour City Improvements and Gas Act, 1897; and for other purposes."[Perth Water, Police, and Gas Bill [H.L.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the transfer of the undertaking of the Whitwick and Coalville Gas Company to the Coalville Urban District Council; and to authorise that Council to supply gas; and for other purposes."[Coalville Urban District] Gas Bill [H.L.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to incorporate a company for the purpose of acquiring the existing Great Yarmouth Britannia Pier, and of constructing a new and improved pier in lieu thereof; and for other purposes."[Great Yarmouth Pier Bill [H.L.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Corporation of the county borough of Birkenhead in relation to the tramways within the borough; and for other purposes."[Birkenhead Corporation Bill [H.L.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for making a Railway in the county of Leicester from the London Extension of the Great Central Railway at Loughborough to the Urban District of Sheep-shed; and for other purposes."[Loughborough and Sheepshead Railway Bill [H.L.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to alter and amend the Yeadon and Guiseley Gas Act, 1868, by substituting for the maximum price of Gas supplied by the Yeadon and Guiseley Gas Light and Coke Company a standard price, with a sliding scale of profits dependent on the price charged above or below such standard price."[Yeadon and Guiseley Gas Bill [H.L.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the objects of, and to confer further powers on, the Northern Assurance Company; and for other purposes."[Northern Assurance Company Bill [H.L.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable the Bristol Gas Company to erect Works for the storage of gas; to raise additional capital; and for other purposes."[Bristol Gas Bill [H.L.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Airdrie and Coatbridge Water Company to abandon certain works authorised by the Airdrie and Coatbridge Waterworks Amendment Act, 1892, and to construct additional waterworks; to amend the provisions of that Act; to raise additional capital; and for other purposes."[Airdrie and Coatbridge Water Bill [H.L.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the powers of the Lea Bridge District Gas Company and amend the Acts affecting that Company; and for other purposes."[Lea Bridge District Gas Bill [H.L.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the County Council of Flint to raise a further sum of money for the completion of the Queen's Ferry Bridge."[Queen's Ferry Bridge Bill [H.L.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for conferring further powers upon the Herne Bay Waerworks Company; and for other purposes."[Herne Bay Water Bill [H.L.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Walton-on-Thames and Weybridge Gas Company to raise additional capital; and for other purposes."[Walton-on-Thames and Weybridge Gas Bill [H.L.]
Cathcart's Divorce Bill,—That they communicate Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings taken upon the Second Reading of Cathcart's Divorce Bill as desired by this House, with a request that the same may be returned.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  EDUCATIONAL DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SWANSEA) BILL [H.L.]
  Read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. (Bill 143.)
  Perth Water, Police, and Gas Bill [H.L.]
  Coalville Urban District Gas Bill [H.L.]
  Great Yarmouth Pier Bill [H.L.]
  Birkenhead Corporation Bill [H.L.]
  Loughborough and Sheeoshed Railway Bill [H.L.]
  Yeadon and Guiseley Gas Bill [H.L.]
  Northern Assurance Company Bill [H.L.]
  Bristol Gas Bill [H.L.]
  Airdrie and Coatbridge Water Bill [H.L.]
  Lea Bridge District Gas Bill [H.L.]
  Queen's Ferry Bridge Bill [H.L.]
  Herne Bay Water Bill [H.L.]
  Walton-on-Thames and Weybridge Gas Bill [H.L.]
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private. Bills.

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

  Great Central Railway Bill.

  Great Western and Great Central Railway Companies Bill.

  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 63 COMPLIED WITH.)
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 63 has been complied with, viz.:—

  Aire and Calder Navigation Bill.

  London United Tramways Bill.

  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS [H.L.] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.: —

  Glasgow District Subway Bill [H.L.]

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

  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  STOCKPORT DISTRICT WATER BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  BRYNMAWR AND WESTERN VALLEYS RAILWAY BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  CENTRAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  NUNEATON AND CHILVERS COTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  ST. JAMES'S AND PALL MALL ELECTRIC LIGHT BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  STOCKPORT CORPORATION WATER BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  KENSINGTON AND NOTTING HILL ELECTRIC LIGHTING BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.

  BAKER STREET AND WATERLOO RAILWAY BILL (BY ORDER).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  SIR G. FARDELL: The Bill now before the House is strongly objected to by my constituents, and the Vestry of Paddington, who have presented a petition against it, because, as originally introduced, it proposed to establish a station for generating electricity and a terminal station yard in a district of Paddington which is en-

  479
  tirely of a residential character. Not only has the Vestry petitioned against it, but the Bill is also opposed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the owners of the freehold, by the Paddington trustees, and by the residents. Several other petitions against it have been presented, notably by the Great Western Railway, the London County Council, and the Grand Junction Canal Company. I think the circumstances are peculiarly hard on Paddington. The Bill, although called an Omnibus Bill, is really one for the extension of a railway which has already been given two Acts of Parliament. In 1893 the Company obtained an Act which contained stringent restrictive clauses prohibiting the erection of generating stations in the parishes of St. Martin's and Marylebone, or anywhere north of the Thames, Paddington was not concerned in the scheme. These restrictions were continued by a subsequent Act passed in 1896, and now in 1899 it is rather hard that in a Bill of this sort they should all of a sudden spring this upon us, enabling them to establish in Paddington a generating station as well as a terminal station and yard. In addition to that, the Vestry look upon the undertaking as a speculative concern. Although there has been no public issue of capital, the line is in course of construction by the London and Globe Finance Corporation, and the extension to Paddington is a minor object. While they say they want the extension from Baker Street to Paddington, the real object is to go to Paddington and to make that an excuse for going on further, and to obtain land for further extensions. If the promoters are satisfied to stop at Paddington, I can undertake, on the part of the Vestry, not to oppose the Bill at all, except as regards the usual protective clauses. If the promoters will withdraw everything relating to the extension beyond the Great Western Railway station at Paddington, we are satisfied, and do not desire to oppose any bond fide scheme.
  At this stage, on the summons of the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod (Sir MICHAEL BIDDULPH), the Speaker, in company with Members of the House, proceeded to the House of Lords to hear
  480
  the Royal Commission read, and the Royal Assent given to Acts which had been passed by both Houses of Parliament.
  On their return Mr. SPEAKER announced that the Royal Assent had been given in regard to the Consolidated Fund and other Bills.
  SIR G. FARDELL (continuing): Since my notice to move the rejection of the Bill has been put upon the paper, a representative of the promoters has come to me and suggested that if I would withdraw all opposition to the second reading of the Bill, they, on their part, would be prepared to say that the generating station would be given up. I reported that to my constituents, and none of them see their way clear to fall in with the suggestion. It is only fair to the promoters that I should say they formally repeated before the Chairman of Ways and Means, that the clauses relating to the generating station will be struck out of the Bill. I suggested to them at the same time that we were desirous of withdrawing the opposition if they would be content with joining up with Paddington Station, and thus giving a through route from Waterloo to Paddington; but I am afraid that at present there is no chance of their acceding to that. That proposal of mine to stop at the Great Western Railway station was rejected, and under the circumstances I had no other course open to me to-day than to draw attention to the matter on the Second Reading, and this was all the more necessary because the promoters have circulated a printed statement to honourable Members' in which is this paragraph—
  "The site is immediately adjacent to the Grand Junction and Regent's Canals, and the great majority of the houses on it are, and for long time have been, uninhabited, thus proving what are the residential qualities which it is alleged will be destroyed No labouring classes will be disturbed."
  I am very much surprised at that statement, because I should certainly consider it extremely incorrect. There are some 300 houses in the immediate vicinity of the proposed station yard, the site of which is in every sense of a residential character, and I have reason for saying

  481
  that a very small percentage indeed are at the present moment empty. The labouring classes have entirely nothing to do with the point. The references to the labouring classes not being disturbed induces me to say that this fact is due to a regard to the Company's own interests, for had they disturbed this class they would have been compelled to erect houses for those who were ejected, but this will now be avoided. In consequence of the absence of my honourable Friend and Colleague, the Member for North Paddington, occasioned solely by illness, which, I am sure, we all regret, the responsibility for the course to be pursued to-day rests entirely upon my shoulders. I feel that in view of the offer of the promoters to give up the generating station I am placed in a very difficult position, because honourable Members might think, if I had consented to the second reading without making this statement, that my constituents look upon the generating station as the main objection, whereas they consider the other part of the Bill just as bad. I know this House is very averse indeed to enter into details. I do not think it right, therefore, to take up the time of the House with that which would involve the House in a long discussion on the details. Under the circumstances I wish to offer my most emphatic protest on behalf of my constituents against the Bill going forward, and to state that it is their intention to oppose it in every way, and having made that protest, I do not propose to continue my opposition to the Second Reading in order that the Bill may go before the Committee.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: There is only one word I wish to say. I assure the honourable Member that there is nothing at all speculative about this Bill; it is an absolutely bona fide railway question, and the gentlemen promoting the railway are only too anxious that every question should be threshed out before the Committee, and already they have signified their wish to meet my honourable Friend, as he rightly acknowledges, by giving up the generating station at Paddington. I feel as my honourable Friend has entered his protest for his constituents, he should now allow the matter to go before the Committee, where every party can be heard and justice will be done.
  MR. KIMBER: The honourable Member has opposed this Bill on Second Heading on grounds which have nothing to do with the Second Reading at all. This Bill is one in which I have no interest whatever, except as one of the British public, and as the representative of a very much larger number of Metropolitan people than that represented by my honourable Friend, and I think ho has exercised a wise discretion in withdrawing the opposition. But I will say this, that where a large Metropolitan improvement has been already half done, and the Company is going to improve it, and improve it in a way which increases the facilities to the public for getting under and along the streets of the Metropolis, and getting to the great terminals, I do think it comes very badly from the Vestry, whoever they may be, while admitting with one breath that the only objectionable provision of the Bill is that it has a terminal station (and however you are going to construct a railway without a terminal station I am at a loss to conceive), that they should then say the Bill should be thrown out, which has many other good objects, besides the terminal station, because they want to oppose it in their personal interests, their vestry interests, when they admit that they have a locus standi to appear upon it before the tribunal of the House, that is the Committee on the Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

  SOUTH EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
  Ordered, That Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice be discharged from the Select Committee on the South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Companies Bill, and that Mr. Kearley be added to the Committee.—(Mr. Thomas Ellis.)
  METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.
NEW BILLS.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Castleford, East Barnet Valley, Grays Thurrock, Mexhorough, Sutton Coldfield, and Worksop,"presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 144.]
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Aylesbury, Hartlepool, Ystra-dyfodwg (Maerdy), Mansfield, Wath-upon-Dearne, and Winsford, "presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 145.]
PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION OF CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from Poulton-cum-Seacombe, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING (CLAUSES) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition in favour;—From Bo'ness; —Dundee;—and, Bridgeton; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES SERVANTS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petition from Alnwick, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES SERVANTS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petitions in favour; —From Free-bridge Lynn; —Samford; —and, Ponty-pool; to lie upon the Table.
  OMDURMAN (TREATMENT OF MAHDI'S TOMB AND CORPSE).
  Petition from Liverpool, for inquiry; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  Petitions for extension to women;— From London: — Bexley; — Birmingham;—Saffron Walden (two);—Weston super Mare (two);—St. Leonards; — Rotherham (two);—Chelsea;—Oldham (three);—Kirkham;—West Kensington (three);—Bristol;—York (two);—Kensington (three);—Hyde Park Gate (two); —West London (eighteen);—Hammersmith; — Winslow; — Newcastle on Tyne; —Cheshire; —Bebington;—and, Heswall; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION (MUNICIPAL TRADING).
  Petitions for inquiry by a Select Committee;—From Bradford;—St. Helens; — Leeds; — Scarborough; — Hudders-field; — Leamington; — Glasgow; — Crystal Palace;—Leamington Priors; — Mansfield; —Enniskillen; —Lancaster; —British Electric Traction Company; — Oldham; —Cromer; —Westminster; — Wallasey; —Wirral; —Bristol (two);— Imperial Tramways Company;—London; —Corris; —Reading; —Newcastle upon Tyne;—Western Wagon and Property Company;—and, Gloucester; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Partick; —and, Leith; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From West Marylebone; Oxford (two);, Forest Hill (three); Woodbridge; Glensford; York (two); Portsmouth; Chelsea; and Oldham (three); to lie upon the Table.
  UNDERGROUND WATER.
  Petition from Berkhampstead, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented,—of Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated 27th March 1899, amending the terms of Article 118 of the Code of 1899 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  NATIONAL DEBT ANNUITIES.
  Account presented,—of the Gross Amount of all Bank Annuities for terms of years transferred, and of all Sums of Money paid to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and the Gross Amount of Annuities for Lives and for terms of years, etc., granted within the year ended 5th January 1899 (by Act); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 129.)
  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (APPROPRIATION ACCOUNTS).
  Copy presented,—of Treasury Minute, dated 22nd March 1899, adding to Schedule B of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1866 (29 and 30 Vic, cap. 39), the Appropriation Accounts of the Grants for the three Revenue Departments, namely, the Post Office (including the Telegraph and Packet Services), the Board of Customs, and the Board of Inland Revenue, and directing a detailed test examination of such Accounts under the same Act (by Act); to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS (NAVY VOTES).
  Copy presented,—of Treasury Minute, dated 22nd March 1899, under the Appropriation Act, 1898, authorising the temporary application of Surpluses on certain Navy Votes for the year 1898–9 to meet Excesses on certain other Navy Votes for the same year (pursuant to Resolution of the House of 4th March 1879); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 130.)
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACT, 1890 (METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES).
  Copy presented,—of Order of the Secretary of State for the Home Department permitting a modification in the London (Churchway, St. Pancras) Improvement Scheme, 1895 (by Act); to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (TRAINING COLLEGES).
  Copy presented,—of Reports relating to Training Colleges for the year 1898 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  EGYPT ((NO. 2, 1899).
  Copy presented,—of Dispatch to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, inclosing a Copy of a Declaration relative to the British and French Spheres of Influence in Central Africa (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented,—of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 2,213 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  SANITARY INSPECTORS' EXAMINATION BOARD.
  Return presented,—relative there to (ordered 9th March; Mr. Hobhouse); to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS (ENGLAND).
  Copy presented,—of the Annual Returns for 1897–8, Part I. (Poor Rate Return and Valuation for the Poor Rate) (by Act); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 131.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888.
  Copies presented,—of Orders made by the County Councils and County Borough Councils of various Counties in England and Wales under Sections 57 and 59 of the Act, and confirmed by the Local Government Board (by Act); to lie upon the Table.
  WAR OFFICE.
  Copy presented,—of Memorandum showing the Duties of the principal Officers and Departments of the War Office and Details of Office Procedure under the Order in Council dated 7th March 1899 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.

  METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES (GOVERNMENT) BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence.
  Ordered, That the Report do lie upon the Table, and be printed. (No. 132.)
  Ordered, That the Bill, as amended in the Committee, be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday the 10th April, and be printed. (Bill 146.)

QUESTIONS.

  SCOTTISH EDUCATIONAL CODE.
  SIR C. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to a resolution recently passed by the West of Scotland Association of Secondary Teachers, expressing the opinion that Article 32a ought not to
  488
  be applied to Chapter IX. of the new Code; and whether, in the interests of education in higher grade science schools in Scotland, and considering the 17s. 6d. limit has been abolished in England, he will represent to his colleagues on the Scottish Committee of the Council on Education the desirability of deleting the words, "and Chapter IX." in Article 32 a of the new Code?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I understand that a resolution to the effect indicated by the honourable Member has been passed by the West of Scotland Association of Secondary Teachers. The conditions on which grants are made are matters concerning the managers of schools, and not associations of teachers, especially when such associations are confined to the teachers of secondary schools, which cannot claim grants under the Code. The particular condition to which he refers is necessary in respect of the provisions of the Scottish Education Acts, and it is not in the power of the Committee of Council to omit the words suggested. As at present advised the Department is not of opinion that it would be for the advantage of Scotland that this condition should be altered.

  DR. LAMONT, OF UIST.
  SIR C. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the unanimous acquittal by a jury of Dr. Lamont, formerly public vaccinator in the Island of Uist, tried at Inverness on the 15th instant for issuing false certificates of vaccination, when it was proved that his district was over 35 miles long and from five to 10 miles broad, and intersected by numerous branches of the sea, and that many of the houses were five miles off any public road and could only be reached by fording; whether he is aware that Dr. Lamont's alleged crime consisted in not having returned to inspect, at the end of a week, the infants vaccinated before issuing a certificate of successful vaccination, and the fee for the double journey and operation is 2s. 6d.; is he aware that this charge was kept hanging over Dr. Lamont's head for six months, thereby preventing him from accepting

  489
  a Government appointment in India; and that he was finally arrested on a warrant issued by Dr. M'Kenzie, an honorary sheriff, who was one of the witnesses against him in the case, kept in a police-cell in Glasgow from Saturday till Monday, conveyed to Uist in charge of a policeman, and obliged to find bail for £100 before being liberated; and if he would state at whose instance these proceedings were taken, and whether they were taken under the provisions of a statute or of rules issued by the Local Government Board; and, if under the latter, whether, until within the last few days, no means had been taken, either by the local authorities or the Local Government Board, to acquaint them with the existence of such rules?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: The answer to the first paragraph of the Question is in the affirmative. The answer to the second paragraph is that Dr. Lamont was charged with fabricating and uttering false certificates. In answer to the third paragraph, I have no knowledge of a Government appointment having been offered to Dr. Lamont, but that in any case such a circumstance could not have affected procedure. My information is that Dr. Lamont was warned not to leave Long Island, as proceedings were pending which might necessitate his attendance for declaration and committal. He did leave Long Island, and left no means of acquiring his address. The result was that a warrant of apprehension was applied for by the Procurator Fiscal, and obtained from the Resident Honorary Sheriff Substitute in common form. The warrant was put in the hands of the police in Glasgow, and was executed by them. I regret that Dr. Lamont should have been subjected to the indignity and inconvenience of an apprehension, but I think the action of the Procurator Fiscal was justifiable under the circumstances I have above stated. The answer to the fourth paragraph is that the proceedings were not under a statute or in respect of rules of the Local Government Board; but were at common law, upon an information laid by the parish council, and precognitions taken by the Procurator Fiscal in ordinary course.
  SIR C. CAMERON: I shall call attention to this matter on the Estimates.

  TELEGRAPH CLERKS' HOLIDAYS.
  MR. DILLON: On behalf of the honourable Member for South Louth, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether junior telegraph clerks of the Central Telegraph Office, London, are compelled to take their annual leave during the winter months, and whether men with upwards of 10 years' service have never had a summer holiday; and whether it can be stated when any improvement is to take place, as promised by the Postmaster-General in 1897?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The statements in the first paragraph are substantially correct. The Postmaster-General regrets that he has not yet been able to extend to the London telegraphists the same concession in this matter that has been granted to those in the provinces (where it has generally been found practicable to do it at a moderate cost), but he has the subject still under consideration, and he hopes that it may be possible to find some solution without imposing any serious additional charge on public funds.

  A MISSING MEMORIAL.
  MR. DILLON: On behalf of the honourable Member for South Louth, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether the counter clerks and telegraphists of the East Central District forwarded a memorial on 21st March 1897, and whether a reply can now be given to the memorialists?
  MR. HANBURY: No memorial dated the 21st March 1897, has been received from the counter clerks and telegraphists of the East Central District.

  COMPENSATION TO COMPULSORILY RETIRED OFFICERS.
  MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S.E.): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War why the promises and conditions given in the House of Commons by the Secretary of State for War, on the 24th June

  491
  1881, have not been carried out in their integrity in respect of the compensation to be awarded to those officers whose careers he decided to cut short by four years, and whom he designated as officers now in the rank of colonel who have elected to remain in the Army because of the prospect of reaching the list of generals, etc., the value of whose present prospects were to be safely guarded, and the mitigation of the severity of whose compulsory retirement had formed one of the main objects of his arrangements in bringing out the Royal Warrant of 1881; and why, in the case of those officers who were holding appointments in India at the time of their compulsory retirement, the compensation awarded them for loss of appointment, as laid down in the Royal Warrant, has not been calculated according to the pay and staff salary of such appointments defined by the India Office and the Indian Army Regulations under which they were serving?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL WILLIAMS, Birmingham, S.): The promises referred to in the first paragraph have been carried out. As regards the second paragraph, the compensation was calculated upon that portion of the officers' emoluments which represented their Indian pay, exclusive of allowances in respect of which they were not entitled to compensation.

  SASINES OFFICE, EDINBURGH.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that 18 temporary clerks in the Sasines Office, Edinburgh, some of whom have been employed for a few months, have been recommended by the head-keeper of that office for permanent appointments on the staff without examination; will he state whether such appointments would be in accordance with the Lord Clerk Register (Scotland) Act, 1879; is he aware that engrossing clerks appointed prior to 1879 were specially recommended for permanent appointments by the Lee and Low Commission, and that, so far, effect has not been given to those recommendations; and will he order an inquiry on the subject?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: A Minute by the Secretary for Scotland, which was presented to Parliament on the 22nd instant in terms of section 11 of the Lord Clerk Register (Scotland) Act, 1879, contains full information on the subject matter of this Question. If desired, the Secretary for Scotland will cause the honourable Member to be furnished with a copy of it.

  ST. PETERSBURG HERRING TRADE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the wharfage accommodation at St. Petersburg for the discharge and storage of herrings is still in an unsatisfactory condition; and will he have the question represented to the Russian Government, with a view to improved accommodation being provided?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): The matter has been repeatedly represented to the Russian Government by Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg, who went into the question very thoroughly last July. It is hoped that the steps which were in consequence then taken by the Russian authorities may have effected considerable improvement in the facilities afforded for the discharge and storage of herrings.

  SEED POTATOES FOR SCOTTISH CONGESTED DISTRICTS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state what quantity of seed potatoes has been given by the Congested Districts Board for distribution this year, and will he name the townships to which they have been distributed; and will he state at what price seed potatoes have been sold by the board, and the description of potato?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: In reply to the first paragraph of the Question, I am informed by the Congested Districts Board that in pursuance of the policy publicly announced, no seed potatoes have this year been given free of cost.

  493
  In reply to the second paragraph, I am also informed that about 300 tons of potatoes Lave, up to this date, been sold at cost price through local committees who had complied with the conditions laid down in notices published in each congested district. If the honourable Member wishes to have copies of these notices they shall be supplied to him.

  SLAUGHTERING HORSES IN THE PUBLIC STREETS.
  MR. BANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to acquaint all police constables with the provisions of the Injured Animals Act, 1894, which provides that any police constable finding a horse or other animal injured in the streets shall summon a veterinary surgeon, and, if the veterinary surgeon gives a certificate that the animal is mortally injured, or so injured that it is cruel to keep it alive, empowers the constable to slaughter the animal or cause it to be slaughtered without the consent of the owner?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. J. COLLINGS,): So far as regards the Metropolitan police, full instructions as to their duties under the Act are given them by police orders and each sergeant and constable carries in his pocket-book a form of certificate to be signed by the veterinary surgeon under the Act, and also a list of veterinary surgeons and horse slaughterers within the Metropolitan Police District. The Secretary of State has no reason to suppose that in other districts the police are not well acquainted with the provisions of the Act.

  MEDICAL FEES IN LAW COURTS.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the inadequate scale of fees for medical witnesses in courts of law; and whether
  494
  he will consider its revision, with the view of more adequately remunerating medical men who are compelled to give evidence for their loss of time and expense incurred?
  MR. COLLINGS: This matter has received most careful consideration, but the Secretary of State has not seen his way to take any steps in the direction suggested.

  GURRADICE (LEITRIM) LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTION.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the polling place for the Gurradiee (county Leitrim) district electoral division has been fixed at Newtowngore National School, which is three miles from the nearest part of the division, and that by this arrangement some of the voters will be compelled to travel seven miles to record their votes; and whether he will use his influence with the returning officer to fix the polling place in a more convenient and central position?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The suggestion in the honourable Member's Question will be communicated to the Returning Officer for his consideration.

  IRISH COUNTY VOTERS LIST
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the clerk of the peace in Clonmel charges 11s. for the voters lists for the county electoral division of Clough jordan, and 12s. for the lists for the county electoral division of Ardcrony; and whether, seeing that these lists could be on sale for a much smaller sum, he will state who has authority to control the action of the clerk of the peace in this matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Under an Order in Council, dated the 24th February, the charge prescribed for

  495
  copies of the register of electors is one penny for every copy of a register, or part of a register, in respect of every 100, or fraction of 100 names thereon. This is the scale to which the second paragraph presumably refers. The charges mentioned in the first paragraph, which were at the rate of one shilling in respect of each separate and distinct register in the county electoral divisions named, were made by the clerk of the peace in pursuance of the scale in form No. 30 of the Registration (Ireland) Act, 1885, and before the scale substituted by the Order in Council of 24th February was published.

  RAILWAYS IN AFRICA.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the honourable Member for St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to state the number of railways actually constructed in the French, German, Belgian, Spanish, and Portuguese possessions on the West Coast of Africa, the places connected by those railways, the mileage in each case, and the dates of inception and completion; also the number of proposed railways for which surveys had been made, the districts over which the surveys had been made, and whether the lines actually constructed in West Africa belonged to different States or private companies.
  The honourable Member also had the following Question on the Paper: — To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to state the number of railways actually constructed in the Italian, French, German, and Portuguese possessions on the East Coast of Africa, the places connected by those railways, the mileage in each case, and the dates of their inception and completion; also the proposed railways for which surveys had been made and the districts over which the surveys had been made, and whether the railways actually constructed on the East Coast of Africa belonged to the State or private companies.
  MR. BRODRICK: The Questions of the Honourable Member involve. 62 dif-
  496
  ferent points, which could only be presented as a Return, if the Intelligence Department are able to supply it. I will consider whether this can be done.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: On behalf of the honourable Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how long has the rule been in force to fill half the vacant district inspectorships in the Royal Irish Constabulary by the promotion of head constables, and how many men have been promoted to that position during this period; whether inspectors in any other British police force are appointed without police experience; and whether, in view of a reduced force in Ireland and a consequent reduction in promotion and prospect, the Government will now consider the advisability of throwing open all the district inspectorships to the rank and file?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The rule referred to in the first paragraph has been in force since January 1895, but it did not begin to operate, for want of vacancies, until August 1896. From that date to the present time, 19 men have been promoted to the rank of district inspector. As regards the second paragraph, I am unable to speak for any police force other than the Irish police force. The answer to the third paragraph is in the negative.

  RAILWAY LEVEL CROSSINGS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the number of railway level crossings in England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland respectively which pass over public thoroughfares, and are private property?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): No, Sir, the Board of Trade have no cognisance of the circumstances of private railways not authorised by Parliament and not opened for public traffic.

  BRITISH COMMERCIAL ATTACHES ABROAD.
  COLONEL SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when it is proposed to fill up the long-since vacant commercial attacheship in Russia; if, hawing regard to the great industrial development about to take place in that empire, care will be taken to appoint the most active and conciliatory individual possible, and one conversant not. only with the details of foreign trade in Russia, but also the British iron and steel trade; and, should any difficulty be experienced in finding a suitable candidate, if the Secretary of State will consider the possibility of combining the post with that of Consul-General at Warsaw, and giving the latter a paid Vice Consul to discharge the routine duties during absence?
  MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's Government contemplates the appointment of three new British commercial agents abroad. It is not yet definitely settled what spheres are to be assigned to these agents; and until the arrangements are completed, it is impossible to state exactly what steps will be taken for the representation of British, interests in Russia,

  POLICE AND SANITARY REGULATIONS BILL.
  MR. MCKENNA: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to move for the appointment of the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations Bills?
  MR. COLLINGS: The question is now under consideration.
  MR. McKENNA: Is the honourable Gentleman aware that if it is very much longer delayed, the work which will devolve on the Committee will be seriously inconvenienced.
  MR. COLLINGS: The decision will not be unnecessarily delayed; it will be made known immediately after Easter.
  SIR C. DILKE: Are the Government going to take the decision entirely on themselves, without consulting the House?
  MR. COLLINGS: First of all, the Government must come to some decision. The Home Secretary is now considering what course he shall take.

  NORTHFLEET DOCKYARD.
  MR. RYDER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Government will take into their consideration the advisability of acquiring Northfleet Dockyard, near Gravesend, which is protected by every fort on the Thames, as a shipbuilding or repairing yard for some of Her Majesty's ships of war?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. E. MACARTNEY,: The Admiralty have no such intention.

  "SPECIAL" RECRUITS.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the specially enlisted recruit, who died on Friday last on a parade of the Scots Guards at Windsor, was a "special" under the height of 5 feet 3 inches, or whether he was enlisted as a "special" with reference to the regulation height of the Foot Guards; and, if so, what is the minimum standard for "specials" in that corns?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: The recruit in question was 5 feet 8¼ inches high when enlisted, and he subsequently grew half an inch. There is no minimum standard for "special" enlistments, but no "specials" are accepted unless they approximate closely to the standards, and are likely to reach them.

  PUPIL TEACHERS IN DAY SCHOOLS.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that new

  499
  Rule No. 37 in the Code of Regulations for Day Schools, which orders that no pupil teacher will be recognised in a school in which there are not at least two adult teachers employed, will be a great hardship, and entail extra expense upon many of the small rural schools; and whether these small rural schools will be excepted from such a rule?
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THIS COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): The new rule may cause additional expense in some schools, but under the terms of the rule exceptions may be allowed in those cases in which satisfactory provision for the education of the pupil teacher can be made.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: As regards that Question, I beg to ask whether it is not the fact that the dispensing power is left entirely in the hands of Her Majesty's inspector?
  SIR J. GORST: No, Sir. It is the Department that sanctions it on the report of the inspector.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: As this matter is one of great importance, may I be allowed to ask whether we shall have an opportunity of discussing the Code before it comes into force?
  SIR J. GORST: I am afraid I cannot answer that question. It is a question entirely for the House. I suppose the Code will lay on the Table for 40 days.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: In dummy?
  [No Reply.]

  HUNGARY AND THE INDIAN SUGAR DUTIES.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of M. Hezedues, Minister of Commerce in the Hungarian Chamber, on the 22nd instant, respecting the action of the Indian Legislative Council in imposing countervailing duties on bounty-fed sugar; also to the statement of M. Hezedues that the action of the Indian Government contravenes the most-
  500
  favoured-nation treaty between Great Britain and Austria-Hungary; and, if so, will the Foreign Office undertake to represent this view to the Indian Legislative Council?
  MR. BRODRICK: These statements have not yet been brought to my attention; but all the circumstances were fully weighed before the imposition of countervailing duties on bounty-fed sugar was decided upon by the Indian Legislative Council.
  MR. FLYNN: Is it the fact, as stated, that the action of the Indian Government contravenes the most-favourednation treaty between Great Britain and Austria-Hungary?
  [No Reply.]

  WAIMA.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have yet obtained any recognition of liability from France in respect of the Waima claims; and whether he will state what has been done in the matter by the Government since July of last year?
  MR. BRODRICK: I fear I can add nothing to previous replies on this subject.

  2ND BATTALION IRISH RIFLES.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what was the strength of the 86th Regiment, Second Battalion Irish Rifles, when it landed on its return from India; how many men in the Second Battalion were left behind to make up the strength of the First Battalion, how many of these were volunteers, and how many were ordered for transfer; whether he can state how many of the men landing with the Second Battalion were in fact transfers on discharge from the First Battalion; and how many of the total number returning are duty men who will be retained

  501
  in the ranks of the battalion for service at home; such number not to include non-commissioned officers, band, drummers, pioneers, regimental transport, orderlies, and other non-duty men?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: When the Second Battalion of the Royal Irish Rifles landed at Southampton on the 15th February it was 470 strong in warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men, exclusive of 99 invalids, reservists, etc., who had arrived earlier. Three hundred and twenty men were left in India for re-posting to the First Battalion. There was no question of volunteering. None of the 470 men were transfers on discharge from the First Battalion. Of the men landed on the loth February, 273 were duty men. On the 1st March the battalion had 683 men, of whom 516 were reported fit for duty and 127 were on furlough. In addition to these there were 261 men at the depot of the regiment.

  RIFLE BRIGADE—AN UNFOUNDED REPORT.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether or not his attention has been called to an alleged assault by a soldier in the Rifle Brigade upon his officer on church parade, at Portobello Barracks, Dublin, on Sunday the 12th instant; whether any assault actually occurred; and whether any steps can be taken by the War Office to discover the author of such a serious allegation?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: No such assault took place, and the paragraph is simply a tissue of falsehoods. The editor of the paper in which the account of the assault was given was imposed upon, and has apologised. It does not seem that the War Office can take any steps to discover the author of the statement.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: Arising out of that answer may I ask whether, as a matter of fair play to the officers and men of this regiment, this contra-
  502
  diction of a disgraceful libel will be circulated as widely as possible?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: The Secretary of State accepts the honourable Member's description of the libel, and will be very glad to see the contradiction as widely circulated as the original report.

  DISTRIBUTION OF THE SCOTTISH EQUIVALENT GRANT.
  MR. BIRRELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention having been called to the injustice alleged to be done to the county of Fife in the allocation of the residue and equivalent grants without regard to the whole area of the county as settled by the Boundary Commissioners, he will propose to take steps to amend the allocation of the grant before the next distribution; or when he proposes to do so?
  On the same subject, MR. BUCHANANhad on the Paper the following Question: To ask the Lord Advocate whether, in view of complaints from several county councils in Scotland, the Secretary for Scotland will, before the next distribution of the residue and equivalent grants, take steps to have these grants distributed in accordance with the total valuations of the whole areas of the counties as settled by the Boundary Commissioners?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I will answer the honourable Member's Question and that of the honourable Member for East Aberdeenshire together. The Secretary for Scotland is unable, as advised, to allocate the grant referred to in the Question of the honourable Members otherwise than is done at present, without legislation.

  ARCHBISHOP OF MADAGASCAR.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts.,: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 5 Victoria, cap. 6,

  503
  section 3, the Archbishop of Canterbury has applied for Her Majesty's licence authorising him to consecrate the Rev. G. L. King as Bishop of Madagascar; whether the Government have advised, or will advise, Her Majesty to grant such licence; and whether the Royal Warrant for the purpose has been signed?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Archbishop of Canterbury having been requested to select a bishop for Madagascar has inquired of the Secretary of State whether if his Grace should make a formal application, Lord Salisbury would be prepared to recommend the Queen to grant Her Majesty's licence for the consecration of such a bishop. A reply in the affirmative has been returned to this inquiry. His Grace has not as yet made any such application.

  BALLYDOWEL MURDER TRIAL.
  CAPTAIN DONELANOn behalf of the honourable Member for Millhouse, Clifton Hill, I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, with reference to the Ballydowel murder trial at the Kilkenny Assizes last week, whether the Crown briefs were delivered six days before the trial; whether, seeing that counsel assigned for the defence in similar cases are frequently allowed only one or two days for the consideration of their briefs, will he explain why the Crown applied for an adjournment to the next assizes; and whether, in view of the strong public feeling that the accused men are innocent, he is prepared to consent to their being released on bail?
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,: In this case the investigation before the magistrates, which occupied five days, only terminated on the 18th February, when the accused were returned for trial. The depositions, which were very voluminous, were only received by the Crown Solicitor on the 22nd February; they were submitted to me for instructions immediately, and received back by the Crown Solicitor on the 25th. They were forthwith sent to the printer and only received back from him on the 5th of March. Though the Crown Counsel received their briefs on
  504
  the 6th March they did not arrive in Kilkenny till Saturday the 11th, and the Assizes commenced on Monday the 13th. It was quite impossible, under the circumstances, to have subsidiary inquiries, directed by counsel, made and the case properly prepared for the trial, and accordingly an application was made to the judge, grounded on an affidavit setting forth the facts, to adjourn the trial till next assizes. The application was granted, the judge remarking that it was a
  "most reasonable one, having regard to the dates and to the character of the case, and to the fact that as the case would involve travelling over a very wide area the Crown should have most ample time to investigate the case."
  As regards the rest of the Question, I have to state that whether I will direct any application the prisoners may make to the Queen's Bench Division to be admitted to bail, to be opposed or consented to by the Crown, will depend on the evidence disclosed in the depositions already taken, and on the affidavit on which the application will doubtless be grounded. I do not know whether the public feeling is against, or in favour of, the accused men, and if I did know I should consider it most improper either to state the fact publicly or to be influenced by it.

  TRAINING SHIPS OFF THE WESTERN HIGHLANDS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if arrangements will be made to send a training ship to the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland?
  MR. MACARTNEY: The answer is in the negative. Ample opportunities are afforded by the visits of the seagoing training ships to all who desire to enter the Navy from these districts.

  ROSS-SHIRE MILITIA TRAINING.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he is yet in a position to say whether the training of the Ross-shire Militia will take place at a time when the men, who are chiefly

  505
  fishermen, are not engaged at the fishing; and whether a date has been fixed for this year's training?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: In consequence of the representations made, the training will not take place in April, but a date later on in the year, suiting the convenience of the troops, will be chosen.

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES CONFERENCE.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: On behalf of the honourable Member for Banffshire I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of the Swedish Official Gazette to the effect that the Swedish-Norwegian Government hopes that the North Sea Fisheries Conference will meet next year; and whether, looking to this postponement of the Conference, the Foreign Office will endeavour, by negotiation with the Powers interested, to come to a provisional arrangement regarding foreign trawlers which will mitigate the existing inconvenience pending the decision of the Conference?
  MR. BRODRICK: No such statement has been made to us by the Swedish Government. It is believed that the proposed Hydrographic Conference in connection with fisheries will be held in June next.

  REGULATION OF RAILWAYS BILL.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he intends to withdraw the Regulation of Railways Bill, and to refer the subject of automatic coupling to a Royal Commission?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I do not propose to proceed with the Bill to-night. It is clear from the opposition which has been evinced to it that it is impossible to pass the Bill into law this Session, having regard to the other business before the House. I propose, however, to proceed with an inquiry into the question without delay.
  506
  What form this inquiry should take is now under my consideration. It is very desirable, if possible, that the tribunal to which the inquiry is referred should be one acceptable to all parties concerned.

  BRITISH TRADE IN MADAGASCAR.
  MR. ELLIOT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any reply has yet been received from the French Government to Lord Salisbury's remonstrances in July last as to the injury to the trading rights of British subjects in Madagascar?
  MR. BRODRICK: I regret to say that no answer has yet been received.

  THE JUDICIAL BENCH.
  MR. ROBSON: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General what provision the Government propose to make for the performance of the judicial duties of the Lord Chief Justice of England and Lord Justice Collins during their absence abroad on the public service?
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I am not able at present to answer the honourable Member's Question beyond saying that the matter is receiving full consideration.

  ALLOCATION OF PARLIAMENTARY TIME.
  MR. ALLISON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can undertake that before any further proposals of the Government for affording increased civil employment in Government Departments to discharged soldiers are decided upon, such proposals shall be laid before the House, and its opinion taken upon the question?
  MR. LAWRENCE: I beg at the same time to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the important question raised by the action of

  507
  the Indian Government relating to sugar and to the failure of the Brussels Conference, he will endeavour to allot a day for the full discussion of the question of the bounties on sugar?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): In answer to these Questions I have to say that in the present state of public business I can hold out no hope to be able to find special time for these matters, however important they may be deemed in themselves.

  MOULVI FAZLAL KARIM.
  MR. H. ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the serious charges made against Moulvi Fazlal Karim, the present sub-divisional officer of Mun-shigunge; whether he is aware that a memorial, signed by 700 of the inhabitants of his district, and praying for a public inquiry into these charges and for the redress of certain serious grievances suffered through the administration of this officer, was presented to Sir John Woodburn, Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, in September 1898; whether, so far, no order has been made upon it by the Government; and whether, in view of the grave allegations made in regard to this officer, he can state what immediate action it is proposed to take with reference to his case?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): I am aware that a memorial containing certain charges against Moulvi Fazlal Karim was presented last year. I have also ascertained that on the 9th of February the Lieutenant-Governor recorded a Resolution accepting the opinion of the Commissioner of the Division, who, after a thorough local inquiry, reported that the memorial contained a series of false charges emanating from persons whom the deputy magistrate had offended in doing his duty. The Moulvi accordingly remains in charge of the subdivision. I propose to take no further action in reference to the case.

  WORKING WOMEN AND OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether power will be given to the Select Committee on Old Age Pensions to call witnesses to represent for example the interests of working women?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,: Yes, Sir. The Committee will have it in their discretion to call women, but, having regard to what has reached me as to the universal desire that the Committee should report this Session, I venture to entertain the hope that the evidence will be restricted to the narrowest possible limits. I think we are now well acquainted with all the facts, and what are now wanted are practical recommendations.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask if it has been decided to refer all the Bills dealing with Old Age Pensions now before the House to the Select Committee?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: No, Sir; the terms of reference have not yet been settled.

  RAILWAYS IN KASHMIR.
  SIR J. LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether H.H. the Maharajah of Kashmir contemplates building a railway to his capital of Srinagar by the way of Jammu, at a cost of three crores of rupees; and, if so, will the expense be provided out of Kashmir revenues or by loan; has the Indian Government urged or recommended the construction of this line, and will any financial responsibility be incurred by the Indian Treasury in respect of such railway; will any portion of the line be in British territory; what is the length of the railway and estimated cost per mile; and before this large project is decided upon, will it be ascertained whether embankments and other flood or water regulation works so long needed in Kashmir have been carried out?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: The Maharajah of Kashmir contemplates the construction of a railway, 175 miles in length, from Jammu to Srinagar, no part of which will be in British territory. The estimated cost has not yet been ascertained. The Government of India have encouraged the consideration of the scheme, but do not propose to incur any financial responsibility. No Report has been made to me of its possible effect on other proposed public works in Kashmir, but I am able to state that the Government of India have not lost sight of this aspect of the question.

  PHARMACY LAWS IN IRELAND.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the honourable Member for Dublin (College Green) I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he has received a copy of the resolution adopted by the Corporation of Dublin on the 20th instant, calling attention to the practice of persons incriminated and fined for a breach of the Pharmacy Laws continuing under cover of the Companies Act to keep open shop in contravention of the statutes which require that the person keeping open shop shall be qualified by examination, etc.; and whether the Government will introduce a Bill to amend the Companies Act so as to prevent the continuance of such breaches of the law?
  MR. ATKINSON: I have received a resolution to the effect mentioned, and to the further effect that the Companies Act should be amended so as to prevent a company, of which any of the members were not qualified as apothecaries, from carrying on the trade or business of an apothecary. These are matters which would appear to call for consideration when any amendment of the law is proposed affecting Great Britain and Ireland as a whole. I cannot undertake to say that the Government will introduce legislation in the direction suggested.

  COLONIAL LOANS FUND BILL.
  MR. BUCHANAN (Aberdeenshire, E.): I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the protected States
  510
  which will be able to borrow money under section 7 of the Colonial Loans Fund Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): The Colonial Loans Fund Bill does not authorise any Colony, Protectorate, or protected State to borrow money—it only enables a Fund to be raised out of which loans may be made in such cases as are authorised by Parliament. The rules to be made under the Act will define the Colonies, Protectorates, or protected States which may receive a loan from the Fund, in the event of Parliament authorising a loan in their case. The only Protected States which it is at present contemplated to include in such rules are the Native States of the Malay Peninsula.

  LOCAL TAXATION (SCOTLAND) ACCOUNT.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate when the Returns showing the allocation and application of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account, which are in arrear since 1894–5, will be issued?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Returns in question are now in the printer's hands, and it is hoped will be issued shortly after the Easter Recess.

  HOME OFFICE REPORTS.
  MR. TENNANT: I desire to ask the Under Secretary for the Home Department a Question, of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether he is in a position to state what steps the Home Office propose to take to carry out the recommendations contained in the three Reports recently laid upon the Table relating to (1) phosphorus; (2) lead poisoning in potteries; (3) shop clubs?
  MR. COLLNGS: I hope that after the Easter Recess the Secretary of State will be able to make a statement as to the action which the Home Office will take on the Reports dealing with

  511
  phosphorus and lead poisoning. In the meantime, I may refer the honourable Member to the Memorandum by the Chief Inspector of Factories which is prefixed to the Phosphorus Report, and to the Circular on the Lead Poisoning Report which the Home Office is issuing to-day, as indicating the general lines of probable action. I am not yet in a position to say what action the Secretary of State will decide to take on the Report of the Shop Clubs Committee.
  MR. TENNANT: I desire, then, to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the recommendations contained in the Report of Professor E. Thorpe and Professor T. Oliver, the Government will consider the advisability of issuing instructions to the various Departments of the State that all china and earthenware purchased by them should be coated with a leadless glaze.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Report to which the honourable Member refers has not yet come under my notice, but all the recommendations are being considered by the Secretary of State. I am not yet in a position to state what decision he has arrived at.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Can the right honourable Gentleman say what Supply or other business will be taken on the Monday that the House meets after the holidays? Can the right honourable Gentleman also state what course the Government will take in regard to Order No. 7 (Regulation of Railways Bill)?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I think the President of the Board of Trade has already stated that it was not the intention of the Government to take Order No. 7 to-night. As to the business on the Monday after the holidays, the alternatives are between taking Navy Estimates and getting the Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates. From such inquiries as I have been able to make, I think it would be more convenient to the House to get the Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates, and therefore I propose that that should be the business for the Monday when we return.

  THE ANGLO-FRENCH AGREEMENT.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, to whom I have given private notice of the Question, when he will be able to lay upon the Table of the House the Agreement come to with France with respect to Africa?
  MR. BRODRICK: I laid the Agreement on the Table this afternoon.

  CHARLESTOWN LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTION.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Attorney-General for Ireland whether in Charlestown, county Mayo, Mr. Bernard Moffitt has been appointed presiding officer for the Local Government election to be held on the 4th April; whether Mr. Moffitt is local rate collector and a prominent supporter of one of the candidates; and, whether he will draw the attention of the returning officer to these facts, and suggest to him the desirability of making another appointment?
  MR. ATKINSON: I have been unable to ascertain in the short interval since notice of this Question was received by me, whether the facts are as stated by the honourable Member. I have, however, directed that a copy of the Question shall be at once communicated to the returning officer for his consideration.

  SITTING OF THE HOUSE (TO-MORROW).
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That this House do meet to-morrow at noon."—(First Lord of the Treasury.)
  MR. COURTNEY: do not rise to oppose this Motion, because I suppose it is inevitable, but I think that it is right to take this opportunity of making some remarks with regard to the conduct of my right honourable Friend in dealing with the rights and privileges of the Private Members. I thought in making his motion that my right honourable Friend would dispose altogether of the disappointment of the Private Mem-

  513
  cession, but this is not the first occasion upon which Private Members have had their rights and privileges taken away under circumstances which are not always inevitable without any kind of apology being made to them, or any expression of regret, or any attempt in any way to accommodate: the business of the House so as to give to the Private Members those rights which the arrangement of the business of this House is supposed to confer upon them. Now I know very well that the Private Members are not to be entirely extinguished. It has been said boldly that they are becoming an anachronism, but it is admitted that in past times the Private Members have done immense service to the House and to the country in calling attention to great and important subjects which the Government were not ready to take up, but which require public discussion, in this House, the arena of the nation. This is done with great effect, and it is a very great flight of imagination to suppose that the topics of legislation are so far exhausted that at the present day there is no scope for the Private Member. It is quite certain that there are some of the most important issues, social and political, yet to be solved, which are regarded with attention by the Government and the people, that require the development which they receive by being discussed by the Private Members of this House. Now the Private Member is not going to be extinguished, and he has a trick of revenging himself upon a Government which tries to reduce him to nothing. In recent times Private Members, finding it vain to hope for other opportunities, have been compelled to raise these questions on the Motion for the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne at the commencement of the Session. They are compelled to bring these subjects forward in a way which cannot be profitable, because as we all know there cannot be any argument on an Amendment to the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. Now I venture to ask my right honourable Friend whether the period has not arrived when a re-arrangement of the time of the House should take place, so as to allow the Private Member to take his proper position, and to afford him a legitimate opportunity for bringing forward his Motion. My right honourable
  514
  Friend should either himself enact or get a Member of the Committee of the House to bring forward the matter so that some better method might be adopted than the principle of chance which is in existence at the present time; to substitute the principle of choice for the principle of chance; and it is quite easy to do, so that Private Members of this House might move their Motions and have an opportunity of discussing them. It would be very easy to submit a scheme under which the views of the House itself might be consulted in determining the subject which should come on for discussion; but my right honourable Friend refuses to consider such a proposition, and the past Leaders of the Opposition of this House have joined him in that refusal. I think that the right honourable Gentleman might be a little more benign to Private Members. He might consider whether it is not possible to give Private Members more time. I am sure that if they had more opportunities Private Members would assist the Government in giving greater facilities for the conduct of Government business. The Debate upon the Address, the prolongation of which so often tends to the congestion of financial business, could with the consent of the House be quickly disposed of, and so avoid that congestion which always takes place with reference to financial business before the 31st of March. I do not want to detain the House on this occasion, but I would strongly urge that there is a case for the rearrangement of the time of the House, and I do press upon my right honourable Friend the advisability of considering how that inquiry is to be made. I do say that some arrangement might be come to by which the measures introduced by Private Members could be considered in due time, and there are many other things which might also be considered in that reform. The drawback to the reputation of this House as a law-making machine is that Private Members who introduce Hills and obtain their acceptance by large majorities are unable to carry those Bills through. What a scandal it would be for instance if the Bill which has been brought in by the honourable and learned Member for South Shields, and carried by so immense a majority, should fail to become law because of the imperfect arrangements of this House. We ought to

  515
  be able to reckon that anything which is well begun should be more than half done by the end of the Session, and I think we might have some arrangement by which it should be possible to secure further time to the Private Members, and to give them facilities for carrying through any Bill which they bring forward from the beginning. There are many other suggestions that might be made for the improvement of the transaction of business, which, of course, it is impossible to discuss in this House at the present moment upon a motion like this, but if my right honourable Friend will see his way to consider the first-named thing, which is the substitution of the principle of choice for the principle of chance, and after Easter get a Select Committee to consider that question, and also to secure that Private Members' time should be much less liable to assault and robbery than it is at present, so that the Private Members might see a possibility of carrying through the business they introduce from the beginning, I think he would be doing a large amount of good to the House and to the country at large, and that it would conduce to the reputation of the House and the transaction of the business with which it is charged. I apologise for taking this opportunity for bringing this question before the House, but the matter in the course of this Session has become very urgent, and I do press it very strongly.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: My right honourable Friend, in the very interesting speech which he has delivered, has traversed an immense field of controversy, and I could not within the limits to which I must assign my reply, deal adequately with all the points which he has touched. As I understand, his first proposition is that more time out of the period which we devote to Parliamentary business should be given to Private Members than is at present.
  MR. COURTNEY: Should be secured, not given.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: That is a question really to be determined as much by the simple rules of arithmetic as by any other process. If we start with the principle that the House, roughly speaking, ought not to sit more than six or seven months in the year, and
  516
  I confess that I think that six months year in and year out are quite enough—if we start with that, it is very evident that the time we have to give for legislation and for discussion is strictly limited. Out of the time that is given for discussion must come the discussion of Supply, which under the new rules, and irrespective of the Supplementary Estimates, is now a fixed quantity. That has been a great gain, but before Easter, however, there is a great deal of discussion which takes place, and which is not within a fixed period, and it depends on the Private Members alone as to how long that discussion shall take. The Government are under a legal obligation to pass a certain amount of Supply by the 31st of March, and how much time is taken for that depends not upon the Government, and not upon the law, but upon the views of the Private Members on both sides of the House as to the amount of time which should be given to the Estimates. If they desire to prolong the discussion of those Estimates before Easter, by so much time must the time of the Private Members on Tuesdays be curtailed. The business has to be got through, and no doubt we should be delighted if the business of Supply could be got through so rapidly as to leave almost untouched any privileges which Private Members now enjoy. But, leaving the question of time before Easter out of account, and looking at the Session as a whole for the purposes of the present argument, the real question is, Do the Government bring in too large a, programme of legislative business? I do not hear, except a whisper from my right honourable Friend below the Gangway, any protest to that effect. If our programme is not unduly large, and we must get through that programme in the six months, it is perfectly evident that we have absolutely no choice but to take Private Members' time to carry out that programme if Private Members on the Address or in Supply take up an unexpected amount of time in the discussion. I do not think the Government can be blamed for taking Private Members' time in the present circumstances unless one of two charges can be legitimately made against them, either that we sit for too short period in the year, or we bring in during that period too much business; and I think if those two charges are not

  517
  made the case of my right honourable Friend falls to the ground. Then there is a suggestion that the Resolutions and Measures should be decided, not by the chances of the ballot, but by some form of taking the opinion of the House as to what Measures and Resolutions are most important. That is a very plausible proposal, but I am not quite sure whether, to make the proposal watertight and to stand argument, you ought not to give Private Members also the decision of whether the subject should come on at all for discussion. If Private Members are, in their elective capacity, to say which of a, dozen or fifty Motions are most important, they ought also to be allowed to decide whether they are to come up for discussion at all. If that privilege is allowed, I am not sure whether we should not see the time not only not increased, but seriously curtailed with regard to the Motion whose demise to-morrow night my right honourable Friend so regrets——
  MR. COURTNEY: I said nothing about that.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I thought that was the circumstance which gave occasion to my right honourable Friend's speech, and I am not quite sure that it was not referred to in his observations to the House.
  MR. COURTNEY: I said nothing about the Motion, and my action was not in the least actuated by the character of that Motion.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I thought that in the beginning of his speech my right honourable Friend referred to it. But it is a small matter, and I take it as an illustration. If it was left to Private Members to decide what question should be brought on and what should not be brought on, I think some very startling results would be seen in the Order Paper. I am not at all sure whether that Motion would come on or whether the discussion would be deferred. I do not think I need say anything further upon the general question raised by my right honourable Friend, but. upon the particular question as to whether we should stay to-morrow night and discuss a Private Member's resolution, however important, or whether we should go on our holidays, I cannot regard the decision we have come to as exercising any great tyranny upon
  518
  honourable Gentlemen on either side of the House. And for my part, if my right honourable Friend thinks differently, I am perfectly ready and willing that the question as to whether we should meet tomorrow at 12 or 3.30 o'clock should be left to the House to decide without the pressure of Government tellers, and that Private Members, in whose interest my light honourable Friend has made so interesting an address, should be left to settle this matter for themselves.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I think my right honourable Friend is hardly right in stating that there is no' grievance upon this subject. I am not quite certain that I have followed my right honourable Friend behind me in all the remedies which he has suggested, but the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord appears to think that he has answered the main question by saying that there is not too great an amount of legislative business brought forward by the Government during the Session. My right honourable Friend the First Lord heard a slight whisper of protest; that whisper he heard was my suggestion that every Government has always brought forward too much legislative business. My right honourable Friend the First Lord's recollection of the Massacre of the Innocents which takes place every Session must be very slight, or else he would remember that during the Sessions which both he and I have been in Parliament there has been an amount of cargo which has had to be thrown overboard every Session; and my right honourable Friend must have been late this afternoon, or he would have heard that owing to the great pressure of Government business it was not in the power of the Board of Trade to proceed with the Railway Couplings Bill. Therefore, I think my right honourable Friend is hardly justified in saying that the Government do not bring in too much legislative business. Now, it must be obvious that whatever time is allotted to the Government and to the Private Members respectively ought to be deliberately apportioned, and that the arrangement ought to be adhered to. What we complain of now is that we never know from one week's end to another what the arrangement of business is to be. We are told that Tuesdays are to be allotted to Private Members, but owing to the

  519
  Government having devoted the time at their command to business other than Supply, with annual regularity which comes with the end of March, the right honourable Gentleman tells us that Private Members must waive their privileges, that the Private Members' time is going to be taken for Government business; that having expended the allotted amount of time at their disposal the Government are about to make more.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I think I ought to point out to the House that the whole of this Debate is somewhat irregular. The only question before the House is that it meet to-morrow at 12. The fact that it meets at 12 instead of three will not interfere at all with the opportunities of Private Members. What will interfere with them will be the Motion for Adjournment which, it is suggested, should be made immediately after Questions to-morrow, and that would be the time for such observations.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: That may be so, and that is certainly an occasion for dealing more fully with the subject. As my right honourable Friend the First Lord has made certain statements, and I am satisfied that no preference has been established, I think it is only right to disassociate myself from the optimistic arguments of the right honourable Gentleman and associate myself with my right honourable Friend behind me upon this matter. I wish to know whether tomorrow, if the Sugar Bounties are put down upon the Paper, to bring forward the Motion.
  MR. SPEAKER: I shall be in a better position to answer the question of the right honourable Gentleman when I see the Order Paper to-morrow.
  MR. FAITHFULL BEGG: After what has passed from you, Sir, I do not know if it is in order to refer at all to what is to take place to-morrow. There is a particular Motion on the Paper for to-morrow, and it is practically decided that the Motion will not come on. But I must formally protest against the action of the Government in taking away the opportunity for bringing forward the question of the Electoral Disabilities of Women.
  SIR J. LUBBOCK: I do not wish to prolong the discussion, but I should like to make an appeal to the Government that they should consider the suggestion of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Bodmin, especially having regard to the fact that Bills are often read a second time, and not proceeded with, and I do think that some reason has been given which would justify the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord in introducing some rule which would diminish the hardships under which private Members now suffer.
  Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS BILL.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [9th March]—
  "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc."
  Question again proposed—
  SIR W. FOSTER: I do strongly protest against the course which Her Majesty's Government propose to take of sending this Bill upstairs to the Standing Committee on Trade. The Bill is one which deals with large principles and affects a great many different interests. It not only affects the agricultural interest, but also every trade, and more or less directly every Member of this House. It affects the whole of the consumers of the country. The Bill is a very wide measure in its terms, and therefore it deserves not only every attention on the part of the Members of this House, but also on the part of the public. The course which the right honourable Gentleman proposes to' take with regard to this Bill is a course which, so far as I am aware, has not been followed on any previous occasion in any Measure dealing with this subject. The other Bills were discussed in Committeee of the whole House; the Margarine Bill was discussed in Committee of the whole House, and there was no attempt made to send it upstairs. Now what is to happen here if this Bill does go upstairs? I do not think we shall save much

  521
  time if that course is taken. This Bill was brought in early in the Session and was discussed within forty-eight hours of the Bill being received by the Members of the House and the Debate was adjourned. Before discussion took place there was not very much time to put it before the country, and I certainly do think that it is only right that this Bill should be understood in all its bearings by the country before it passes into law. Now the Committee on Trade upstairs is not the place for that. Upstairs the Debates are very much contracted—I am in favour of short speeches myself, and desire that all Measures should be discussed as shortly as possible, but the speeches upstairs are not fully or adequately reported. In this Standing Committee upstairs much may be done which affects the interest of the public, and in this case may affect large trade and general interests in the country without the public having a proper knowledge of, or having their attention drawn to, the details of the Bill or the effect of the conclusions arrived at. I feel, therefore, that in sending this Bill upstairs we are robbing the people of this country of the opportunity of learning the full effects of the Bill, which I think they ought to have placed before them. I am not sure that the procedure upstairs will be a means of shortening the process of passing this Bill into law. We had the Vaccination Bill sent upstairs and thoroughly threshed out there. In consequence of that threshing out every Member of this House will recollect the time and trouble and toil which we went through when the Bill came again before the House, and after all that Measure was passed into law in a form that it would not have received if it had been discussed in this House. It would have been passed into law, in my opinion, in a much better form that the imperfect and ineffective form adopted by the Government. We have the example of the Vaccinotion Act then of how the discussion in Grand Committee may be ineffective in saving time. I hope that this Food and Drugs Bill will not have similar treatment, but that the public will have a full opportunity of understanding its objects and its bearing—its influence—on the trade, food, and agricultural interests of this country, in the interests of the whole of which I feel bound to oppose the Motion now before the House.
  SIR M. STEWART: I wish to add to the protest which has been already made by the honourable Member who has just sat down against this Bill being sent upstairs. So great is the interest taken in this Bill outside this House that we certainly ought to have a full discussion upon it here. I also' think with my honourable Friend that there are many Members interested in this Bill who cannot possibly have a seat upon the Committee upstairs, and therefore they would be cut out from any discussion upon this subject. I venture to make a protest in the earnest hope that the Government will reconsider their determination and allow the Bill to go into Committee in this House.
  MR. LOUGH: As I understand it, there are two principles which the House examined in deciding whether a Bill shall be sent upstairs or not. The first is whether the Bill is or is not important, and the second whether it is contentious or not. Now, nobody will deny the great importance of this Bill in the scope of its provisions or the interests that it touches in this endeavour to deal with the importation of, and also the whole question of the production of, food in this country. The import of food is the greatest import we have, and amounts to £130,000,000 or £140,000,000. The whole of this is touched by this Bill. I could not put a figure to the production of food in this country, but it is far greater than any other country. Now this Bill touches both these great questions, and is therefore a Bill of the first importance, and should be dealt with in this House. We know, as has already been pointed out, that the discussions in Grand Committees in this House do not get reported as do discussions in this House itself. Then again there are a great many Members interested in this question who cannot attend Committees. They have to make very great efforts to be here at the time the House meets, and several have spoken to me and said that if it is taken in Grand Committee, it will be very difficult for them to attend; and having regard to the importance of the Bill and the interest taken by honourable Members who find it difficult to attend Committees, I certainly think the Measure ought to be discussed here. But when you come to contentiousness of the Bill the whole thing

  523
  shows that this is the most contentious Bill that was ever introduced in this House. There is a, great deal of difference of opinion as to the details of it, though there is not so much conflict as to the principle. We are all agreed to the principle which underlies this Bill, but I do not think I am out of order in saying that as to the means which are to be taken to enforce the principle there is a great difference of opinion which ought to be fully discussed in this House. I suppose I must not discuss the principles, but I may mention them. The first principle——.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member cannot go into that matter now; he cannot enter upon an argument as to what he considers to be the principles of the Bill.
  MR. LOUGH: If I am out of order I will readily give way, Mr. Speaker, but it appears to me that the whole jurisdiction of the Bill is transferred to another department of the Government, and that is a thing which ought not to be decided upon by the Grand Committee. There are also questions involved in the Bill involving the quality of food which——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member is going beyond what is permissible upon a Motion to commit the Bill.
  MR. LOUGH: Very well, Sir, I can only say what has been said by other speakers besides myself, that there are principles of vast importance in the Bill, and that there are many honourable Members of the House who cannot attend the Committee who would like to take part in the discussion, and for those reasons I shall strongly oppose the motion.
  MR. SEELY: I do not rise for the purpose of objecting to the course taken by the Government in any way with respect to this Bill, but before the House passes from the details of the Bill I should like to have a promise from the right honourable Gentleman in charge of it—a statement as to how Amendments shall be dealt with.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member cannot discuss how Amendments should be dealt with.
  MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.): Can we not discuss with the Committee upstairs as to the course to be taken? If we had any kind of guarantee that the Government would persevere with the Bill and give time to discuss it properly, it would be another matter, but in default of any such guarantee as that I shall oppose it. I do not agree with the honourable Member for Islington that we disagree with the principles. The great principles I believe are to prevent fraud and adulteration of food, and I believe we are all agreed as to those principles, while we disagree on the details. If the Government is not inclined to give a large amount of time in this House for the consideration of that Bill, I think the best course is to discuss it upstairs. The honourable Member for Islington finds fault with the Committee because Members cannot come down and attend to it, but that refers to a class of Members who seek to combine other pursuits with their Parliamentary duties.
  MR. LOUGH: The honourable Gentleman that I referred to is engaged on another Committee.
  MR. FLYNN: My remark had no personal application, but I say that honourable Members that are nominated on this Committee will be only too glad to give all their time to the discussion of so important a measure.
  SIR C. CAMERON: This is a Bill which should be discussed before the House, but it is quite useless to argue that point with honourable Gentlemen opposite. But I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board not to select the Grand Committee immediately after the holidays, and the reason which I have for asking him not to do so is, that the whole of the shopkeepers have an organisation which I believe is called the Federation of Grocers; and the moving spirit of that Federation has been seized with illness, as has also his wife, and his mother has lately died. Under those circumstances the question has not been laid before those interested, therefore I ask for an assurance from the right honourable Gentleman that he will not press forward the proceeding with the Grand Committee at

  525
  the earliest possible moment after the holidays, but that he will allow some little time to elapse in order that the question may be placed before those interested.
  MR. FLETCHER MOULTON: Of all Bills it may be said that this is one which will suffer most in status, and be most likely to be injured by being referred to the Committee on Trade. Adulteration is not a question of trade, it is a question of fraud. It is an attempt to defend a large class of Her Majesty's subjects from a wrong and a theft as bad as highway robbery and pocket- picking would be. It is a common and mischievous blunder to-regard fraudulent practices of this kind as being matters of trade, and to legislate upon them from the point of view of trade competition. This is what the Government are seeking to do in the present instance, for they say that as adulteration interferes with trade it must be regarded from the point of view of trade, and, therefore, should be sent to the Committee appointed to deal with trade questions. I protest against such a thing. Who ought here to consider that what we have to do is to protect Her Majesty's subjects from wrong in seeking to fulfil one of the most elementary and primary duties of every civil Government, namely, to protect Her Majesty's subjects from being plundered by criminal acts on a par in all respects with other forms of theft.] therefore much object to this subject being sent to the Standing Committee on Trade. I look upon such a proposition in the same way as earnest adherents of the Established Church would look upon a Bill affecting the sale of advowsons being sent to the Standing Committee on Trade on the ground that it might be said that a trade was done in them. Such a course would be in itself a repudiation of the principles for which they would contend, viz., that the idea of its being a matter of trade was an insult to the Church itself. So in the present instance I regard the treatment of this branch of the Criminal Law as being a matter of trade as an abandonment of the principles which ought to guide us in the settlement of the Bill, and gives a sanction to its being regarded from a point of view which should be foreign to its nature, and cer-
  526
  tainly will be mischievous to its provisions; I mean that it authorises the treatment of the Bill as being one mainly relating to trade competition. The Bill itself sins too much in this respect, but all that is bad in it will be made worse if in the Committee stage it is to be treated as a trade matter; and I therefore contend that to send it to the Standing Committee on Trade is calculated gravely to injure the utility of the Measure.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. LONG,): In making the Motion that this Bill be referred to a Committee upstairs, I have no desire to deprive honourable Gentlemen of a legitimate opportunity of devoting their energies to the amendment of this Measure, nor do I wish to minimise the importance of the Bill. Every argument that has been used so far by honourable Members seems to me to be an argument against sending any Bill to a Committee upstairs. The great complaint of honourable Gentlemen opposite is that the proceedings of the Committees are not so fully reported as the proceedings which take place in this House down here. That is of course unfortunate. With the exception of that criticism I do not think that a single reason has been advanced that would justify this Bill not being sent upstairs. It is said that it affects general interests; so do the majority of Bills which go to Committees. It is said that it demands the attention of the combined Members of this House. I think if ever there was a Bill which was justified in being sent to a Standing Committee this is the one. It is a Bill which requires a great deal of expert knowledge, and one reason why it should be sent upstairs is that honourable Gentlemen can obtain that knowledge more easily and conveniently there than elsewhere. The honourable Gentlemen who make an appeal to mo lose sight of the fact that by sending this Bill upstairs no harm can be done by any possibility, and it will tend to shorten rather than lengthen matters, and in saying that I must adhere to my motion.
  MR. LLOYD-MORGAN: I hope my honourable Friend will not proceed to a division on this matter.

  527
  I have listened to the speeches made on this side of the House, and I must say that I am unable to agree with them. It appears to me that this is essentially a Bill that should go upstairs, and if it is decided that this measure ought not to go before a standing Committee, then I think the House ought also to decide that all standing Committees ought to be abolished. It is a non-contentious Bill, and though some of the clauses are open to controversy, the Bill as a whole is not, and the division that was taken upon the measure at Second Reading rather points to the conclusion that honourable Gentlemen of the House were mainly in agreement upon it. I really think it is a waste of time to take a division in the House. Some honourable Members who are strongly opposed to the clauses in the Bill had far better attend the Grand Committee and discuss the matter upstairs. It does seem to me that it would be a considerable disadvantage to discuss a Bill of this character in that manner.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Heading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, 'no Measure intended to improve the procedure for obtaining Parliamentary powers in matters relating to Scotland can be deemed satisfactory which practically excludes the Parliamentary representatives of Scotland from all part in the hearing of evidence for and against the grant of such powers,' instead thereof."—(Sir Charles Cameron.)
  SIR C. CAMERON: This is a Bill which in many respects is the same as the Bill brought in last year. The principle of the Bill brought in last year was that it sought to supersede the control of Scotch legislation by Parliament by the control of Departments. And in the case
  528
  of an opposed Provisional Order, it provided that the Secretary for Scotland, should there be opposition which in his judgment was not vexatious or unreasonable, should direct the inquiry. That is to say, he was to be the judge as to whether there should be an inquiry or not. Then, again, the duty of dispensing the Standing Orders was entrusted to the Lord Ordinary, and in the Bill as amended it is intrusted to a Select Committee and a Member of the Local Government Board for Scotland. In this present Bill Parliamentary control is reasserted and the dispensing of Standing Orders is proposed to be dealt with by the Chairman of Select Committees. In the Bill of 1898 the panel from which the Committees were to be selected to act under this Bill was constructed in the most fantastic fashion. It was to consist of two representatives of Conveners of Counties and Provosts, and the Deputy Clerk Registrar was to decide as to the person elected in case of an equality of votes; the Secretary for Scotland and four representatives of the County Councils, and it provides for a panel of twenty persons and a reserve of ten others, persons qualified by experience of affairs, whatever that phrase may mean. The Secretary for Scotland was to select two persons from the panel. The Sheriff was to be elected Chairman, whose judgment upon points of law was to be final. That was a Constitutional Bill proposed last year. This year there is a very great improvement. The panel is to be struck by the Secretary for Scotland, assisted by the Chairmen of the Select Committees of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, so that in that respect a certain amount of Parliamentary control has been substituted for outside interference. Another improvement in the Bill at present before the House, as compared with the Bill of last Session, is presented in the procedure in cases of opposed Orders. That improvement was embodied in the Bill of last year as amended in Committee upstairs, and deserves some merit. Provisional Orders, as in the other Bill, are granted by the Local Government Board in matters of Gas Supply, Piers and Harbours, Electric Lighting and Tramways, and they are granted by the Scotch Office and Local Government Board for Water Supply, including powers to take Land,

  529
  Sewers, Roads and Streets under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892, and Public Health (Scotland) Act 1897, Amalgamation of Burghs, under the Police Act, 1892, and alteration of the number of Burgh Committees, under the Local Government Act of 1889, and in matters of River Pollution under the same Act. Under those respective Acts there were different forms of procedure, so in the Bill of last year it was proposed that a new procedure should be laid down, applicable only to Orders under the Bill itself, and which introduced further confusion and complication in Provisional Orders, greatly to be regretted. An Amendment was introduced in Committee and was adopted, which to a certain extent improved the Bill. It is now proposed with regard to Provisional Orders returned from the Scotch Office, that when they are brought before Parliament, if opposed, they shall be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses. That is an improvement, but the provision does not go far enough; it leaves the Board of Trade Orders to be dealt with, as they are at present; it leaves Gas, Piers, Harbours, Electric Lighting and Tramways just where they are. I do not know why these Orders should not be taken over by the Scotch Office. There is no reason why Parliament should keep up this confusion for the benefit of the Board of Trade. We dislike the intrusion of English Departments into the management of Scotch affairs. Take an example of it. Take the case of Education. Do any honourable Members think that the Education Committee here control Education in Scotland? Not a bit; but when you come to Industrial Schools and Reformatories the English system is adopted. In the case of Woods and Forests, again, the English Department is constantly interfering, and the Board of Agriculture with its Muzzling Order in Scotland has not achieved any greater popularity. There may be some reason for leaving the question of Light Railroads in the hands of the Board of Trade, but absolutely none for leaving the questions of Piers and Harbours and Local Tramways in the Bill before the House. We are told by the Parent of the Bill that in the case of Railways it is not intended to deal with them by way of Provisional Order, but small local lines would almost certainly be dealt with under this power. If the Commis-
  530
  sion is to deal with Local Light Railways, why in name of common sense can it not deal with Tramways? I should be obliged if the Lord Advocate would kindly tell me that. Whatever might be the intention of the Bill of last year, the intentions of its promoters was clearly set forth, for it is stated that—
  "It enables Parliamentary powers to be obtained without coining to Westminster if both promoters and opponents are content."
  I should like to hear from the Lord Advocate whether that assumption of contentedness is to be required in connection with Provisional Orders under the Bill now before the House, or whether, as one would be inclined to assume, it is to be compulsory; and there is to be no exception to it,
  "except under the provisions of this section it shall not be lawful to apply to Parliament for powers which may be obtained by Provisional Order in the terms of this Act."
  Now I wish to know from the Lord Advocate whether there is any change in the minds of the promoters of the Bill, or whether the same opinion as that set forth in the Memorandum in the Bill of last year is to be taken. If this Act be compulsory, then this Bill takes away an important right from Scotland—the right to petition the House for leave to introduce a Bill, and I think so long as this new scheme remains in the experimental stage an option should be given as was always intended under the Bill of last year. I shall not quote the opinions of the Faculty of Advocates of Edinburgh. But what do the Faculty of Proctors of Glasgow say? They suggest "That the Bill should be altered so as to authorise any persons to apply for a Provisional Order under it for any purpose for which they may at present apply for a Private Bill"; leaving it open to promoters to proceed by Private Bill if they desire. An extension of the Provisional Order system on those lines would be a great boon to both the promoters and opponents of Private Bills, the great majority of which are either unopposed or only opposed on matters of detail, which promoters would still have the option of proceeding by Private Bill where a serious contest was expected. It would further relieve the Secretary and Chairman from the duty of deciding the somewhat difficult question of the character or magnitude of particular measures, and in practice would be found to be more

  531
  useful than the scheme set out in the Bill. I entirely concur with what Lord Morley said, and I trust that the Bill may be altered, at all events, in the sense that as long as the scheme proposed remains in an experimental stage, this option shall be given to promoters and opponents of Bills, as was clearly intended in the Memorandum of the Bill last year. I have said that the Bill has been amended largely by the excision of a great deal of officialism connected with it. But I think that there is still far too much officialism in it. There is too much Secretary of Scotland in it. It is all very well to rejoice in having a Secretary for Scotland, a noble lord who from his elevated position may be considered not to be influenced by any local feelings and jealousies, and who is answerable to no constituency. But it is not always so. Under the last Administration the Secretary for Scotland was Member for the constituency I have the honour to represent. I shall not pursue the analogy further, lest it be thought that having established myself in his place as Member for the constituency, I wish to establish myself also in the other office. Scotland was moved to the depths by the report that she was about to lose Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and that he was about to proceed to the far East to fulfil some important post. I do not know whether that emotion was owing to the prospect which such a bereavement would inflict on the country. But assuming that his Lordship had gone to the East, and that his place had been filled up by the honourable Member for Partick, or by the honourable Member for South Lanarkshire—and both are very possible and very satisfactory men—do you for a moment suppose that if a Provisional Order was brought forward in which Glasgow had interests on one side, and Par-tick had interests on the other—do you think it possible for public confidence to find faith in the doings of the Secretary for Scotland, who would judge of the propriety of going on with the Provisional Order, or modifying it, or stopping it, while ho was representing one of the constituencies whose interests were involved, and it may be whose warm feelings were enlisted on the one side or the other? There is, I say again, far too much Secretary for Scotland in the Bill. But my cardinal objection to the Bill is in the con-
  532
  stitution of the panel. It is true that it is an improvement on last year, which was certainly about as ingenious a departure from everything connected with the business of Parliament as mortal mind could have devised. There is an improvement in the Bill in this respect this year. Two responsible Parliamentary officers, the Chairman of the Committees of Ways and Means in the House of Commons and the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, are associated with the Secretary for Scotland in the selection of the panel. But what are the Chairmen to do? I believe the Chairman in the House of Lords is not merely the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, but is the Committee of Selection itself. I believe it is he who allocates the peers on the various Committees. But in this House what has the Chairman of Ways and Means got to do with the appointment of the Members of Committees? Nothing at all. The appointment is made by the Committee of Selection. In any case, why should we have the Chairmen of Committees to select a panel? What is the duty the Ghairman of Committees is to perform? He may be supposed to have some know-ledge of the Members of Parliament, and he may be presumed to be able to say that this honourable Gentleman or that would be a good man for the panel. But the panel that is proposed to be constituted is one in which Members of Parliament figure to a small extent indeed. It is to be constituted of "persons qualified by experience of affairs," but Mr. Hooley would have been eligible to serve on the panel under that definition. The Secretary for Scotland was questioned before the Committee upstairs by the ex-Attorney General as to the composition of the panel.
  "What," he was asked, "do you contemplate would be the class of persons who would be appointed for the panel?"
  And his Lordship replied—
  "They may be the best men one gets upon County and City Councils, and it might possibly be that some Members of the House of Commons who had cither retired or had lost their seats, and had a certain amount of experience, might be willing to do this class of work."
  His Lordship was again questioned by the Chairman of the Select Committee:
  "Does your Bill contemplate that these questions relating to matters in Scotland should be tried by Scotchmen and by Scotchmen exclusively?"

  533
  His Lordship replied—
  "It is not absolutely necessary that they should be Scotchmen; but I think the majority would be."
  Now you see that the noble Lord contemplates, as an improvement on the best men of the City Councils and the County Councils, discarded or retired Members of Parliament, and that these should be Scotchmen. But what Parliament wants is not men. qualified by experience of affairs generally, but men qualified by experience in Parliamentary affairs. Under the Bill, 'however, it is proposed that Members of Parliament shall have a very infinitesimal share in the work. The proposal is that the Secretary for Scotland, with the Chairmen of the two Houses of Parliament, is to nominate a panel of twenty-five men, qualified by their experience of affairs. And the Bill goes on to say that the Secretary for Scotland and the two Chairmen of Committees shall nominate these men from the panel for each Commission. But, Sir, it is provided further that two of the members of the Commission shall not be Mortimers of Parliament, but paid members, and it provides still further, that the third may be a paid member, and therefore there may be no Member of Parliament at all on the Commission. Was there ever such a proposition made before, that Parliament should delegate its functions altogether to some inchoate body, of whose composition nobody knows anything except that to the extent of one in three it cannot contain a single Member of either House of the Legislature?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (MR. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The honourable Member will pardon me for interrupting him for a moment. There is an error about that. Under the Bill there must be two Commissioners not being Members of either House of Parliament, who may be paid. That is a Treasury Clause, but it does not mention that there cannot be more than one Member of Parliament on any Commission.
  SIR C. CAMERON: I am very glad to get that admission from the right honourable and learned Gentleman. I have read the clause again and again, and I can make out of it no other meaning than what I have stated. I do not intend to discuss mere words. What
  534
  I want to get at is the intention of the Government. If what the right honourable and learned Gentleman has just stated is the intention of the Government it is a distinct improvement on my interpretation of the clause. What would be the course to be pursued in the selection of the Commission? I was a member of the Council of Selection in this House for many years, but I do not want to say anything about its procedure, except what has been stated by the right honourable Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, whose absence from the House at the present time everyone regrets. He told the Committee upstairs that Scotch Members were never put on Committees to consider Scotch Bills. That is a very simple rule, and one which probably Scotch Members do not object to, for they get free from all the annoyances in canvassing in connection with these Bills. I do not think that anything would be more likely than that the Chairman of Committees would pursue the course which has been so long followed by the Committee of Selection in this matter. In that case Scotch Members would be altogether absolutely excluded from hearing the evidence in connection with the inquiries into Provisional Orders under this Bill. Even if the rule was not to apply, look at the proportion the Scotch Members bear to the entire membership of the House. They are one in ten, and that means that their chance of having a look in at these inquiries on legislative matters exclusively relating to Scotland would be something like one in every ten Commissions. The Chairman of Committee of Ways and Means gave some interesting evidence to the Committee upstairs. He informed the Committee! that he had gone over all Scotch private Bills last session. There were twenty-one of them, and of these twelve might have been dealt with by way of Provisional Order had the Bill passed through Parliament in its then shape. Well, if you had a separate Commission for each of these Provisional Orders that would give something like one and a-half Scotch Members and one and a -half Scotch Peers per annum a small share in connection with these Commissions. But if the Provisional Orders were grouped, as most probably would be the case, and, if each group were dealt with by one Commission, then that would further reduce the share of Scotch Members of Parliament in

  535
  regard to a very important portion of Scotch legislation. I hold if Parliament is to delegate its functions, it should delegate them to Members of its own body. This was the principle recognised by the right honourable the First Lord of the Treasury in the Bill which he introduced in 1892, dealing with private legislation in Ireland as well as in Scotland. In that Bill he proposed to set up a. Commission of Revision consisting of the Chairmen of the Committees of the two Houses, two Peers, and two Members of this House— in each case the Members of each House to be chosen by the Committee of Selection. That is the line on which all delegation from the House should go. Lord Balfour of Burleigh said to the Committee last year that a more satisfactory tribunal than any other could be formed of Members of both Houses. The Member for Wigtownshire, addressing his Lordship, said—
  "I understand you to say that in itself you would have no objection to a Committee drawn from a panel of the Members of both Houses, and that the Commissioners should consist of a Joint Committee drawn from a pane! of both Houses."
  His Lordship replied—
  "I do not see any objection on principle to that."
  Then the Member for Wigtownshire pressed his Lordship—
  "Could not I get you to say a little more: that it would be the best possible tribunal that could be constituted?"
  Lord Balfour said—
  "I think it would be a very good tribunal, but I am rather hopeless upon the question of its being practically possible."
  "But if it could be got?"
  asked the Member for Wigtownshire. Lord Balfour—
  "If it could be got I should be glad to see it put into the Bill, and the Bill passed."
  The Member for Wigtownshire—
  "And it would probably command in Scotland a greater confidence than would be extended to any other tribunal?"
  Lord Balfour—
  "I think that if the Bill were to be passed with that tribunal it would be well received in Scotland."
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: Hear, hear.
  SIR C. CAMERON: That is exactly my point; and I am very glad to see that the Lord Advocate agrees with the Scotch Secretary on it also. The sole objection to it was said to be the difficulty of getting Members of Parliament
  536
  to serve on these Commissions; and that was based upon the evidence given by the then Chairman of the Committee of Selection on a point which appears to me to be altogether wide of the mark. The right honourable Gentleman gave evidence to the effect that there was considerable and growing difficulty experienced in getting Members to serve on private Bill Committees. He went on to say that there was no difficulty in getting Members to serve on Select Committees and on Royal Commissions and Departmental Committees, the work of which imposed a greater inroad on their time, and put them to much greater inconvenience than in the case of Private Bill Committees of the House. But what is the reason of that? The reason is the utter weariness of the work of the Private Bill Committees. Except in the case of the Chairman of the Committee, who is of some importance, other Members associated with him practically take no part in the proceedings except to listen, and very often they know nothing of the places to which the Bills before them refer. Probably they have not sat on a Bill of the same sort before, and they are compelled to sit right up to lunch time listening to reiterated evidence, of little or no interest. No wonder they do not like to serve on these Private Bill Committees. It is said that they send to the Chairman of the Selection Committee to excuse themselves. Of course they do. We know that every man, after he has been a few years in Parliament when he gets a note from the Secretary of the Committee of Selection asking him to serve on some Private Bill Committee, will reply that it will be more convenient for him to serve at the end of the Session. They are eager, however, to serve on Select Committees, because the subject interests them, and on Royal Commissions, because that confers on them a certain amount of importance, and they can do good work on them for the country, and therefore they do not grumble at the sacrifice of time. There is a good deal of human nature in Members of Parliament. They do not care for the wearisome, monotonous drudgery and the constant and imperative work of the Private Bill Committee-. without even having as much as the consolation of a newspaper paragraph. But put them in the position to do useful work; let them go down to Scotland to look after some important measure or

  537
  Scotch Office Provisional Order Bills, and they would not complain. I believe it is a libel on the patriotism of the Scottish Members of both Houses to say that there will be any difficulty to get three or four men to serve on the panel. After all, what is the work of Private Bill Committees? It appears from the return issued last year that only 154 Members out of the whole House of Commons served at all during the preceding Session on Private Bill Committees, and that the average of their work was nine and a third days each. That is not killing. But, said the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, Members, if they were asked to serve on Provisional Orders Commission, might object on the ground that it is not in their bond; and that they did not engage to go in for that sort of work. But Parliament does not last for ever; and if they did not engage in the last election they would engage at the nest election, or their constituents would know the reason why. As to the House of Lords, I do not know that anyone supposes its Members are overworked, and that a few extra days per annum would be any great hardship for them. Now, I quite agree with the Secretary for Scotland in the evidence he gave before the Select Committee last year, that the Commission should be composed of Members who have no interest in the locality to which the Provisional Order applies. That must be so. But if you can get County Councillors and Town Councillors, and retired or defeated Members of Parliament who are still Scotchmen sufficiently free from interest to form the Commission, surely among ail the Scotch Members and Scotch Peers you could get men equally devoid of interest in the particular corner of Scotland to which the Provisional Order might apply. I do not believe there will be any difficulty in the matter. At the worst, if the Bill is set up with a proper Parliamentary panel, such as I speak of, and if you could not get a sufficient number of Members to serve it would be time enough to try something else. To commence at once by subverting the whole principle of Parliamentary delegation is beginning at the wrong end. In the discussions last year the Lord Advocate twitted me with having criticised the proposed panel, but with having made no contribution towards the solution of the objections I had raised to it. I venture now to make such a contribution which may be accepted or re-
  538
  jected. The Secretary for Scotland must have a panel. He will not be happy till he gets it. In 1898 the proposal was that the Conveners of Counties and Provosts and Lord Provosts of the Burghs should nominate a panel, and that the Secretary for Scotland was to select two from that panel to form a Commission. Now, the Chairman of Committees and the Scotch Secretary are to nominate the panel of twenty-five, and then, by some hanky-panky, to select two or three men out of the twenty-five. He does not at all know what the men are to be. They should be Scotchmen, although that is not absolutely necessary. And they should be men experienced in affairs, although a considerable number of them, at ail events, those best paid, will not be Members of Parliament at all. Now, why should the noble Lord go wandering through these unconstitutional paths in search of this panel or that? The system of Parliamentary delegation is quite well understood in Parliament, and has worked satisfactorily for many years. Parliament is extremely jealous of delegation to Private Bill Committees. It was customary often to appoint an official referee to strengthen a Committee. At any rate, that was said by courtesy to be the reason of the appointment. Many years ago a question of an official referee voting on a Private Bill Committee, and affecting the decision of that Committee, was brought before the House by my then colleague, Mr. Anderson, and the House disallowed the referee's vote, and from that day to this a referee has never been allowed to vote on a Private Bill Committee. As I have said, I would have been content with a Parliamentary Committee or a Parliamentary delegation to make the inquiry proposed under this Bill. I would go further than the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland, who wants Scotchmen on these Commissions. Why not let the Scottish Constituencies select their own Parliament panel? They have done so already by sending up to this House seventy-two Members to look after their interests in Private as well as Public Bill legislation. Why not allow them to select? In the House of Lords, Scotland is also represented by the Representative Peers, and if they are not sufficient they could be added to. The Representative Peers and the whole of the Members returned to this House would constitute a grand panel. Then lot the

  539
  Committee of Selection in each House apportion these honourable Members and noble Lords into district panels, taking care to choose men who are not personally or directly interested in any particular district, to constitute the panel for that district. Let the Secretary for Scotland divide Scotland into groups of counties, two or three groups will suffice, and when he comes to apportion the panels in this group of counties or that, let the Committee of Selection, if the House is sitting, nominate the men to be sent on the Commission; and if the House is not sitting, you would fall back on the machinery of the Bill, and allow the Scottish Secretary and the Chairmen of Committees to make the nomination. As the two Houses are co-ordinate in their powers, the Chairmen of the Commissions could be alternately nominated from the one House and the other. As I have said before, it is a gross libel on the Scottish Members to say that there would be any difficulty in getting them to serve on this panel. Last year there were twelve Bills which would have been Provisional Orders under the present scheme, and the work divided between the Scottish Members, and probably fifty Scottish Peers, would have been a mere bagatelle. In cases where the Government thought that the question to be dealt with was of such technical difficulty or importance as to require assistance, by all means let the Secretary for Scotland appoint an official referee. Let him sit along with the Commission, but do not let him vote on the Commission. In this way the traditions of Parliament would be maintained, and the ambition of the Secretary for Scotland to have Scotchmen on these Commissions of inquiry would be realised. And the new departure, as to the desirability of which most of us are agreed, would then be carried out in a way that would command the confidence of the country, instead of being committed to a tribunal without form and void, comprising, it may be, not a single Member of Parliament, imposing an unnecessary charge upon the Exchequer, and nominated as it would be practically by the Departments of Government, instead of by the recognised machinery of the Upper and Lower Houses of Parliament. I beg to move the amendment standing in my name.
  DR. CLARK: I have great pleasure in seconding the
  540
  Motion of my honourable Friend the Member for Camlachie. This is probably the most revolutionary, and, to use the word in its normal meaning, the most unconstitutional Bill ever introduced into this House, either by the Government or by a private Member. I do not think, so far as the principle of the Bill is concerned, that anybody has ever asked for it—not even Mr. Vary Campbell. If you want to know where the whole machinery of the Bill comes from you have only to read the evidence of Mr. Vary Campbell before the Committee of Lords and Commons. But even Mr. Vary Campbell had not the audacity to suggest to the Joint Committee what the Government are now proposing to this House. They have produced many revolutionary things before this House, but this is by far the most revolutionary of all their propasals. I well remember the present Lord Justice General ten or a dozen years ago, when he was Lord Advocate, bringing in a Bill with a plan of his own. I took great credit to myself, after listening to the then Lord Advocate's speech, of becoming a party to that Bill, because he told us that there was a strong feeling in Scotland in favour of Home Rule, at any rate, in favour of Private Bill Legislation Home Rule. I have always thought, and I think now, that there is a strong feeling in Scotland in favour of Public Bill Legislation Home Rule. The Lord Advocate then told us that the Government meant to deal with the question in four different Bills, and that that was the first. That Bill got into Committee, and, we spent many weeks upstairs over it. We had to come downstairs to get special rules to guide us, and to abrogate the old rules which then governed the work of Committees. The result was that a compromise was attempted, and my right honourable Friend the present Leader of the Opposition then, on behalf of the Scotch Members, made a proposal to the Government which, if they had adopted, would have disposed of the question on terms that would have been satisfactory to everybody in the House and everybody in Scotland except Mr. Vary Campbell and the Parliament-house clique who wanted the £3,000 a year appointment. These gentlemen thought they would be able to rush the scheme through, but they were unable to do so. And what was the other

  541
  reason? The other reason which has been put forward in favour of a change in Private Bill Procedure is, that the present system is too costly. The part of the Bill objected to is a small item, viz., expenses of bailies and town councillors coming to London. Bailies and town councillors are like Members of Parliament. As my honourable Friend said, they have their weaknesses, and one of their weaknesses is to come here and have a nice holiday while promoting a Bill or opposing a. Bill. I think there ought to be local inquiry. Unfortunately, however, all the methods proposed by the Government of the day during the last dozen years—with the exception of the Bill suggested in 1892, but never read a, second time—have been based on radically bad lines like the present Bill. Now, what does the present Bill do? I may say that from the time that the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons sat in 1884 or 1885 until now we have endeavoured in all legislation, both when we were in power and opposition, to make it unnecessary for either Town Councils or other public bodies to come to Parliament at all. We have really been in favour of what is good in this Bill, namely, the giving to Government Departments the right of granting Provisional Orders upon the old lines. I understand that the Government and the Lord Advocate are desirous of passing the Bill just as Mr. Disraeli did a certain Bill in 1867, when I think Lord Derby said that the only word in the Bill that remained since it was brought in was the word "whereas." If that is the case, I am quite willing to support the amendment of my honourable Friend, and give the House1 or the Committee1 the chance of "licking" the Bill into shape. Now, since the inquiry of 1884 a great deal has been done to prevent the Bills of Town Councils coming to Parliament by providing for local inquiries before the Sheriffs on a number of matters. In 1889 the Local Government Bill was brought in, giving great powers to Local Authorities. We wanted to give to Local Authorities the power to take land compulsorily for public purposes by Provisional Order, but the then Government opposed it. Since then they have given way. Then we had the Public Health Bill, 1897. Now any public body can, by Provisional Order, secure a supply of water and acquire land, without the aid
  542
  of Parliament, and the same power is given in regard to sewers, roads and things of that kind by Provisional Orders also. By the Housing of the Working Classes Act and other measures we have increased the power of the Local Authorities, and even Parish Councils have the right to take land for the recreation of the people. Fifteen or twenty years ago, therefore, there was much more reason for a Bill of this kind; because at that time the Local Government and other Public Health Bills had not- been passed. But what I would like to see would be that principle extended, and in so far as this Bill will extend it, the measure is worth considering. But what is the principle of this Bill? It is difficult to discover what it is, because you have got so many questions concerned in it. It seems to me that the biggest principle is that it takes away from Scotchmen the right of coming to Parliament to have a grievance redressed or to obtain improvements. Englishmen, Irishmen and Welshmen will still be able to come to Parliament, and this House will still be able to pass Private Acts of Parliament for England, Ireland, and Wales, but it will cease to pass any Act, except under most exceptional circumstances, for Scotland. We shall have a voice in English, Welsh, and Irish private affairs, but none at all in our own. This is a very curious condition of affairs. I say that the principle of the Bill is to take away our right of coming here, and to make us go somewhere else. What will be the effcet on Parliament? It will take from Parliament the inherent right to determine whether certain things shall be done or not—a right which has never been given up until the present time—and vest it in the Secretary for Scotland. The source of all legislation in this country, from the commencement of Parliaments until now, has been this Parliament, and you are now asked by a. Conservative Government to take away all the powers you now have, and place them in the hands of the Secretary for Scotland. The Bill is a blow at the principle of central government, and if it is carried Parliament will have to surrender its right to legislate. The right to legislate will be placed in the hands of the Secretary for Scotland, who will determine whether certain monopolies and concessions shall be given or withheld. When persons come to Parlia-

  543
  ment for a Private Bill, they invariably ask for some monopoly, some concession, some special right; and if this Bill had been limited to measures brought forward by public bodies—Town Councils, County Councils, and bodies of that kind—I for one would not have opposed it. We must, however, remember that from 1887 to 1897 practically 300 Bills came before Parliament, one set being Railway Bills, another Corporation Bills, and another Bills giving concessions and monopolies. Now we place in the hands of the Secretary for Scotland alone the right to determine whether certain privileges and monopolies shall be given. But what is the scheme? The scheme is that the Secretary for Scotland and the two Chairmen of Committees shall first appoint a panel composed of men of experience of affairs. Well, I do not know the extent of the work of the Chairman of the House of Lords, but the work of the Chairman of the House of Commons is very hard indeed, and if there is any real work attached to the duties you propose to place upon him, you are placing it in the hands of a person who cannot do it. Now the present Chairmen of Committees are Englishmen, and I do not know that even the Secretary for Scotland has much experience of affairs in Scotland. It is not therefore probable that these three gentlemen can personally know anything of the men they are going to appoint. Some of our Secretaries for Scotland do not know very much about Scotland, so that the result will be that they will be very much in the hands of the permanent officials. The panel is to be appointed for five years. In trying an experiment of this kind the panel should not be appointed for more than one year, or at most for three. It appears to be desired that two-thirds of the panel shall consist of men out of Parliament, and one-third of those in Parliament, because arrangements are to be made for the payment of two Members out of three. Men appointed will hold local inquiries, and then report to the Secretary for Scotland, who may modify the decision as much as he pleases. Then comes a very curious condition of affairs. The men who have opposed a Provisional Order locally may desire to oppose it at Westminster, but they have no right to do so. Their rights have been abrogated by the Secretary for Scotland. I am not sure that we
  544
  require to make our Chairmen in the future much more partisan than they have been in the past, but this system will rather play into the hands of the other side, because the Chairmen of Committees, whether we have a Liberal Government in power or a Conservative Government, will, in the other House, belong to one Party. Now, what ought to have been done in a case of this kind? One would have thought that a Constitutional or Conservative Government would make changes tentatively; that they would bit by bit give them a, trial. Instead of this we have got a revolutionary measure brought in. The Bill is the skeleton of certain proposals, but we have not the machinery for carrying them out. I hope we shall have this machinery before the Third Reading and the report stage, so that we can understand the rules which are to be framed in connection with the measure. At the present time it is very difficult for anyone to understand it. I happen to know something of the way in which the system of giving power to Ministers to grant concessions works in other countries, such as Belgium, Norway, and France. You have always associated with it terrible scandals, and I have no doubt whatever that if this Bill passed we should have as many scandals here. I have been a Member of this House for many years, and I have never heard the slightest whisper about honourable Members' votes being influenced by interests until lately. But now we ought to be frank. Lately two cases have occurred—one on the great oil question and another on the telephone question. We have had the case of a gentleman who was Postmaster-General arranging the licence for giving a private company a monopoly, and, very unfortunately and unwisely, I think, he joined the directorate of that company afterwards. That is a type of the scandal to which I refer.
  SIR C. DALRYMPLE: May I ask, Sir, what the honourable Gentleman means by a type of scandal with reference to the case he has mentioned? My right honourable Friend was Postmaster-General when the concession was granted to the Telephone Company, but it was not till four years afterwards that he became a director. I want to' know what the honourable Member means by the words "a type of scandal" connected with this matter?
  DR. CLARK: I have said that you have had in countries where this system exists Ministers giving concessions to companies and causing scandals, and I said that the right honourable Gentleman gave a concession of monopoly to the National Telephone Company and afterwards joined the Board of that company, and that he has been putting questions and acting on behalf of that same company in this House. I am only stating a fact.
  SIR C. DALRYMPLE: I want to ask what the honourable Gentleman suggests by his remark?
  DR. CLARK: I may surely use an argument. I was saying that you have in other countries any number of scandals arising out of this system, and that if you introduce it into this country you will have the same thing here.
  SIR C. DALRYMPLE: I want to know, Sir, what the honourable Gentleman means by a scandal in connection with the matter to which he has referred. I have nothing to do with what happens in foreign countries. What I want to know is what the honourable Gentleman means by a, scandal in connection with the Telephone Company. He has taken an illustration, and I want to know what is the ground for the statement he has made in connection with that illustration.
  DR. CLARK: I will re-state my argument for the benefit of the honourable Baronet.
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: On a point of order, Sir, may I ask, whether the honourable Gentleman's illustration has any relevancy whatever to the Second Reading of this Bill; and whether, even assuming it to be accurate, it has any reference to the subject of the Bill?
  MR. SPEAKER: I did not catch the word "scandal" when it was used, or the reference in which it was used, because an honourable Member happened to be asking me a question at the moment; but the matter which the honourable Member is now going into seems to me very remote from the Bill. As regards the explanation which the honourable Member has just given of his meaning, he has not in that explanation said anything unparliamentary, and I am not in a position to call him to order for that;
  546
  but I think he had better devote himself to the question before the House.
  SIR C. DALRYMPLE: I beg to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, under cover of an illustration in reference to a matter very remote from the subject in hand, the honourable Gentleman is at liberty to suggest that there was something in the nature of a scandal in connection with the conduct of a. Member of this House who is a, Privy Councillor, who happened to be Postmaster-General at the time the contract was made with the National Telephone Company, and who is now absent from this House? I desire to ask, what is the scandal which the honourable Member in his very far-fetched illustration refers to in connection with my right honourable Friend?
  MR. SPEAKER: To speak of an honourable Member's conduct, with reference to a particular matter in which his honour is assumed to be involved, as a scandal is, I think, an offensive and unparliamentary expression, and if used ought to be withdrawn. The honourable Gentleman has a, perfect right to deal with the conduct of any honourable Member in this House, but he must do so in language which is parliamentary and on an occasion when it is relevant.
  DR. CLARK: I can easily understand the honourable Baronet fighting very hard for the reputation of his right honourable relative. (Cries of ''Withdraw"). Will the House allow me to explain? (Renewed cries of "Withdraw.")
  SIR C. DALRYMPLE: I beg to ask, Sir, whether the honourable Gentleman is not aggravating the case rather than improving it by suggesting that I am fighting hard for the reputation of my right honourable relative?
  DR. CLARK: I withdraw that phrase unreservedly, and I apologise to the honourable Baronet for using it. Let me explain the words I used. I said I had never heard until lately any whisper of this kind of thing. I did not offer any opinion regarding the action of the right honourable Gentleman, but I contended that if you place officials in a position where their private interests and public duty——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! If the honourable Baronet refers to the same

  547
  facts, he referred to before and says these are types of scandal, he is acting contrary to my ruling. I must ask him to withdraw, and I beg he will not repeat the expression.
  DR. CLARK: Then, Sir, I withdraw the statement altogether. I withdraw the argument. I had no intention of reflecting on the right honourable Gentleman. He is a gentleman I have great respect for in many ways, and he has a large experience in this House. He has been a Minister, and I am very glad to have this opportunity of saying that in using the words "this type of scandal" I did not mean to say that what he had done was a scandal.
  MR. COCHRANE: Mr. Speaker, in the few remarks that I will venture to address to the House, I shall try to confine myself as closely as possible to the Debate in which we are engaged, and that is the Second Reading of this Bill, and to avoid those details which should be discussed in Committee, but which, I think, honourable Members are apt to be led into on an occasion such as this. Mr. Speaker, an impression is gaining ground in this country that honourable Members on this side of the House are, in consequence of the Debate which took place last year, somewhat lukewarm in their interest in this Bill. I think that is a very erroneous impression. It probably arose because we were many of us anxious that the Bill should pass, and with that view we abstained from speaking upon it in the hope that we should facilitate its passage into law. As far as I was concerned, I was very anxious to speak on this Bill, but for the reason I have mentioned, and also because I was obliged to> attend an engagement in Scotland, I was unable to take part in the discussion. Sir, I do not think the opposition to the Bill was of a very formidable character. No doubt honourable Members who represent large interests in Scotland, and who thus have special means of ascertaining the views of those particular interests, expressed opinions which were tinged to a certain extent by the views represented to them by their boards and shareholders, but I do not believe those feelings are held by the people of Scotland in general. I think the very strongest opposition to this Bill last year came from honourable
  548
  and learned Members on this side. I think honourable and learned Members on either side have some of those qualities which are always, or often, attributed to Scotch people, and that is, that they are very canny. Their view, without imputing to them any motives which are not strictly in order, may be affected if they think some Members of their profession will be injured. Well now, Sir, the honourable Baronet the Member for Bridgeton (Sir Charles Cameron), who addressed the House, alluded in his interesting speech, in which he went into many details, to the opinion of the honourable Baronet the Member for Oxford University (Sir John Mowbray); and he endeavoured, if he will allow me to say so, rather to distort that opinion into one hostile to the provisions of this Bill. But, Sir, I do not think that the words themselves will bear such an interpretation.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERONdissented.
  MR. COCHRANE: Perhaps I misunderstood the honourable Baronet. But I thought the right honourable Baronet distinctly gave his weight and opinion in favour of some such delegation such as that which we are now discussing, because, after discussing the difficulties of the present system, and after paying well-deserved tributes to Members who serve on Committees, he said he thought there must be a change, and that sooner or later Parliament would have to transfer its jurisdiction on, private Bills to some external tribunal. I think then that this Bill is fortified by the opinion of the right honourable Baronet, who carries more weight on questions of this kind than most other Members. The honourable baronet opposite drew a picture of the difficulties of attending Select Committees upstairs, and he pointed out the loss which honourable Members suffer in not being able to obtain satisfactory luncheons, and also of being deprived of paragraphs in the papers. I do not think that those arguments will weigh very strongly in this House; but when the honourable Baronet went on to say that Scotland now selects its own panel, and deals with its own Private Bills, I think that is far from the practice of this House. I will read a list of Scotch Private Bills which now await consideration. They are the Ayr Burghs, Edinburgh Corporation, Highland Water, and Leith Harbour and

  549
  Dock Bills, and I cannot see that in any of these Bills Scotland selects its own panel, because, as a matter of fact, there is not one single Scotchman sitting in any of the Committees.
  SIR C. CAMERON: I do not think the honourable Gentleman need pursue that line of argument. I said exactly the opposite. I said that Scottish Members were not on Scotch Committees.
  MR. COCHRANE: Then I think this Bill will be a distinct improvement, because, under it there will be an opportunity for Scottish. Members and Scotsmen to consider Scotch Private Bills. A great deal has been said as to the opinion in Scotland one way or another. It would be too much to say that Scotland is unanimous, and I do not suggest that we shall ever be unanimous on any single point, but there is a very strong feeling in Scotland in favour of the principle of this proposal. A conference sat in Edinburgh last year which was attended by men of very considerable weight, who all declared themselves unanimously in favour of the principle of this Bill, and I believe there is a general and universal feeling that small Scottish interests which are now apt to be neglected upstairs, would receive their due weight in inquiries held locally. An honourable Member opposite said that this was an Advocates' Bill. I do think the advocates have some grievance in this matter. My heart does not grieve for them, they can possibly take care of themselves; but I think one's sympathy ought to go out to young advocates in Edinburgh, many of them men of considerable energy and ability, who are absolutely briefless, while there is a plethora, of business in a sort of congested district upstairs, in which money is coined just as if it were Klondyke; and when it is proposed to transfer this business to where young Scottish advocates can take a share of it, the temptation to support such a proposal is very strong, and within reasonable limits perfectly legitimate. If Private Bills were relegated to Scotland many capable men would be found to conduct them. There is one point which I wonder Scottish Members have not dealt with more fully, and that is the extravagance of the present system of Private Bill legislation. The report issued last year
  550
  asked whether it was fair to place on the industries of the country such a, tax as the amount expended on Private Bills. It is really a very serious question that the annual sum expended on fees, as shown on the Report, should leave a net profit of some £32,000 a year, and although it may be quite true to say that a great many of these fees are paid by large railway companies and large industries, they are ultimately paid by those who employ the railway companies and purchase from the industries. But even a more striking point of view has been brought out, and that was an illustration given to the House by an honourable Member, who was well-known to take an enormous interest in. this question. I refer to Mr. Craig Sellar. His reference to the years from 1872 to 1875 was a very striking one. He showed that the expense of Private Bills during that period by promoters amounted to £1,294,000, and he suggested as a reasonable estimate that another million might be added for the expense of the opposers of the Bills. Then that return was further carried down by a return in 1892, showing for the previous six years a very similar state of affairs, and altogether we may come to the conclusion that Scotland spends about £100,000 a year on Private Bills. Some honourable Members say that it is as cheap to conduct a Bill in London as in Glasgow or Edinburgh. Striking evidence on this point was given in a report issued in 1888, which contained figures which went to show the expense of a local inquiry and an inquiry in London. From that return it appears that fifty-four witnesses examined in Glasgow only cost the moderate sum of £105, whereas forty-nine witnesses brought up to London cost £2,380, and sixty-six witnesses brought up on another occasion cost the very large sum of £5,000. There is a very wide margin between £105 for fifty-four witnesses in Glasgow and £5,000 for sixty-six witnesses in London. Then again, in a conference which took place in Edinburgh in the spring of last year, and which was attended by various gentlemen of considerable weight, the President of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture gave a somewhat striking instance with refer-ance to a Bill which was tried by a Committee upstairs. It was not a very-large Bill, but it cost between £3,000 and £4,000. He himself was a witness,

  551
  and he said that when he entered the Committee room he saw plans spread out on the wall, and two gentlemen trying to ascertain the course of the Tay. Then he went on to compare the expenditure on the Bill with the cost on local inquiries, such as that held by the Light Railway Commissioners in Perth, which only cost about half the expenditure on the private Bill. Having pointed out the disadvantages of the present system, I would venture to ask whether the present Bill provides the best remedy. This is not a new Bill to any of us. It went through the House of Lords in 1897. It was discussed by a, Committee of the House of Lords, and it was discussed by a Committee of this House last year, and the present Bill is the offspring of these two discussions. It has been blessed in advance by the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who, speaking to his constituents at Dunfermline, gave unqualified praise to the principles of the Bill, and also expressed well-merited confidence in the ability of the Lord Advocate and the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland to produce a Bill. I hope the Bill will fully meet his views on the question of Private Bill legislation in Scotland. I rather thought I detected a tone of sadness in the speech of the right honourable Gentleman that the Bill was not in his own charge, as he regarded this question of Private Bill Legislation for Scotland as being his own peculiar offspring, and ho rather regretted that the "union of hearts" had been so very chary in legislation as far as Scotland was concerned. This Bill having then been discussed by various Committees, and having, as I think, a very great amount of public opinion behind it, we may for a moment consider whether its provisions are likely to carry out all that we wish. According to the return we have seen, we find it will be applicable to a very large number of cases. The return itself shows that there are thirty-two different headings under which Provisional Orders can be obtained. We know that although a very large number of Provisional Orders are obtained, over 300, very few of them are contested. Only eleven were challenged during the last five years, and in only two cases where challenged were Confirming Orders refused by this House. That is a testimony to the value of Provisional Orders; but the great diffi-
  552
  culty alluded to by previous speakers is the discovery of an adequate tribunal for inquiring into these Private Bills on the spot. That is really the crux of the position. What we wish is that we should have Commissioners which will command respect, who will not always be changing, but yet be changed often enough to meet with the wants of the country. The country itself is constantly changing. New railways, electricity, telephones, applications for water power, are wanted all over the country, and it would be a great mistake to have stereotyped and hide-bound Commissioners. One blot on the Bill of last year was that the direct influence of Parliament was not sufficiently represented on the panel. This year I think the Government have hit on a very happy medium which, with one very slight improvement, would satisfy all legitimate views in this direction. As I understand the Bill, the Secretary for Scotland and the two Chairmen of Committees are to select the panel of twenty-five gentlemen to serve as Commissioners, and, as far as I understand the Bill—the Lord Advocate will no doubt correct me if I am wrong— every Member of Parliament who wishes to serve as a Commissioner must be nominated on this panel among the twenty-five. That, in my opinion, would leave a very small proportion of representatives from this House. My right honourable Friend interjected a remark in reply to a question by the honourable Baronet in which he said that although only two Commissioners will be paid, it was quite possible to have more than two Members of Parliament serving on a Commission, but if only four or five Members are elected for the panel it will be a very difficult thing to have two or three cut of the number on every single Commission appointed. If my right honourable Friend would go a little step further and keep the panel apart from the panel of this House, and would allow the Committee of Selection to select Members on that panel, to supplement the other Commissioners, I think that would increase the interest and control which honourable Members of this House have in Committee work, and it would overcome very many of the objections in regard to Scottish Members not being sufficiently represented on the Commissions I hope I have made myself clear on that point to my right honourable Friend. The honour-

  553
  able Baronet suggested that there would be a difficulty in honourable Members serving in Scotland. I do not think he need have any apprehension on that point. As he himself said, we all are very patriotic, and where duty calls us we shall no doubt be willing to pack up our golf sticks and take a share in the local work committed to us. I really hope that this Measure, with the very alight alteration I have suggested, will pass into law. I think it will simplify procedure, give an increased interest in various local matters, safeguard smaller interests, and finally, and one of its chief merits, which I do not suppose will attract any sympathy on the other side of the House, it will take away any weight that ever attached to the fantastic proposal which sometimes emanated from the other side of the House "of Home Rule All Round." I will gladly support this Bill.
  MR. T. SHAW: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the testimony conveyed by the speech of the honourble Gentleman who has just spoken, that the fact is now acknowledged that the Scottish Members are not unwilling to serve on local inquiries in Scotland itself. That was a very great difficulty in the way, and it was thought by some high constitutional authorities that it was an objection that really could not be overcome, and that it would be an impossibility to find representatives from Scotland to serve on those Committees. I am rejoiced to find now that the consensus of opinion is that the contrary is the case. One of the observations of the honourable Gentleman was that this Bill practically before it came into existence was blessed by my right honourable Friend and Leader. Now this Bill is like every other Bill upon this topic. The Bill of this year is radically different from the Bill of the year before, and I do not think the honourable Gentleman will be able to extract from any observations made by my right honourable Friend a blessing in anticipation of a Measure he had never seen. The subject before us is one of very great importance to Parliamentary procedure itself, and certainly to Scotland, even on constitutional grounds. It is quite true, as the honourable Gentleman has just remarked, that Scotland has considered and reconsidered this subject, and has come to a settled
  554
  conclusion; but I would beg the House to observe what are the limits to that conclusion. So far as I have been able to discover in Scotland, the conclusion has been almost universally in favour of the substitution for the present system of a system of local inquiry. But there unanimity, so far as my experience goes, stops, and when we come to the constitution of the tribunal which was to be substituted for a Parliamentary Committee, then indeed we are on delicate and much-contested ground. Scotland is very willing, and indeed very anxious, to have a system of local inquiry, but only on condition that the substituted tribunal should be a strong and impartial tribunal and should really and truly represent the mind of Parliament itself. For my own part I would venture to recommend to the House and to my honourable Friends near me, to accept the Second Reading of this Bill, in the hope and trust that the Government will approach it in a non-Party spirit, in order to avoid danger on the subject of the tribunal. I do not need to affirm that a local inquiry would be better than an inquiry at Westminster. The honourable Gentleman has cited certain figures, showing the expense of the present system. I think, however, that might be an exaggerated consideration. Where I find expense is likely to be saved is in one particular, and one particular chiefly, and that is that one inquiry should be substituted for two. I think there will be a real saving of cost in that respect. But it is most unfortunate that this Bill in all contested enquiries makes elaborate and somewhat confused preparations for a double inquiry. I find very high constitutional grounds taken up by certain objectors to this Bill. It is said, for some reason or other, that the Government have resolved to deprive Scotland of her right to petition Parliament. I am bound to say I cannot agree. It appears to me that the real meaning of the Measure in that particular is that Scotland is not deprived of her right to petition Parliament, but that the Bill suggests that that right should be exercised through a fresh channel and under a fresh name, viz., the Provisional Order system. But no existing right would be curtailed. The real trouble of the Bill begins at section 2. We had expected that there would be full and ample treatment of the subject of Private Bill legislation. But we find in section 2

  555
  that there is a very considerable limit instantly put on the scope of the reform, and I question whether the agitation in Scotland, such as it is, and it seems an agitation within definite limits, and within certain peculiar channels, would ever have taken shape or assumed anything like national dimensions if it had been thought that at the will of either Chairman of either House of Parliament there could be imposed a most serious impairment of the scope of these local inquiries. And yet I am bound to say that that is nothing more nor less than what the Section describes. I think the, merits of the Bill are contained in the first part of the 6th section, which provides for local inquiry, but section 2, which provides for the limitation to certain subjects of these inquiries I take, to have been inserted in the Bill to avoid the cardinal objection of many people who take alarm at the highly exceptional proposal made, on the ground that by this step the whole system was about to be changed. I recognise without objection that the Government have adopted the line of taking one step at a time so far as this local inquiry is concerned, and limited as it is, I am quite willing to accept it. The other question, however, to my mind, is one which is of very much greater importance, and that is—What is the new body which is called a Commission to do in the sense of representing the views of this House? Unless you have a Commission which represents the will and mind of the two Houses of Parliament you will undoubtedly be paving the way for a conflict between that Commission and the real will of society as represented in this House. It is necessary to consider this, for in all these questions of Private Bills the real point to be considered is how far and within what limits shall the private interest of individuals yield to the public good according to the views represented in the two Houses of Parliament. That is literally a good and sound constitutional doctrine, and we have had furnished to us the dictum of Sir Erskine May, whose opinion I will venture to quote. He says—
  "This union of the judicial and legislative functions is not confined to the forms of procedure, but is an important principle in the inquiries and decision of Parliament upon the merits of Private Bills. As a Court it inquires
  556
  into and adjudicator upon the interests of private parties; as a Legislature, it is watchful over the interests of the public. The promoters of a Bill may prove beyond a doubt that their own interest will be advanced by its success, and no one may complain of injury, or urge any specific objection; yet, if Parliament apprehend that it will be hurtful to the community, it is rejected as if it were a public measure, or qualified by restrictive enactments, not solicited by the parties."
  Parliament has the power to invade the domain of private interests because it represents the justly predominant rights of society as a whole; but that power carries with it a very large measure of responsibility, both in its use within Parliament, and also, as it is proposed in this Bill, in its delegation to an extra Parliamentary authority. My great objection is, in the main, that I fear under these provisions for setting up an extra Parliamentary Commission, this whole power of delegation is too lightly and too confusedly parted with by the scheme of this measure. The mind of Parliament on the whole, roughly but directly, is representative of public spirit, and public spirit has its retrogression or advance, its adaptation and its movement. It still remains to me a very startling thing to find in this Bill that, after all, there is a delegation of power by Parliament for a fixed period of five years to a body of men of whom we know nothing, but whom, for better or worse, we are to take on trust as nominated and delegated by three eminent officials of the Government. The one man who will know will be the Secretary for Scotland, but I question the prudence or the right of Parliament to shuffle off this responsibility on to one man's shoulders, however eminent that official may be. One of the sections of this Bill suggests a crowd of difficulties, namely, section 1 which provides for the formation of this Commission. Who will these men be who will have to try these Bills? Who will the one man be? He will not be the Chairman of the Committees of this House, or the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords, but the real man who will know is the Secretary for Scotland, and practically none but he, and I question very much the right of Parliament to do this, and I challenge the whole scheme which is embodied in this proposal that Parliament for a fixed period of five years should throw the whole of this responsibility upon the shoulders of

  557
  one man. This extra Parliamentary Commission will, if it goes the way of all the Commissions of this kind of which we have had experience, get clogged in its movements by precedents. With regard to procedure, precedents may be of great value, but in other respects they may be also a public danger, for under the sacred name of precedents you get the errors of one year of the action of a Commission made the excuse for or the inducement to errors in the next year. The whole freedom of the movement of Parliament, and the whole responsiveness of Parliament to public spirit, will be lost, and there will be a danger in the sense that Parliament will not represent, but utterly misrepresent, the mind of society at large. No doubt we have a concession in this Bill to the extent that at least it appears permissible to have one or two Members of Parliament upon it—I presume Scotch, Members. My idea is that this Bill would be passed with acclamation if it were not yielded as a concession but as an absolute right that Scotch Members of Parliament should sit upon that Commission. There need be no trouble about the selection, but let the people of Scotland select their representatives when they elect their Members of Parliament, and then, so far as this House is concerned, they would be the persons who shall be the quota on the Commission to be substituted for the present arrangement. What then would I practically suggest? I suggest that, if the present arrangement under the Bill is continued, what will be found by experience will be this: that even although you put one Member of Parliament on it, or if you put two Members of Parliament upon it, the lot of these Members will not be happy, because they will be overmastered by the official element which will grow in strength from year to year, and that which is responsive to the public mind of the country will get cramped and dwarfed in its operations as the Commission proceeds. After considering and reconsidering the whole schemes my fixed opinion is that the Houses of Parliament should combine once for all in a Joint Committee to do this work itself, and to do it on the spot. I do not think that there will be any difficulty found in working out that scheme. I do not fear that the Members both in this House
  558
  and in the other House would not be found fit, and ready, and most willing to undertake these great duties. There is another reason to recommend it besides the constitutional one to which I have referred. The system is practically admitted that Scotch Members never try a Scotch case. That state of things in which Scotch Members are practically de-barred from trying Scotch Bills is a public scandal against which I beg respect-fully to protest. Scotland is treated as if the whole interests of Scotland were contained in a small parish, and that every Scotch Member was personally and locally interested in every Bill that affected Scotland. The thing is ridiculous, and I hope there will be no objection upon the part of the Lord Advocate to very carefully consider if something cannot be done upon the line which I have suggested, and have the whole of the Scotch Members as the panel available. I will mention before I sit down one conspicuous advantage which its adoption will have as bearing upon the Bill now before us. What is the most unsatisfactory portion and what is the most confused portion of the present Bill? It is full of trouble, and I am referring to Sections 7, 8, and 9. Here is the procedure: Substantially all we care about in this matter is contested Bills. Now there will be a contest locally under the operation of the clauses to which I have referred. But then, if the local tribunal passes the preamble of the Measure, the trouble and the confusion and mischief of extra expense begin over again. There is procedure provided for by a memorial from the very same persons who have been contestants, and who have been beaten in the local inquiry. And, in the next place, if in the opinion of certain officers of State that memorial or prayer is not unreasonable or vexatious, the whole battle has to be fought over again before a Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament. Where are we in these circumstances? Why, we are just back to the point where we started from. We want by a new procedure to abolish the double expense of inquiries before the Houses of Parliament, and what we require in the case of strongly-contested Bills is a new procedure which would be a single and final inquiry, without going through a further inquiry with all its concomitant expense and worry. I say that it is clear that the reason for this being done, and

  559
  the reason for a Joint Committee sitting afresh upon these measures, is because Her Majesty's Government are convinced that the verdict of the Commission will be just as I have said, not representative of the mind of Parliament itself. That being so, there would be another inquiry, and the whole expense would be doubled, and probably trebled, for no reason whatever that I can see. In the first instance, you should institute a Joint Committee, and charge it with the duty of visiting the spot and pronouncing what ought to be a fair verdict as to whether or not that Measure should be passed into law. I venture to say that if this Joint Committee were to try locally there would be no disposition on the part of anybody to question the verdict, and an enormous saving would be effected, because there would be no retrial, but a first and final verdict would be obtained. I have not spoken, as my right honourable Friend will observe, antagonistically to what I think is the real merit of this Bill, but I thought it only fair to contribute the view which I have formed after much consideration as to what would be the best tribunal to try these local inquiries. I recommend a fair consideration of the amendments to this Bill in this sense. By doing so, Parliament would retain its control of what it. should not lightly part with, and Scotland would obtain the real judgment of Parliament upon her private affairs in a manner which is at once single, economical, and promptly conclusive. It is because I think this Bill, while providing for local inquiries, is capable of amendment—which although drastic will certainly be for good—in the sense which I have indicated that I, for one, shall vote for the Second Reading of this Measure.
  MR.CRIPPS: I must say that I look upon the proposals of this Bill as dealing with an extremely important matter. I recollect the Leader of the Opposition pointing out last Session that the policy and principle comprised in a Bill of this kind should not be taken as applicable to Scotland only, but should be applied to the whole of the Private Bill procedure. Starting from that point, I think it would be well to see what the real difficulty is. Why has there been this difficulty? Why has it become necessary for a very large number of Committees and Commissions
  560
  to be appointed to consider this subject? And why do we find, as regards these Commissions and these Committees, a great variety of inconsistent suggestions? The real difficulty is this —and I think we have got to face it— that the subject matter of Private Bill procedure is legislation, and the proper place to deal with legislation is this House or the Houses of Parliament. If it was not for that primary difficulty the secondary difficulty about which we hear, the formation of a proper tribunal, really would not arise at all. And why not? Supposing the business delegated was business of an administrative character only, or supposing the business was of a judicial character only. Can anyone think for a moment that there would be the slightest difficulty in getting a tribunal to deal with matters of administrative or matters of judicial import? But the difficulty is that the subject matter of these Private Bills is legislation, and legislation is a duty as well as a privilege which ought to be exercised only under the control of Parliament. As has been pointed out by the honourable Member who has just sat down, if you substitute for this a system of devolution you will get a tribunal not in touch with the public opinion of this country, to which powers of legislation cannot be given by the public opinion of this country. And so they may become either stereotyped or revolutionary, and apply principles quite different, and which this House would not apply. As a mere matter of principle this is a very important point, if we look at it from this point of view. My objection to this is not that I would not desire to see—and heartily welcome—anything that I consider a real reform as regards the privileges of this House, or the interests of litigants or suitors. My objection is that here we have a wholesale tendency with a very important part of our legislative business to transfer it to a mere official tribunal, and that is the basis of my objection. On the other hand, when I look to the character of the new tribunal, I find one which, in my opinion, will be undoubtedly less satisfactory than the Committees of this House to deal with these exceedingly important questions of Private Bill procedure. Now let me carry the views I am expressing upon this point a little further. There really have been two or three criticisms which I want to deal with My first point is against dele-

  561
  gating the powers of this House in dealing with these questions of Private Bill legislation to another body, and in favour of the desirability of this House retaining the powers which are now exercised under its control. First of all, it has been argued—I think unjustly argued—that there is some necessity for delegating these legislative functions, because this House has not got sufficient power to deal with questions of that kind. I think that a suggestion of that kind cannot be supported for a moment by the real facts of the case. Surely anyone who has had experience of the working of the business of this House must know that we have a very large surplus of power which we waste in all sorts of directions, apparently with everybody's approbation, under existing conditions. I am not complaining of that, and I do not want an Act of Parliament passed every day. But when you are talking about the power of this House, to suggest for a moment that we have not got sufficient power to deal with the legislative wants of the country, and that we could not give a great deal more time to it if required, is entirely inconsistent with the facts of every day life, and with what is constantly passing in this House. To use an expression which has almost become classical in the mouth of the late Home Secretary, even the greatest megalomaniac for legislation must admit that he has ample opportunity in this House; but at any rate, if not, it is within the resources of the House that ample opportunity could be given. But there is another point as regards this Private Bill legislation. It only affects this House as a whole as regards second reading discussions. We know that this Session there have been two or three important Bills, containing principles of vital importance, which have been discussed on the second reading as regards matters of Private Bill legislation. I know that some people, in their anxiety to press on other matters, think that this is an objection, but to my mind it is one of the strongest arguments in favour of this House retaining the powers which it possesses at the present time. In a very large number of instances questions involving most important principles are discussed in this House, and which ought to be discussed; and sometimes the principle is accepted and sometimes rejected, and then that particular proposal can go no further. As far as Committees was stairs
  562
  are concerned, we have had suggestions that there is a certain amount of disinclination on the part of Members of this House taking part in the work of the Committees upstairs; but I do not believe it, and I do not believe that this House, at the present time, is one iota worse than it has been in the past in this respect. I do not believe that there has been the slightest tendency to deterioration in this regard, or that matters are worse considered at the present time than they have been at any time in the past, and I have had twenty years' experience of this class of work. Now I desire to make good my main proposition, that when we are dealing with these questions of Private Bill procedure we are really dealing with questions of legislation. I admit that if you can separate matters which are merely administrative and those which ought to be treated in a judicial spirit, they should not come before this House at all. In the case of the Divorce Bills, as soon as you reduced that subject to a judicial basis the Measure left—and properly left—this House altogether. I do not think that there is any half-way in this matter, and either you must delegate these powers absolutely on the ground that they are not matters of legislation, or else this House ought to assume its responsibility and carry out its duty, and thus prove that our control is a real one and not a sham, which I think I can show it is in the case of the present Bill. Just consider what sort of questions might, under the provisions of this Bill, be taken outside the control of Parliament. Take, for instance, a, question of franchise, which may be dealt with in Private Bill legislation. It may be said that we have got a, certain safeguard in the Chairmen of Committees in both Houses. That, however, is no real safe-guard so far as this House is concerned, and we ought not to allow any person, however eminent, to come between our legislative responsibilities and duties. I will take another case—alterations in police law. Now that is a very good argument to take. Under this Bill, quite outside the power of Parliament altogether, you might have very important principles of criminal law introduced into certain parts of the United Kingdom—I know I am dealing with Scotland—without the slightest control as regards this House at all. I appeal to Members of this House, and I ask, Can there be any more import-

  563
  ant topic with which we ought to deal as affecting the liberty of the subject? Could you have a better illustration than that? Let me take another illustration. We know very well that the question of municipal trading is very much to the front at the present moment. I do not think this is desirable, but it is an extremely important point, and one which deserves the careful attention at the present time of those who wish to press the tendency still further, and of those who think that the tendency has been pressed too far already. Are we going to delegate such powers on a great question of that kind?
  SIR R. REID: Parliament at the present time has very little control in such matters.
  MR. CRIPPS: I think I can give a very good answer to the right honourable Member. I will take this very matter with which we are now dealing, because it is a matter which has come before the House. What has been done? The attention of Members is called to it, and in consequence of that a special Committee is appointed to deal with this very important question. Now why is that done? Simply because the matter comes before this House. This House assumes the responsibility, and we have to deal with a question of that sort; but had it not been for that control this matter might have been decided without our authority. Let me take another illustration, and that is the one taken by the Member for the Border Burghs, the late Solicitor-General. What is the most important issue when you come to the details? It nearly always is whether the private interest or the public interest is to prevail, and that is the principle issue. I am not going to give any opinion as to any particular case, whether the one interest or the other ought to prevail, because that would be outside my present argument, but what I do say is this—that such powers ought not to be delegated from this House, but ought to be dealt with by this House and by its Committees. As the right honourable Gentleman opposite has pointed out, you may get a great conflict of opinion and ideas as between what the representatives of the people require and what the Commissioners may do. The control of the House has been constantly exercised
  564
  in these matters, and this has enormously altered the industrial position. I can speak of my own experience before Committees upstairs, for I know the sort of argument which prevailed twenty years ago upon discussions between private and public interests. You have had a great alteration in this respect, and you have had a march of opinion in accordance with public spirit. It does seem to me that we ought not to give up our responsibilities and our duty upon questions of this character. The first objection which has been raised to the present system—and very naturally raised —is the question of expense. I agree that this is a most important question. It is entirely wrong on questions of this kind that either rich or poor citizens, more particularly poor citizens, should be put to any unnecessary expense, and therefore we have to see what are the causes of the expense as regards the existing tribunal, that is, this House, and whether they are likely to be remedied under the proposals made by the Government. So far as existing expenses are concerned, I put them under three heads. The first cause, and the most important one, is the House fees, I wish to say that in my opinion the House fees—that is, the fees charged by this House in connection with our Private Bill legislation—are little less than a scandal. They are really a survival of a time when the people who fixed the fees got the benefit of them. They are a survival of that time; and can anything be more scandalous, more necessary to reform—and it ought to be reformed at once—than that on business of this kind we are making the large profit referred to by the honourable Member for North Ayrshire? I have had illustrations given to me by a gentleman whose name will be received with every respect in all parts of this House, a gentleman who is the doyen of Parliamentary Agents, I mean Sir Theodore Martin. First of all he gave me three Bills of a merely charitable kind. One of them was merely the expenditure of certain charities at Birmingham, another was in connection with Shakespeare's birthplace, and another was merely to apportion out certain sums between two charities. In each of these cases, where all the other expenditure was merely nominal, I find the House fees were £100. Now, what possible reason is there for charges of that kind; and charges of this kind can be done away

  565
  with without any Bill such as is proposed at the present time. And these charges, mind you, are the main source of expenditure. Let me take another case. I think the House ought to look at home. You cannot get the most ordinary unopposed Bill, other than a charitable Bill, through the House at the present time without you charge fees to the extent of £200. It is perfectly monstrous. Some small locality wants some reform which is comparatively of a trifling kind. This House immediately mulcts them in the penalty of £200; and then it says that expense will he saved if you alter the character of the tribunal. So it would if you get rid of monstrous fees of that kind. But they are not incidental to our procedure. They have grown up, and whether this Bill is passed or not, they ought, in my opinion, to be got rid of. The next source of expenditure is our Standing Orders, and I do not believe, myself, that if you change the character of the tribunal, the expenditure under the head of Standing Orders will be any less than it is at the present moment. As regards any large proposal you have to have expensive plans prepared by engineers, in order that everyone may have sufficient notice of what is going to be done. But what economy is likely to be brought about under this Bill? If outstanding Orders go too far they ought to be reformed and revised, but what is necessary to give due information to a Committee of this House will be equally necessary to the new tribunal. I cannot imagine where any single economy can be effected under this head of what is called Standing Order expenses. There is one other matter to which reference has been made, in a very good-humoured way amongst others, by the Member for the North Ayrshire Burghs, one other source of expenditure, and that is counsels' fees. I want to say this: I think a personal discussion between the English and Scottish Bar is much to be deprecated. I am not going to discuss this question upon such a basis. I want to state my experience, and that is that the fees of counsel do not depend on the tribunal, but on the importance of the business involved, and if you have large interests of that kind, at times involving even millions of pounds or hundreds of thousands of pounds—if you have large interests of that kind to be discussed before any tribunal, people will take the best counsel they can—
  566
  whether of the English or Scottish Bar, I do not draw any distinction between the two—and you have to pay for them, just as if you take the best surgeon or the best professional man of any class, you have to pay, and it is idle, to my mind, to suggest any economy on questions of this kind. If what I have said is accurate, why should a paid tribunal really be more economical than an unpaid and voluntary tribunal, in which you have the services of our Members upstairs? In the nature of things there is no reason at all—absolutely none at all in the nature of things. I think it is a very poor compliment to the reforming vigour of this; House, that instead of reforming our own procedure, instead of bringing it into accordance with modern views, instead of cutting down this wholly unnecessary and scandalous expense in certain directions, we take the other course, and are seeking now to get rid of legislative responsibilities. There is one other point. I said at the outset that there were certain matters which should be dealt with under the Pro-visional Order system. At the present time, as a, matter of fact, you can deal with a very large number of topics in Scotland under the Provisional Order system, gas, water, piers and harbours, electric lighting, alteration of boundaries of counties and parishes, tramways, town improvement schemes, sewers, roads, alteration in the numbers of town councils, powers under the Rivers' Pollution Act. If you take all these matters, which can be dealt with under the Provisional Order system, you will only leave outside their purview the important business with which this House ought certainly to deal itself. It may be you ought to have some further devolution under the Provisional Order system which at present exists. No one would state an exhaustive negative to a point of that kind. But what is far more striking, I think, when we are dealing with this matter, is this, that these powers at the present time to a great extent are not utilised. What we are now seeking to do is what we so often do; we are seeking to get up provision after provision without taking any care to see whether the existing provisions are sufficient for the purpose at which we want to arrive. I should like to ask the learned Lord Advocate, when he comes to reply, what is there which is outside the present Provisional Order system, because

  567
  this is said to be an extension of that system, which ought not to be dealt with as a legislative matter by this House. Can anyone contend that railways ought to be dealt with as a mere local matter? And so far as other questions are concerned, town improvements and matters of that kind, they can all be dealt with under the Provisional Order system, without some special new powers are asked inconsistent with the general law of the land; and if some new powers which are not governed by general law are required in some particular locality, are they to be granted without the legislative sanction of this House? There can only be one answer. I do not believe that when honourable Members think this out, and consider what it means, these new legislative powers outside the general law of the land—I do not believe that honourable Members will be content to delegate powers of that kind to any outside tribunal. On all other grounds it is admitted that the present tribunal is sufficiently satisfactory. There is no criticism either as to the manning of the tribunal or as regards the conduct of honourable Members, and although the unsuccessful suitor naturally, from time to time, is angry with the Judge before whom his case has been tried, that is only human nature—I have always understood it is admitted—that questions of this kind when decided upstairs before Committees of this House, are accepted as decided in a way satisfactory to all suitors and parties concerned. Now, let me say one or two words in conclusion upon the particular character of the present Bill. Of course, I do not intend to deal with matters which will be mere questions for the Committee. I want to deal with matters which are questions of principle, and before sitting down I wish to indicate what my view would be in dealing with questions of this kind very shortly. I want to see whether we cannot reserve our responsibilities and duties, and at the same time do all that is necessary to meet certain legitimate criticisms which have been offered from time to time as regards this Private Bill procedure. Now, Sir, take the matter of clause 1. I will read to the House shortly what the words are—
  "Any matter affecting public or private in terests in Scotland, for which they are at present entitled to apply to Parliament by petition."
  568
  Any matter affecting public or private interests; that is to say, you may ask this new tribunal to legislate, very important legislation may be undertaken in all these various matters, for all private or public interests, which may be brought before the House at the present day. I dwell upon that for this reason. I do not for a moment say that you could not make a right discrimination as between matters to be dealt with in this House, and under either an extension of the Provisional Order system or some system of local control. But that is not this proposal; the proposal here goes a long way outside that, it goes to any matter affecting either public or private interests, and that I say, is far too wide. Under the next head I need go into, we have the question of notice. Some notice apparently will be required under the existing system, but I think that paragraph 2, or section 2, is entirely unconstitutional, and not only is it unconstitutional, but it is giving a fictitious appearance as though we reserved control, which we do not really reserve. And why do I say that? I would rather, for my own part, as I said before, that if we are not going to deal with our responsibilities we should get rid of them altogether. But what we suggest here, both in regard to constitutional principle and its working, may be unsatisfactory in the highest degree. When you get to consider whether a matter is a question for legislation in this House or not, it is to be decided by one or other of the Chairmen, or, I think, both Chairmen. We do not elect our Chairmen for purposes of that kind. We ought not to delegate to any Member of this House any such decision as that. He is elected for an entirely different purpose. I may pass, I think, this criticism upon it. I see here my right honourable Friend the Member for Bodmin. Supposing for the moment that he still occupied the honourable position he held as Chairman of Committees of this House. We know what his opinion is upon this point. We know that he would in substance delegate everything, because he has told us so. His opinion has never been disguised. You may get another Chairman who holds exactly the contrary view. You may get another who, being a Conservative, thinks it right to stick to Conservative principles. I never quite understood the criticism of my right

  569
  honourable Friend upon the Conservative character of my argument last year, whether he meant it as eulogy or criticism—I take it as eulogy. Supposing you have some one of Conservative principles occupying the important position of Chairman of this House; what will be the position? One year a matter is delegated, the next year nothing of the kind. This House will not have the slightest control as regards continuity of procedure. You will have to depend from time to time on the individual view of the particular Chairman, who is not appointed for this purpose, who has none of the qualifications to decide matters of this kind, and very often is appointed for some very different reason than his knowledge of Private Bill procedure. Then let me take the next point: it is in section 3. I do not want, as I say, to deal with these matters, except as a question of principle. After all, I think I need not deal with that, but will go direct to paragraph 4, which deals with the question of the formation of the Commissioners. Surely the Commission as constituted here is nothing but an official nomination, outside of any question in this House. Is it likely that the Chairman of this House will have any knowledge of what Members in Scotland have had experience? Is not it really ludicrous to suggest that our Chairman, with all his excellent qualities, has time to consider the character of various craftsmen with whom he has never been brought into contact? I think one cannot help seeing that under this paragraph 4 the only person who is likely to nominate will be the Secretary for Scotland himself. Now I daresay the right honourable and learned Member opposite thinks that all right, and I think it would be much better than this system. What can be worse than the illusion of thinking we have some control over these panels because our Chairman has some voice? That is an illusion which is childish, it seems to me, for our House to have anything to do with, and if we are to change a system of this kind, at least let us change it in accordance with some of the principles of common sense. I say the only person practically who will appoint these Commissioners is the Secretary of State for Scotland, and although I have heard what has been said by one or two honourable and learned Members opposite, is it really likely that under these circum-
  570
  stances the Members of this House will take any part in these inquiries? I cannot bring myself to believe it. And I think we have a most extraordinary suggestion in sub-section 3 of clause 5. Are we to subordinate our public interests here to the mere action of Commissioners upon some question of this kind? I am arguing from this point as though the proposal here might be equally well applied either to England or Wales as to Scotland. And although there may be something in the view of the honourable and learned Member for the Border Burghs, by which we might devise a system under which Members of this House would go about on local inquiries, I believe myself it is an impossible view. There is nothing to be said for this hybrid proposal here, that a Member of this House, in a minority on the Commission, should be called upon to give up his legislative and public duties, and be constituted a member for the time being of the Commission, however long his services may be required. Then I come to clause 7. I have had a good deal of experience of every form of tribunal in this country, of local inquiries, as well as inquiries upstairs. The effect of clause 7 is simply this: it is not founded upon the Provisional Order system at all. I am not objecting to the present Provisional Order system. I think it might be extended in certain directions. Under the present Provisional Order system this House maintains legislative power. Under this Clause 7 it does not maintain it at all. It is a mere accident or incident whether a, question ever comes before this House in the course of the inquiry, and there might be a question of extreme public importance to which there is no opposition in the ordinary sense. It might be arranged as between the two parties, and very likely would be, as a matter of fact, and under those circumstances the Provisional Order which may be ordered can be made without any reference to this House at all. I say that is wholly wrong, and I say there ought to be maintained in its entirety the control of this House over the greater questions which really are legislative in character. And more than that. I find, even if there is opposition, you leave it for the Secretary for Scotland to decide whether a matter is to come on and be discussed before this House, or his fiat only may be sufficient to have the

  571
  power of an Act of Parliament. Let me pause for one moment at this point, and express my view of the gravity of the questions with which we are dealing. Many criticisms are being applied to the conduct of this House. I think myself the time has come when a great assembly of this character is more or less on its trial. Surely that is not the time when we ought to give up the duties and responsibilities which we as legislators ought to exercise, and on very important questions. The whole social and industrial system of this country has been practically worked up to its present position under these various Private Acts of Parliament. The Private Acts of Parliament during the present century have been as important, if you look at the life—the social and industrial life—of this country as a good deal of our public legislation; and, constitutionally, this is not a small question. It is all very well to say you are exaggerating. I think it is a constitutional question, and that the privileges of this House and the duties of this House ought to be most carefully guarded. It is the duty of this House to deal with these questions. It is the privilege of this House not to be overawed by mere official interference. We know the operation of the French system of official tyranny, and the only safeguard, to my mind, in the long run in this matter is the power of this House, which decides what legislation shall be carried, and which has ample power to call in question from time to time the conduct of officials. I think that is of extreme importance, and I have ventured to address the House at some length because I think I may claim a very large experience on questions of this sort. Let us do this: let us first of all decide how this matter ought to be dealt with, let us first of all decide what are the questions which we ought to deal with here. Let us retain these questions in our own control, reforming our Standing Orders, and if there are other matters not comprised in the present Provisional Order system, if there are questions merely of administration, or questions of merely judicial inquiry, I should be the staunch-est advocate of taking questions of that kind away from this House and placing them before some impartial tribunal. And even if we are to go further upon this matter of delegation, let us delegate wholly; either let us maintain our power
  572
  so that we can exercise it in a proper manner, or delegate it to some satisfactory tribunal. What I dislike in this Bill, although I recognise the ability and energy of the right honourable Gentleman the Lord Advocate, is that illusory element which runs through it. The illusory element is this, that we are supposed to maintain our power although we have no effective control; we are supposed to maintain our responsibility, but we have no effective way of exercising it.
  SIR R. REID: I wish to address the House for a very short time, because the matter has been a good deal discussed in different Sessions of Parliament. The honourable and learned Gentleman opposite has made a very able and very eloquent speech. If I was asked to assent to the broad principles that he has laid down, I should give my assent to a good many of them. What I do not see is that his extremely logical and powerful arguments lead me to the conclusion, so far as I can gather, at which he has arrived. I think it is perfectly true that you cannot commit to a bureaucratic body created by the will of the Secretary for Scotland, coupled with one or both of the Chairmen of either of the two Houses, powers of doing more than passing, so to speak, purely administrative Measures. It is perfectly true that if you want to deal with important Private Bill legislation, you ought to have a substantial hold upon it, by means of its being empowered to comply with the opinions and wishes of Members of Parliament. Look for a moment at the expense, and we also complain of this, that on all Measures of a Private Bill character our people have to come up to London, whereas the inquiry would be better done, and it would be easier for us, if it were held in the locality itself. That is the gist of the complaint. My honourable and learned Friend has mixed that up with eulogies of the present existing Committees, and with grave apprehensions of what would follow if we devolved our business to irresponsible and unknown persons. The real remedy is keeping our control, keeping it by committing this business to those persons to whom it naturally and legitimately be-longs, the legislative business being kept to the persons who are sent to Parliament for the purpose of legislating. I say nothing at all of the House of Lords. The

  573
  House of Lords are Members of the Legislature under the present law, the same as we are. Let us recognise that fact. Let us ask that the Committees who are to deal with these Bills which are brought forward shall be Members of the two Houses of Parliament. Let them go down to Scotland for the purpose of discussing these Bills, and then we shall have the complete control which my honourable and learned Friend so much desires, the control that is to be exercised by the Imperial Parliament. Now, Sir, that is the very point upon which I endeavoured before the Select Committee to obtain the consent of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, the present Secretary for Scotland, and it was largely because of the reasons stated by the honourable and learned Member for Stroud that I pressed this upon the attention of the Secretary for Scotland, and the Secretary for Scotland expressed his preference for the very solution of the question which I have now been urging upon the House. And I understood the Government admit in the fullest terms— I have no authority for the statement, but statements are in the air sometimes, in Committee Rooms, and we know very often that statements in the Lobbies and the Committee Rooms are very well founded—it was at any rate believed that the Government were prepared—whether rightly or wrongly I do not say—last Session to accept this principle and pass a Bill into law, with a panel consisting of Members of both Houses of Parliament, if they could have succeeded in getting it through last year. I only hope if that is so it will be made apparent in the course of the discussion. That is the real objection of my honourable and learned Friend. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Bodmin, who was also a Member of the Committee, manifested considerable objection to the idea of Members of Parliament being sent down to Scotland for the purpose of holding these inquiries, and, as a reason for that objection, he asked what would happen if England, Scotland, and Wales wanted the same thing to be done? Had we better not wait till they ask for it? If the thing is useful for us in Scotland, and if the House is willing to give it to us, why should it be refused to us, because of some possible unknown future demand from England, Scotland, Ireland, or Wales? If in the future any
  574
  of these countries should desire it, and if it be found that the labours thrown upon Members of Parliament are too great in consequence, the new system can then be considered in the light of the experience we have derived from trying it in Scotland. It has been suggested that Members of Parliament would not care to travel to remote parts of the United Kingdom for this purpose. But may I suggest that to some extent London is very remote from parts of Scotland. I cannot, and I do not, for one moment, believe that Members of this House would refuse to go down to discharge these duties. I believe there would be no difficulty raised on their part, and still less likely is there to be any refusal on the part of Members of the House of Lords, who certainly are not overtaxed by their legislative efforts. I certainly am not a particular admirer or advocate of the privileges enjoyed by the Peers, which, of course, it would not be in order for me now to attempt to discuss, but I should be indeed surprised if seven or eight Peers could not be found who would be willing to devote a few weeks to the discharge of duties laid upon them by Parliament, even if such duties did involve their spending the time in the desolate and barren wilderness of Scotland. They usually go down to Scotland in August, and I would suggest that if they went a month or two earlier, they would find it much more pleasant. The truth is, there is no possibility, in my opinion, of getting these questions settled by officially appointed panels. There is no other means of doing it than by having the work done by Members of Parliament, and if that course be adopted, Members who are sent to Scotland will be able to come back and report to the House upon any particular Bill or any matter requiring special attention.
  MR. ELLIOT: This has been described as a revolutionary Bill, but I think I am justified in pointing out to the House that the subject has not been brought forward with revolutionary speed. When it was first introduced years ago by Mr. Craig-Sellar contemptuous reference was made to it, but gradually the value of the proposal has come to be appreciated, and I must say I think it will not redound to the credit of the Government if this carefully thought-out method is not passed into law in accordance with the oft expressed

  575
  wishes of the people of Scotland; and the fact that the Government possess such a large majority makes it all the more reasonable to expect them to carry the Bill through. We have had many interesting speeches on this subject tonight. There were the speeches of the honourable Member who moved the rejection of the Bill, and of the seconder, and I think the House will agree with me that there was danger of Members being led away by their somewhat crude objections. We have had, too, a most interesting speech from my honourable and learned friend, the Member for Stroud. But, after all, what were the objections which were advanced? It was put before us most forcibly that we must, at all hazards, guard the legislative functions of this House. What are those legislative functions? Does the action of Members of Parliament become legislative simply because they are legislators? If honourable Members go down to Scotland to hold an inquiry into the facts of some local circumstances—whether a Bill shall pass or not, or whether some specific measure shall be taken then and there, or whether the general interest shall prevail or not—is such an inquiry, in substance and in fact, legislative in its nature? Does it not approach infinitely more to judicial work? Members will have to test, listen to, and weigh "evidence, and I ask my honourable and learned Friend opposite whether he supposes that necessarily three Peers sent down to Scotland to hold a private Bill inquiry are more likely, because they are Peers and Members of the Legislature, to arrive at a right conclusion of the facts than the persons who, under this Bill, will be jurors and appointed members of a panel entrusted with the duty of trying these matters? The Chairmen of the Committees of the two Houses are surely well qualified to find the right persons to undertake these duties, and I do not think it will be suggested that three Peers are more likely to come to a better, more just, or wiser conclusion, than those who will be appointed under this Bill. My honourable and learned Friend opposite, the Member for Dumfries, rather criticised the energetic and hardworking disposition of Peers, and I do not think that he goes quite so far as I do in my appreciation of the public work done by Members of the other House. May I point out that the Earl
  576
  of Jersey has been sitting for a very large number of days without remuneration as Chairman of the Light Railways Commission. I believe those sittings have extended over sixty days, and that is only an example of the willingness evinced by Members of the other House to perform their public duties. We are told that this is a revolutionary proposal to delegate the legislative authority of Parliament, and that this proposed tribunal is something entirely new. But it must not be forgotten that this House has already parted with its authority in these matters, and that the last and greatest instance in which it did so was by the establishment of the Light Railways Commission. There land is taken compulsorily without the authority of this House, and the whole thing is properly and successfully conducted before a tribunal which knows what it is doing. We have been told that the Second Reading Debate on Private Bills is a protection in the public interest. I am not going to say that it is not. But it is within the experience of all of us how these things are managed. I come down to the House and have put into my hands in the Lobby, or perhaps I have received them a few days before, the Reasons for and against a certain Bill. I have no means whatever of testing the opinions expressed in the document, and I have to give my vote on ex-parte statements and without knowing anything of the facts. I venture to say that there could be nothing less satisfactory than this dealing by Members of Parliament with such questions as these, without a proper knowledge of the facts. There is a kind of superstition that attaches in this House to the qualities which necessarily belong and adhere to Members of Parliament. I am inclined to ask, are we elected with a view to anything of this kind? I say we are elected to serve on great public grounds upon one side or the other, and we are not elected for any reason whatever which would tend to make us better fitted to conduct judicial work on a tribunal such as this, for a tribunal it is which the Bill will set up. I was a little struck by the able speech of the Member for Ayrshire, in which he supported the Bill. He was rather inclined, unless I mistake him, to press the Government to secure that as far as possible the panel from which these new judges are to be chosen, should consist of Scottish Members.
  MR. COCHRANE: That was not quite my point. It is proposed, under the Bill, that the panel shall be composed of twenty-five gentlemen, and that some of these may be Members of Parliament. It seems to me, the Bill is thus unduly limiting the number of Scottish Members of Parliament, and I thought it might be desirable to give power to the Secretary for Scotland, or the Chairman, to add any other Members of Parliament he might think desirable.
  MR. ELLIOT: I completely apprehend the substance of my honourable Friend's remarks. Scottish Members, he pointed out, were rigidly excluded at present when Scottish Private Bills were being considered in Committee, and he went on to argue that the panel should be formed of Scottish Members.
  MR. COCHRANE: I did not say Scottish Members, but Members of this House, although I think that a very considerable proportion of the panel should be Scottish Members.
  MR. ELLIOT: Yes, but that would be a very considerable departure from the practice of this House. There I join issue with my honourable Friend. I say, let us put these Provisional Order Bills before the best tribunal that we can create. If there is a valid objection, as there seems to be at the present moment, to placing Scottish Members on the tribunal for considering Scottish Bills., how would that objection be changed if we set up a new tribunal of which Scottish Members would form a considerable proportion? It seems to me that the House is generally drifting in the direction of the devolution of business, and I maintain that what the House has to do is to give its mind seriously and effectively to the proposition as to how the best tribunal can be created. That is the great question we have to try. After all, the rights of Parliament are protected by the provisions in clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill. I am sorry to say I have never had the experience of the honourable Member for Stroud. I have looked at the work of Committees from both sides of the table, and have also observed the action and procedure in the ordinary Courts of Law. There was this great difference between them, that before Parliamentary Commit-
  578
  tees in the House of Commons, counsel are in a stronger and more powerful position in respect to the Judges, that is, to the Members of the Committee, than the position occupied by counsel before the learned Judges of the Queen's Bench Division. I venture to say that very few people would contest the conclusion I have arrived at on that point. Well, my honourable Friend the Member for Stroud has spoken of the difficulty in getting honourable Members to serve on Private Bill Committees; but he never referred to the great changes which have taken place of late years in the duties of Members of this House. Members have now to serve on Grand Committees. These Grand Committees take up a great deal of time of Members, who cannot be in two places at once, and who have their hands full of proper public legislative work. I say that to send them down to Scotland on Provisional Order inquiries would be to raise very great difficulties indeed. I regard this Measure not as a mere Scottish Measure. I have always regarded it as a matter which does not concern Scotland alone. There is a Scottish grievance to some extent, but there is also, an English grievance, and an Irish grievance. I am delighted, of course, that Scottish Members, by their energy, have advanced the cause as regards Scotland. In two or three years we can see how this Bill will work, and there is no doubt that other localities distant from London will insist that inquiries into local matters can be more cheaply and quickly and conveniently held in the localities themselves than in a, place 400 or 500 miles away. I look at this Bill as a great step forward, and I do not appear here in any apologet is sense as supporting the Measure. It is not a revolutionary Measure, but it is a new departure in the right direction. Let us, for any sake, pass this Bill this year. If there are faults in the tribunal, as there is likely to be, that can be amended. But I say we have been long enough engaged on this question, and let us pass the Second Reading, let us carry it to the Grand Committee, and finally pass the Third Reading in July or August.
  On the return of Mr. SPEAKER after the usual interval,
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I admit there are some grievances attaching

  579
  to Private Bill procedure, but too much has been said as to the unwillingness of Members of Parliament to discharge their duty. That duty does not all consist in speaking in this House, or addressing public meetings in various parts of the country. I maintain that Members of Parliament are glad and patriotically willing to carry out all their duties. With all deference to the great authority of the late Chairman of the Committee of Selection, I think too much stress has been laid on the reluctance of honourable Members to serve on Private Bill Committees. I think the Committee of Selection has always endeavoured, and I believe with success, to ease the burden which lies on honourable Members, and to give them an opportunity of serving where they can do best work; and I am sure that some honourable Members, at any rate, would rather resent being removed from this class of work. My honourable Friend has asked what special sanctity was there about Members of Parliament, and would they give their decision with greater independence than an ordinary panel? My view is that Members of either House, sitting on these Commissions, would command more general confidence than a Commission composed otherwise—a confidence which Committees of this House have always sustained both inside and outside Parliament. They would be men who have experience of this House, who know something of the rules of procedure, who would be saturated with the traditions of this House. Moreover, the proposal of my honourable Friend the Member for Glasgow would carry out in some degree a continuation of the present system, which, I am bound to say, I would like to see maintained. I have been always consistently opposed to the class of legislation embodied in this Bill. I rejoiced to hear the vigorous speech of the honourable Member for Stroud. He has given this Bill the most determined and skilful opposition, and has made very much such a speech as I should have liked to have done if I had his great authority and forensic and Parliamentary skill. If I had the chance I would vote against the Bill, and I would only vote in its favour from the point of view that we look at it as a ricketty skeleton, which, if it stands moving from this House, might be carefully carried upstairs, and there be clothed with flesh and blood and enabled at
  580
  some future period to rank as a workable Measure. It has been pointed out already that under the existing Provisional Order system we have to regulate local affairs as regards gas, water, rating, and a large number of purely local matters. But these have not been sufficiently worked out or carried out under the regulations we now have, and my view is that if we more effectively and completely developed existing Provisional Order powers., and above all, if we cut down to some reasonable and decent degree the fees now charged, and from which we make an enormous profit—then, I think, without a Bill of this kind we could get nearly all the reforms that are wanted. There is very little use in fighting against the large cohorts of the Government, but I hope we shall have another opportunity of thoroughly discussing the provisions of this Bill, which affects every district of Scotland. Every Scottish Member ought to be entitled to be heard upon it. Why not send it to a Committee consisting of all the Scotch Members?—a plan which was carried into effect with such admirable results in the case of the Scottish Local Government Bill. In such a Committee honourable Members would be able to fight out the various provisions in the Bill in the interests of their constituents. But if we cannot have that, I hope we shall have an opportunity of discussing it down here on the floor of the House. I speak from a selfish point of view, because I, myself, and the honourable Member for Stewartry, being Members of the Selection Committee, could not sit on a Grand Committee and take part in its consideration of the Bill. Well, I have always objected to this sort of legislation, not because I have a little Conservative twist in the corner of my mind, but because I think the present system works so well that we should consider very carefully whether we should change it or not. The experiment this Bill inaugurates—for it can only be regarded as an experiment—is of a somewhat doubtful and dangerous character. We know perfectly well why the Committees of the House of Commons now inspire so much confidence. The Committee of Selection is under an experienced Chairman, and I am bound to say that their mode of choosing the panel is such that the wit of the right honourable Gentleman opposite, great as it is, will not be

  581
  able to devise a better. In these Committees upstairs there is no trace of self-interest, there is no money payment, the interests of the personality of the Members and their Constituents never come into play for a single moment, and the decision of the Committee is practically the decision of Parliament. But the Committee to be established under this Bill will not have that backing and that authority, and it is just possible it will not be entitled to that respect. The proposed alteration, as I have said, is a large experiment of a somewhat doubtful character, because it involves such great constitutional changes. We have heard already, and the warning cannot be too often repeated, that it will prevent any one applying by petition to this House or to Parliament as a whole for a Private Bill or to oppose such a Bill. As the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means said,
  "It is an entirely new departure from the constitution of this country."
  Every individual has the right of petitioning the House; Private Bills are all brought in on petition. It is an entirely new thing to say to a man "You shall not petition the House of Commons.'' Then again, this Bill will remove some of the privileges and responsibilities of Parliament and Parliamentary control over some important work. And it takes away from honourable Members of the House of Commons some interesting work. Then it gives a legislative and in some respects autocratic authority to the Secretary for Scotland. Lord Morley said, speaking of the constitutional difficulty:
  "I think in most cases it would not be a difficult task, but it seems to me to put the Chairman in rather a difficult and anomalous position. At present Mr. Lowther and act really as agents for our respective Houses of Parliament. In this Bill we shall be acting as individuals. We are appointed by our Houses, and we are responsible only to the House, and under the present system at any moment our decision can be questioned by the House. So far as I know, this is the first instance of the Chairman of Committees or the Chairman of Ways and Means being mentioned in an Act of Parliament, and it seems to me that that opens up rather a serious and important question."
  Now, these are large changes. No doubt it is perfectly true, as the late Attorney-General said,
  "We must wait until these things are demanded by the rest of the kingdom; but we must remember that we are laying down the
  582
  lines on which other parts of the United Kingdom will eventually demand their rights—if we can call them rights—as we now have them under this Bill."
  The Chairman of Ways and Means stated that very plainly in his evidence, although I am bound to say, reading between the lines of the evidence of the two Chairmen, they do not seem to be enthusiastic about the prospects of legislation on these lines, and they were not too dogmatic in their criticism of the proposals of the Bill. The Chairman of Ways and Means once said that although he would be able to do the work under this Bill, if it were extended to England and Wales it would be impossible for he and his colleague to carry out the enormous amount of work that would be thrown upon them. I am bound to say that this kind of legislation can only be justified from one or two points of view. The first is, Is it wanted? is there any evidence of a demand for this class of legislation] And the other is, Is it necessary? One Member on the other side said that it was wanted, and that it was necessary. At the very outside the number of Scottish Private Bills, including Provisional Orders, in recent years has never been more than 36. The only demand that I can see is that an experiment, which will eventually have to be extended to other parts of the country, is asked for; but the evidence which I have seen from that demand is of a very sketchy and general kind. It seems confined to a clique of Scotch lawyers and to a few corporate bodies who send to us at this time large masses of printed matter. But I do not see any general desire for a very revolutionary, sweeping and drastic measure of this kind. I admit that there is a sort of vague general demand for a reduction of the fees and expenses of local inquiry. I think that when this House, or any Committee of it, comes to close quarters with any Bill or proposal to amend the present law, it will be found that the criticisms are of a very severe and damaging kind. I looked through the evidence given last year and I cannot say that anyone gave the Bill then a whole-hearted support, and the criticisms on it were certainly very damaging. We have had two Committees on the subject and many speeches, and much

  583
  evidence taken, and I must say there has been very little enthusiasm about the matter at all. Of course there is something flattering in the idea of Home Rule, and there has been a good deal of inflated rhetoric about the expenses of town councillors coming up so long a distance to give evidence. There is an idyllic picture of a Home Rule Committee, chiefly com-posed of Edinburgh lawyers going down to the district to allow local witnesses to have the opportunity to give evidence, of course with no fees at all. This is very charming and a beautiful contrast to the roseate hues of a poetical imagination of what the Bill would effect in lessening costs. But I lam bound to say that this ideal will not be borne out by experience, so far as I can judge by any evidence I have had before me. If this charming picture were correct, and a millennium about to be established by it, I certainly would not oppose the Bill. I am, however, very sceptical indeed about the reduction of costs. It is quite evident that if we have big fights in Scotland they will be conducted in the present big way, with specially-briefed and highly-paid lawyers, agents, and scientific witnesses, and as these will have to go to the country, their fees will be larger instead of less. Nor do I think the small local inquiries will be very cheap. The notorious examples of expensive local inquiries, one in Glasgow and the other in Aberdeen, are in the minds of Scottish Members. Scottish lawyers are not likely to charge smaller fees than English if they are men of equal capacity. Well, are there not some other drawbacks to local inquiries? I dare say some of my friends have seen a very excellent statement sent out by the Town Clerk of Dundee. He says—
  "Local inquiries would encourage useless objections and stimulate unwarrantable opposition. Inquiries, instead of being shortened or made more satisfactory, if conducted locally would be protracted and become more expensive."
  Another Gentleman, speaking with much greater authority—the second greatest authority in this House—the Chairman of Committee of Ways and Means, says—
  "I believe the reason why local inquiries have failed to satisfy those who are in favour of cheap procedure is because at a local inquiry so many people think they are entitled to come and have their say, and the result is that you get all sorts of parties appearing. The inquiry is in their immediate neighbourhood, it costs them nothing
  584
  to appear, and they come and join in the fray, and it leads to enormous waste of time and great expense to the parties."
  Again, these new tribunals will not have the experience and advice of officers of Parliament, and their decisions not having Parliamentary sanction and influence at the back of them will no doubt be questioned. This brings me to the question of tribunals. I am very loth to say anything which would insinuate any possible sniff of party influence, believing that the Secretary for Scotland will always work for the most elevated principles and motives, but there are people outside who take a more degraded view of human nature, and who may suggest the influence of party-mongers in the selections. And, further, the pecuniary element coming in is rather unfortunate. It would be much better if all the work were done by Members of Parliament for nothing. I am inclined to think that Members of Parliament would willingly undertake the work of holding these local inquiries. I think a little trip to Scotland in the Recess would be more of a pleasant experience to them than otherwise. I have delightful recollections of an excursion I once made as a Member of a Departmental Committee, and would willingly accept the invitation for another most enjoyable tour. If the Bill goes into Committee upstairs, I will do my little part to make a better Measure, and to clothe the skeleton in flesh.
  MR. PARKER SMITH: I am glad in this discussion the statement has been put before the House that this question is not a purely Scotch question, but a constitutional question affecting very deeply both Parliament itself and the whole country. I shall endeavour to look at the matter from that point of view, and, putting aside the merely Scottish details, deal rather with the larger aspects of the question. Sir, undoubtedly the scheme has general support in Scotland, but while it is a splendid catch-word, there is very serious opposition to be considered from those who are more in a position to know the real rights and wrongs of the question. We have had lately, for example, a resolution from the Parliamentary Committee of the Glasgow County Council, which, I think, expresses the opinion of one of the bodies most concerned in the passing of large measures of private legislation into law. There has been a circular, too, from the Glasgow Procurators, which

  585
  expresses the opinion of a set of gentlemen who are well able to give an unprejudiced view of the situation. We know, too, what is the position which has been taken up by other great promoters of private legislation, such as the railway companies. The railway companies are bodies for which I feel less concerned than I otherwise might, because we know that nearly all the matters in which the railways are affected will remain as they are at present. Therefore I do not feel myself concerned to deny or question the light - hearted allegations of one honourable Member that some honourable Gentlemen were actuated by their interest in railways to some extent. It certainly is not so now, because we know, since the sittings of the Committees last year, railways are practically unaffected by the working of this Bill. But, Sir, this Bill opens up a very large question. Practically, it cuts off the subject from its constitutional right to approach Parliament for special legislation, and requires him in future to acquire permission from officials. Now, Sir, that is contrary to the previous general practice of Parliament, for in most cases the system of Provisional Orders, with which we are so familiar, was an optional method of procedure. But what is much more serious is, that the proposal cuts Parliament off from the control of legislation, except in particular cases where there happens to be opposition. That, I think, is absolutely contrary to the whole principle of Provisional Orders. The very meaning of the words "Provisional Order" is, that it only has provisional effect until such time as it is confirmed by Parliament. If you are going to take away the confirmation of Parliament, you take away the whole meaning of the phrase itself. In the case of a Provisional Order, there is a local inquiry, and then a Confirmation Bill. In nine cases out of ten the Confirmation Bill is a mere form, but there is always a possibility of opposition from the individual concerned under the Provisional Order, and also of opposition upon general grounds. Then, again, there are certain wideawake Members in this House who are always on the look-out for flaws in the Bills, so that it is not only what is discovered, but what is prevented, in the Bills which has to be considered. It is just the same in the criticism of the Estimates. By vigilant criticism of the Estimates you knock out or prevent a number of things being put into them which would
  586
  otherwise be found there. When there is a possibility of questions being brought before the House many things will not go into a Provisional Order that might otherwise be smuggled into it to the detriment of the public interest. Sir, you cannot always depend, as this Bill seems inclined to do, upon private opposition raising points of public importance which ought to be raised. That was brought out very effectively in the course of the evidence before the Committee last year. There was a case raised there in Mr. Chandos Leigh's evidence that I should like to mention to the House in order to show that you cannot depend on private opposition to know whether a Provisional Order ought really to be passed or not. This was emphasised by Mr. Chandos Leigh in his evidence. He said—
  "All unopposed Bills are, of course, very carefully gone into by Mr. Gray and myself; in fact we always feel that we are there to watch the public interest. I can give an instance of that now. I need not necessarily name the Bill, but it is a heavy Tramway Bill. There was actually an agreed clause between the corporation and the promoters of the tramway, of which the agents said ' This is agreed'; I looked at it and I found from first to last it altered the general law, it was so serious a matter that, although the agreed clause was brought in at the last moment and we were just proving the preamble, I begged Mr. Lowther not to go on with it. I took the Bill over to Lord Morley and Mr. Gray, and the end of it was that they not only cut out all I objected to, but three-fourths besides, yet that was an agreed clause. I mention that to show that we do not pass over those things."
  Those who are not familiar with the practice are apt to look upon Private Bills as if they were questions between litigants, but that is not the case. There is a close survey by the two Chairmen of Committees and their counsel of all unopposed Bills, while the Home Office and the Local Government Board also raised points which concern them. Now, I should like to ask the Lord Advocate what is to be done under this Bill. Are the Chairmen of Committees still to scrutinize the unopposed Bills in the same way as they do at present? Under the examination proposed in section 2 of the Bill they are not, for in future it is only the question of the tribunal with which the Chairmen will be concerned, and not, as at present, whether the clauses conform with the general law accepted by Parliament or whether they do not. As I understand the scheme of the Bill the Secretary for Scotland is to exercise this scrutiny, and to see whether

  587
  unopposed Bills are in accordance with the general law or whether they are not. Now, Sir, if that is the case it seems to me mischievous to have two independent legislative authorities granting powers on different grounds. It seems to me to be wrong that the Chairman should measure out what should be allowed in England, and the Secretary for Scotland should measure out what should be allowed for Scotland. I think the authority should be the same in both Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Then again, Sir, I should like to ask what you are going to do under the scheme of the Bill with the reports of the different Departments upon Private Bills. These are no mere formalities. The different Departments make careful and searching reports with regard to the unopposed Bills. Difficulties occur even now—if I may quote again from the evidence of the Speaker's counsel—in reconciling the desires of the promoters with the Reports of the Departments. He says—
  "As a matter of fact the Home Office and the Local Government Board are most particular about these clauses in Private Bills, and their reports are most voluminous; in fact, about one clause with regard to gas in a Gas Bill the Home Office have been very stiff-backed, and for a whole month would not allow that Hill to pass. I had three interviews with Sir Kenelm Digby, and the same with Sir Matthew White Ridley. At last we had actually to take it to the House of Lords, and we had Lord Morley, Mr. Lowther, Sir Kenelm Digby, and Sir Matthew White Ridley all there, and that was to decide the form of one particular clause. I only quote that as one instance (I have plenty more) of the very great care that is taken that clauses should be very properly settled. That was an unopposed Bill."
  Now, Sir, I want to know how these reports are going to be dealt with under the scheme of the Bill. I know something about these reports, because I have had the honour of acting as Chairman of Committee on a good many of these unopposed Bills. The reports come before us, and we, as a Committee of the House of Commons, are responsible to this House and nobody else. We are perfectly free to criticise and consider the reports of the Departments, and when we have to pass over the recommendations of a Department we are here to defend ourselves. But do you expect the Commissioners whom you send into the country under this Bill to be equally independent in considering the merits, and disregarding, if they think fit, the recommendations of
  588
  the Home Office or the Local Government Board? I do not think they will. I think you will find that they would feel themselves bound to accept the recommendations. I must say that I do not think these recommendations ought always to be accepted; I think sometimes they require to be rejected. It would also be more awkward for the Secretary for Scotland to reject the recommendations, say, of a Department such as the Home Office, than for those of us who are a Committee of this House. Therefore, Sir, I think that you require as a final arbiter in these matters the supreme body of Parliament, and you ought not, as at present, to make it a mere question of accident whether there is opposition or not. Now, Sir, there is one other point that I must mention, and that is the question of the small opponent. In most cases, the small opponent wants to make the best bargain he can; but there are cases where some individual, or some representative body, is prevented by the expense of this House from making itself heard. For example, the district guardians may have views as to the advisability of a railroad, but may not be prepared to go to the expense of opposing the railway in Parliament. This Bill does not meet the objection in the least in cases of that sort, which all rest on Bills which will not be referred to the Commissioners at all, but which will be kept here and be dealt with in the same way as at present, by the Committee upstairs. Nobody suggests for a moment that all Bills shall have to be heard locally, and the power which is put in the draft of this Bill is for the purpose of keeping all large Bills here, and the local objectors, I suppose, will be in the same position as at present. Now I think the remedy to that ought to be considered, and the one which I should suggest is to have a preliminary local inquiry; that is a remedy which would meet a great deal of the difficulty which is felt in Scotland in the case of all Bills which are to be heard and dealt with up here. Of course the objection to that would be that it is a mere useless rehearsal of what is to take place here afterwards, but that would be put right if you prohibit the men who appear there from coming hero. The man whose interest was small would appear before the Sheriff just as a District Councillor does, and state his case. The Sheriff would make a report of the matters as he heard them,

  589
  and that report would be read by the Committee, just in the same way as a report of a Government Department would be read. A procedure of that kind would give a local hearing to many who were only interested to a small extent, and would meet a real grievance. In the report of the Glasgow Faculty of Proctors a suggestion was made that in all cases after deciding on the preamble of a Bill there should be an adjournment for a week, so that all persons who had objections to the clauses, and not to the preamble, might object without being put to the expense of being present at all the arguments upon the preamble. That is a way in which small objectors might be met. Another part of the Bill in which the objections have not been touched by the Government is that which was dealt with so ably by the honourable Member for Stroud. I do not wish to enter into that at all, but I do think that there are few questions so difficult to discuss in this House as the question of the fees upon Private Bills which are brought up before us. Then there is a proposal which would really meet most of the objections—the difficulties that are felt in regard to this Bill, if the Government will only accept it; it is that this Bill should be in the first instance made optional. This is arrived at on the ground of protection with regard to the smaller interests which was made by the Lord Advocate last year; but as I pointed out, the smaller interests are not protected by this Bill. They are left just where they are at the present time. I wish that the Lord Advocate would, after the evidence of last year, reconsider this point. It is obviously certain that under this Bill, if it passes, all big Bills will be kept here. The evidence of the Chairman of Committees, already referred to, is most interesting upon that point. He took a sample of the Scotch Bills of last year; but of 20 Scotch Bills, he said, only 12 would be such as could be sent down for the purposes of a local enquiry, but the eight biggest he would under any circumstances have kept here; so that nearly half the Scotch Bills would be kept here, just as they are at present. Since reading the evidence of the Chairman of Committees, the promoters of the Bill have not in any way attempted to alter the words which govern the definition of Bills to be sent down for local enquiry. They have kept those words exactly as they were. The
  590
  effect of the present Bill, therefore, with the present Chairman of Committees in power, will be that all Railway Bills, and most Corporation Bills and most Police Bills will remain here as at present. Why should not the Government acknowledge this and give an option, which, after all, will have almost no effect other than this Bill will produce? Why do they put upon those who promote Bills the whole burden of going through a double set of preliminaries, those prescribed by this Bill, and those prescribed by the present Standing Orders, when in most cases, even in the first year, it will be certain that the Bills will be kept here, and in nearly all cases after one year, they will know by public assent whether the Bills will be kept here or sent down to the country? It is the central view of the Glasgow Committee. The view of the Stirling Corporation is that this option ought to be given; that the promoters of a Bill ought, when they know it is a large Bill, and that nothing will be gained by a local hearing of the question, to be able to bring it here. Now I have tried to point out a few of the most definite criticisms that I have to make upon this Bill. There are certain points which I think necessitate the holding of a local enquiry in the districts concerned, but I do strongly object to this House giving up its control with regard to Scotland on exactly the same ground as I should object in the case of the United Kingdom to its giving up its legitimate control over what is called private legislation. We may delegate anybody to do our work as much as we please. We do so now, and I have not the least objection in the world at the present moment to send down three or four gentlemen "who are experienced in affairs," whatever that phrase may be, so long as the ultimate decision remains in our hands, so long as we have control and keep matters before us, so that we can have a word upon questions of importance that arise. Where you have large questions involving a great deal of controversy, these local enquiries, I think, cannot diminish expense. Then I would wish to leave the question of whether the matter must be fought out here, or whether it can be settled by a local enquiry in the hands of those who are concerned in the Bill, and the promoters. Our habit has been in these matters to proceed step by step, and when we find an option is working properly

  591
  and successfully, to make it compulsory. I say the way to establish a new and untried power is to give an optional power first, and if we find that it is winning the confidence of the country, then who can make the power permanent, and send before it everything with which we think it competent to deal.
  MR. MUNRO-FERGUSON: It is evident from the discussion to which we have listened to-night, that there is a considerable divergence of opinion on both sides of the House with regard to the matter now under discussion, a divergency of opinion which does not seem to be mitigated since that which we had upon a similar matter last year. On the last occasion I said most of what I have to say upon the subject of the Bill, and I can assure the right honourable Gentlemen opposite that on this occasion I shall not take up the attention of the House for any length of time. But since the last discussion took place there has been a report of the Select Committee, and the Committee has, I think, laid claim to the fact that there is a choice between the panel which is proposed by the Government and the appointment of a Commission consisting of Members of Parliament to go to Scotland to hold an enquiry into Private Bills there. I think last year, while the discussion was going on, the honourable Gentlemen opposite made a good deal of fun of Members of Parliament going down to Scotland, and the right honourable Gentleman, the First Lord, looked upon it as something very chimerical, but that has not been the view of the Select Committee. The view of a substantial minority, at all events, after having inquired into the matter, is that the constitution of the tribunal—that being the main point—that the tribunal shall be composed of Members of both Houses, and they point out that the public confidence in the impartiality of the tribunals, which has been extended to the House of Commons Committees in the past, would be accorded to a commission so constituted. The objections, which are analysed in the report, to a commission composed in that way, were that there might be an insufficiency of Members of this House, and the Committee reported that that would not be so, and it is also suggested that there would not be a sufficiency of Peers, but I have had an expression of opinion from certain
  592
  Peers who think that there would be no difficulty so far as the House of Lords is concerned. Therefore, if a Commission can be formed, the main objections to the procedure under this Bill would be remedied. Why should we not have a commission composed of the Members of both Houses? That is the one point I would like to urge the Government to consider. It cannot be denied by the right honourable Gentleman that there are objections to the Bill as it stands. It may be said that there would be objections to any form of procedure, and with that I might possibly agree, but the main disadvantage of the devolution proposed by the Government would be remedied if you could have a Parliamentary Commission, and as it would be remedied in that way I do hope that even now at the eleventh hour the Government will reconsider its determination to propose the panel as laid down in this Bill. The Secretary for Scotland is himself favourable to the proposal, and the evidence given before the Select Committee is so strongly in favour of a Parliamentary Commission that one is almost surprised that that form of procedure is not recommended in the Government Measure. The Bill as it is brought before the House is, I still think, founded on absolutely wrong lines. Devolution is essential, and I am quite against the honourable and learned Member opposite, who thinks that there is not a sufficient case for devolution. It is not a matter entirely of the integrity of the tribunal, it is a matter of the convenience of the promoters and opponents of a Measure; the difficulty of small objectors coming up here, which has been so ably put forward by the Lord Advocate, is one with which I entirely sympathise. So far as the proposals of the Bill go, I am in entire sympathy with the objects of the Government, but I am absolutely opposed to the procedure set up. The right honourable Gentleman, I know, is against the idea of this tribunal being described as a Board, but it is a Board nevertheless which is proposed to be set up under this Bill. A panel composed of "persons experienced in affairs" are to act as Commissioners under this Act. I want to know what "experience of affairs" the Commissioners should have. Will anybody assert that where there are salaries to be given away, unpaid Members of Parliament would be put upon the Commission, when paid Members could be placed upon it? It is no Party Question. But

  593
  men "experienced in affairs" might be men who had some experience of sacrifices made by them for the Conservative Party, and their claims will be very strongly urged, and paid Members will be most certainly appointed, and only those Members who are so appointed will bring contentment. Therefore, I say that this proposal of the Government means a Board, and nothing but a Board, a new form of bureaucracy, a form of government which has been extended to Scotland only too generally for many years past. It is not the fault of any one Government. I remember the right honourable Gentleman pointing out that considerable practice had been made in that direction by the Party on this side of the House. That is true; but the difficulty on the part of Scotland, owing to the difficulty in getting adequate discussion of Scotch affairs in this House, is that a system of bureaucracy has crept in which is undesirable, and I oppose this proposal. Whilst I am entirely in favour of the principle of devolution, I am of opinion that it can only be satisfactorily carried out by Parliamentary devolution, and I shall always protest as earnestly as I can against this system of Boards and the perpetuation of this principle of bureaucracy.
  MR. ORR-EWING: The speech delivered by the honourable Member is one which is in very strong contrast to that delivered by the honourable Member for Stroud. The honourable Member was hard pushed, because, as he said, all that he could say was that under this Measure important Bills would naturally be referred to the Private Bills Committee, as at present. The honourable Member for Stroud drew a most horrible picture as to the mistaken policy in allowing such a thing as the alteration of criminal law without the sanction of Parliament, and I think the honourable Member for Stroud was tight, and that no such alteration should be allowed to be possible under this Bill. I am thankful to the Government for having brought in a Bill at all dealing with this matter in two consecutive Sessions. The Bill brought in last year was not accorded such a reception as to encourage the Government in taking further steps in the matter; but I am glad that the Opposition has been gauged at its proper value, and has not been taken by the Government to be the true opinion of the
  594
  Scottish people. The Opposition this year is based upon the same lines as that of last year. Roughly speaking, there is no opposition to this Bill at all. Members on both sides of the Houses have agreed that -in detail the Bill is a good one, and I do not think that in this House there is a single man who is an out and out opponent of the Bill. Last year it was referred to a Select Committee, who made some very valuable suggestions, most of which have been adopted. They objected to the panel of commission which the Government have encouraged, but every time a Bill has been brought in for the purpose of dealing with Private Bill legislation for Scotland, the panel of commission has always been objected to, and in my humble opinion, however the Bill might be drafted and whatever panel of commission might be set up, it always will be objected to. I think it would be much more fair for honourable Members to say that they are not in favour of such a Bill and vote against it. The panel that it is proposed to set up is objected to, and I have heard honourable Members say that they would prefer that the whole of those who are on the panels should be Members of Parliament. The honourable Gentleman who has just sat down said devolution is necessary, but if you had a panel composed entirely of Members of Parliament, would there be any devolution at all? and if you are to have all Members of Parliament, and if there is to be a local enquiry, are you going to send Scotch Members? because, if so, the honourable Member for Bridgeton knows perfectly well that you are going against the practice which applies here in appointing Members to the Committee on Private Bills because, as he knows perfectly well, if there is a Scotch Bill to be dealt with, no Scotch Member is placed upon the Committee. These are all points to be considered in Committee, however, and I shall pass over that. Then there is the question of expense; some contend that it would not be less than it is at present, and that it might be greater, but that is based on the assumption that Counsel will be brought from London to attend these enquiries, but it is admitted that there are several learned Gentlemen practising at the Scotch Bar who might be able to take charge of these matters, and I think we have only to look at

  595
  one specimen in this House to admit the force of the Scotch Bar, and there are many who sit on the other side of the House — the Member for Mid Lanark, for instance—who show what Scottish lawyers can do. There is an instance of a great railway Company which shows that they do not shun a local enquiry, but in fact prefer it to an enquiry before the Private Bills Committee. I refer to the Northern and South-Western Railway who wished to extend their line. They did not come to this House, they preferred to have a local enquiry under the Light Railways Commission. They are not going to build a light railway, but a heavy railway. They had the option of coming up to this House or of taking the chances of a local enquiry. They preferred the latter. In matters of importance they are of advantage to small district or local authorities who are prevented from bringing forward their views because of the expense entailed by coming up here. I have no doubt that the utmost advantage will be taken of this Act by small districts, and that it will be of very great benefit to them. As regards the powers given to the Secretary for Scotland and the Chairman of the Boards and Committee of Ways and Means, there are some Members who think that some day or other we may have honourable Gentlemen very differently occupied to the way in which they are at present, and that they may be so saturated with revolutionary principles as to over-ride the interests of private individuals and other bodies. I think we might take the other view because the class of Gentleman who occupies so important a position is likely to be such that that is never likely to occur. I thank the Government for bringing in this Bill, and I trust that they may be able to carry it through, as I am certain that it will not only prove to be of inestimable advantage to Scotland herself, but it will also be to England and to Ireland, inasmuch as it will relieve this House from dealing with a vast amount of Scotch business with which it has now to deal.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: The honourable Member who has just sat down has delivered a very luminous and interesting speech, but, Mr. Speaker, not only is it the fact that this measure has received a very lukewarm reception, even
  596
  on the Ministerial side of the House, but it is also a fact if we go through the literature of this subject and the evidence and Report of last year and the Report of the Joint Committee in 1888, that it is incontestable that no healthy support can be got from either of the Reports for this proposal. In the first place it seems to me that the whole reception of this Measure and of the other measures which have preceded it are radically wrong. This is not a Scottish Bill. It is a Bill which proposes in view of certain difficulties and inconveniences, not only to those attending the inquiries of Bills by us, but also having regard to the increase of work in this House, to deal with the difficulty from two points of view, and to say that it regards Scotland alone, and that the proper line is to divide up business by nationalities, is not in accordance at all with the Report of the Joint Committee of 1888 or with the full burden and spirit of the evidence given last year. In the first place, what is the business it is proposed to transfer? On an average it amounts to between 10 and 14 applications for legislation every year, and the proposal of this Bill is to set up what the honourable Member for Leith called a new Board and a new Department, with additional officials to deal with this microscopic amount of business which would only give a microscopic amount of relief either to this House or in the direction in which relief is sought by Scotland. It is said that there is much evidence of the wish of Scotland to have this Measure. I confess I have utterly failed for years to distinguish any real tendency or desire on the part of Scotland for a measure of this kind at all. The people of Scotland do recognise what has been recognised in one Act of Parliament after another for the last ten years—that there are a great many small matters of business and legislation for which they do not wish to come to this House at all, and the House has recognised that by giving definite prescribed and therefore safe powers to smaller municipalities in these matters. The last instance was in the Public Health Act of 1897, where for many purposes under the Act detailed in Parts 2 and 3, the powers of the Act which include the provision of mortuaries, hospitals, drains, sewers and various other matters of expenditure, were given in a definite, prescribed and very safe way to local Municipalities, and they obtained

  597
  the object which they wished to obtain in that way without coming to this House at all. In that sense the people of Scotland do wish further devolution and an ex-tension of powers, but when it comes to a matter of considering whether improvement can be made in the procedure of this House, we are dealing with matters of an entirely different magnitude and construction wholly absent from these minor matters, which can be safely given over to these local bodies to be dealt with. Perhaps I may say a word in continuation as to what the people of Scotland really want. They object to nothing in the present procedure except the expense. There is no objection to the tribunal whatever, and I fail to see how this Bill is going to remove the burden of the expense which now falls on the people of Scotland. It is right enough and perfectly true, if you choose to have a tribunal of Commissioners of this kind established, which would have a great deal of work to do, and which would be distributed over different parts of the United Kingdom, that there might be a saving of expense, but as it stands at present the applications for Provisional Orders which will come before this new tribunal being about 12, it is impossible for the Government to show that there would be any saving in expense in its establishment when com pared with the present state of things. I have been through the applications this year with the officials of the House and they come to 14, which I understand is a heavy number, the usual number of Provisional Orders from Scotland being about 12. I am perfectly well aware of the fact that the fees of the House are not exacted on Provisional Orders, but the real burthen of expense comes from two sources, one the fees of the House, and the other the elaborate notices which have hitherto been customary in these matters. Then I come back to the point I have already mentioned. Where we could have a saving would be, if matters of business could be safely relegated to Scotland and Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom you would have no fees to pay and you would have less elaborate machinery as regards advertisement notices and everything else. In the general objections to this Measure I share most heartily, chief among them being that we are more or less handing over legislation from the cognisance of this House. After all there is a distinct
  598
  tendency, so far as I can observe, to clear matters out of this House. Everything that comes before Parliament nowadays, as far as details and arrangement of business are concerned, is left to the particular Department concerned. In Educational matters a very wide discretion is given to the Department, and in this matter of Private Bill procedure also it is quite possible that in a few years a very large amount of work will be left to a Department. A tendency is growing up and developing in many of these Departments of legislation and administration which perhaps we did not anticipate. It is a great loss to the House and the country that these matters are removed from its scope as public interest in them is killed, and I think generally it is a great pity that this tendency should not be more definitely recognised, and if necessary combated. There is a further point I should like to mention. It seems to be assumed by some honourable Members on this side, and I am sorry to find myself in disagreement with them, that all objections to this Measure would be removed if the tribunal were a peripatetic commission of Members of Parliament. That would not at all meet the difficulty. Whatever may be the work done by individual Members of Parliament, it cannot be contended for a moment that the responsibility and the work falling on them are not increasing every year. There are complaints made frequently in this House that opportunity is not given for the discussion of this and that subject, that public attention is not turned to certain proposals, such as the Indian Budget and other matters. I think it would hardly be likely to commend itself to the House that a joint or a single committee of Members of Parliament should be constituted as a tribunal. What an extraordinary position we should be in ! Take an application for a Provisional Order for public land. Under the Act, if there is an inquiry, I apprehend it would be undertaken by an Inspector. Surely it is not contemplated that this Parliamentary, peripatetic tribunal should hold a local inquiry of not very much greater magnitude than that carried out by an Inspector. It is improbable that the two Houses would over consent to such a proposal as that. Dealing with the subject matter of this Bill, we are dealing with very unimportant business. It may be a very important and necessary thing

  599
  to consider the necessity for a change of procedure in this House, but as a matter of fact the original proposal of the Joint Committee of 1888 did not proceed on the lines of this Bill at all. It proceeded on lines of general relief and general change in the business of the House. As it is now, there is a strange disinclination on the part of large municipalities to come in under this Bill, and whether an option is given by the Government or not, those powerful bodies will have the greatest objection to conducting their legislation in this manner. I have no doubt the Government will be ready to give way to them on that point, but it will reduce the scope of the Bill by three-fourths of the business, as 95 per cent. of private business belongs to large municipalities and to the railway companies. The line on which the Committee of 1888 proceeded was a line of general relief to the House. If the House has too much Private Bill business to do, let it secure relief by handing over all the railway business to a permanent tribunal, and as a corollary to the relief, to extend the powers of the smaller municipalities and local authorities through out the United Kingdom. That is the right line to follow. If we seriously intend to take up this question of Private Bill Procedure, we have no right to make an experiment on Scotland. I do not believe from the evidence that there is any wish for this or that method of procedure in Scotland. As a matter of fact, there have been four or five Bills since the Joint Committee of 1888, and I very respectfully blame the Government for bringing forward another of these Measures without giving us any indication that they have any mind of their own or policy in the matter, or that they are prepared to stick to the Measure. I think we are entitled to ask for some guidance. Year after year the same wretched proposal is brought before the House, and last year not a word was said upstairs in hearty support of it. The Lord Advocate with most admirable skill endeavoured to minimise all kinds of difficulties and to reconcile, as far as he could, all kinds of disagreements, but no one reading the evidence could say with confidence that the Government proposed any real solution. I am strongly in favour of devolution so long as it can be wisely and safely applied, but I am also in favour of doing nothing which would interfere with the procedure of this House,
  600
  which has hitherto given satisfaction. It is because I wish for devolution rather than any of the expedients mentioned in the Debate, and because I believe the Bill to be feeble and wrong in principle, that I intend to vote against it.
  MR. COURTNEY: The honourable and gallant Member who has just sat down has recognised that the subject-matter of this Bill is not one affecting Scotland alone. It affects Scotland in the first instance, and I may be excused for venturing to intrude on what is mainly a Scotch Debate, because the subject is one I have thought over for a very long time, and I was a Member of the Committee which considered it last year. The honourable and learned Member for Stroud stated in a very able speech that all his large experience and hard reasoning on the subject-matter of this Bill, had led him to a conclusion entirely in favour of the principle of the existing system, with perhaps some amendments in detail. A more conservative argument in favour of things as they are has rarely been addressed to this House. My own consideration has led me to a very different conclusion. I hold the opinion very strongly that it is necessary to remove, so far as possible and as much as possible, Private Bill business from this House. No mere changes in detail would seriously affect the mischief. So long as the procedure in connection with private business is inextricably connected with the business of this House, at almost every stage, so long must it be uncertain, dilatory, and costly. The initial stage is connected with the sittings of this House, some of the things to be done by the Bill have to be referred to the House, and finally the Bill has again to be sanctioned by the House, so that the whole proposal is connected with the Parliamentary Session. That in itself must add to the expense, but what is more, it affects these proposals with an air of mystery. They are shrouded in some measure from parties in the country who are mainly interested, and who look on going to Parliament as a great business which involves considerable expense. Simple matters of local interest, which might be settled in accord with local feeling at very slight expense if removed from reference to this House, must and will remain accompanied with all those drawbacks so long as their connection with this House exists. What are the reasons why my honourable

  601
  and learned Friend upholds things as they are? He said this is a Legislature. We are a legislative body and therefore we are bound to maintain our legislative authority. In the first place by far the larger part of this Private Bill business is a litigation instituted between the private rights of ownership possessed by a particular person and the claim made by another person to divest him on terms of compensation of that ownership for purposes of local utility. That cannot be called legislation except by a very strained interpretation of the term. It is a comparison of the relative claims of private persons, one moving in the public interest and claiming the interests of the other who is resisting that claim. The House at large generally leaves the whole business to be argued by the persons for and against the application before a tribunal upstairs chosen as a judicial tribunal, and with whose conclusion the House refuses to interfere. In nine cases out of ten the process is a judicial proceeding, and what happens in the House does not affect the essential part of the procedure upstairs. My honourable and learned Friend referred to cases where bodies applied for powers exceeding or at variance with the general law, but I do not suppose that under the form this Bill will ultimately take all proposals for private Bills will be at once referred to external tribunals. My honourable and learned Friend assumes that will be so, but it is not so in the Bill as it stands. It is true that the first clause says everything should be done in a particular fashion, but a subsequent clause provides for an elimination and discretion on the part of the Chairmen of the two Houses and the Secretary for Scotland, and I can see that such applications as that of a muuicipal authority for extra police regulations are of a character to be retained in this House. The safeguards on which my honourable and learned Friend relics are extremely illusory. Take an illustration of what our Committees have done. There was the Eastbourne case, which perplexed magistrates so much that we had to have it back here to be undone. We said we did not do it, that it was done by a Committee, and that the House at large would not have permitted it if it had known it was being done. That is an illustration of the sort of control we now exercise. Our own experience has red bit by bit to the abstraction of one
  602
  subject after another from the ordinary course of procedure here, and they are investigated by departmental agents of the Board of Trade or the Home Office, and on the report of those agents that a case is proved the Provisional Order is drawn up and is passed through the House. My honourable and learned Friend does not object to that. But a great many cases of the same character are still excluded, and they are excluded by some technical or accidental difference which excludes the jurisdiction of a particular department although there is no difference whatever in the principle. A case came under my own notice last year. A borough wanted to take over a Water Company established in the borough. Under a private Act it would have been able to have done so by a Provisional Order and would have saved money, but unfortunately the Company had some provision affecting the right of a land-owner in the next parish, and although Parliament cannot touch his interests at all, it was necessary to resort to the procedure of an Act of Parliament. It is not quite accurate to describe the present proposal as a development of the Provisional Order plan, as the essence of that plan is that there should be a reference to Parliament in the last resort. But in this Bill such reference depends on the Chairmen of the two Houses and the Secretary for Scotland. But I am prepared to say that in many cases the Provisional Order might wisely and judiciously be altered by making it a fixed Order. I cite in support of that the experience we have had under the Light Railways Act. Under the Act Bills are made Private Acts by the sanction of the Department after inquiry by the Commissioners, and I have never heard any criticism of a hostile character in reference to such a procedure. If therefore we go on the Provisional Order system, as under the Light Railways Act, we shall simply leave Provisional Orders to be confirmed by the Department after hearing, if necessary, the parties who have appeared before the Commissioners and who may appear again before the Department. That is satisfactory in cases under the Light Railways Act. Then the question is raised:—Is it sufficient to have this control so exercised without reference to Parliament? An honourable learned Gentleman insisted upon having Parliamentary control, though he would

  603
  accept the preliminary investigation of the facts before a local tribunal. Now, what is the nature of the Parliamentary control? That Parliamentary control is to be combined with local investigation by sending down a deputation from the House to make inquiry. I do not stop to ask whether it was possible to get the Members to go down. I think the honourable and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down was quite right, and certainly with regard to it the Chairman of Committee of Selection, and the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees in the other House, last year pronounced that that plan could not be worked. Let it be supposed that the suggestion of the honourable and learned Gentleman the Member for Border Burghs is put into operation, and that you send down a deputation to investigate. Is their investigation and conclusion to be final or not? Nothing was said upon that point by the honourable Member for Border Burghs.
  MR. T. SHAW: I am afraid the right honourable Gentleman did not follow the latter part of my argument. The Joint Committee of both Houses should give what I call a first and final verdict on the matter.
  MR. COURTNEY: In that case it would pass the Order. It would not be a Provisional Order, but a final Order. I want to repudiate the notion that you get under that any Parliamentary control, for you only get the control of four Members of Parliament, and how can it be said that these four Members represent the mind of Parliament? What assurance have you got that their action is the action which Parliament would take? All you can say is that they have been transplanted, for they may arrive at a totally different conclusion from that which Parliament in its wisdom would arrive at. All that would be secured is the bringing of a number of minds familiar with Parliamentary experience to the discussion of the question, but that control could be secured by the supervision of the chiefs of the Government Departments, with the assistance of the three of the chief Parliamentary officials, after being examined by such a body as the Light Railways Commission. It could be secured by the Board of Trade, acting through its President, who is connected—and whose Secretary is
  604
  also connected—with Parliament, if you bring that Parliamentary atmosphere into the consideration of the question, for then they are responsible to this House. You do in that way secure that Parliamentary touch and contact which the honourable and learned Gentleman the Member for Border Burghs desires. Upon these grounds I have arrived at the conclusion that what is wanted would be secured by having the appropriate Bills sent to be tried by a local tribunal, which I believe would be quite sufficient for the purpose if it was analogous to the Light Railways Commission; and after such an inquiry it might be considered by the Department responsible for that business and reported to this House, the heads of which are in touch with Parliamentary life. That is necessary if a concession is wanted to the feelings and jealousies which animate this House, and you may require that the final stage of the Bill should not be left at the official stage, but should be brought before the House. How rarely in the experience of the Light Railways Act is there any question of a Provisional Order being ratified, and you certainly have to consult the feelings of this House by first restricting the question to go for consideration to these external tribunals in the fashion I have stated. As to these external tribunals, this is the question in the Bill before us. My honourable Friend the Member for Durham said it was a scandal that we should go on for so many years without making any progress, but I think with that motive we shall any this Bill through and make a start. I believe that we shall still find many of the proposals of this Bill to be redundant, if not encumbrances, and they will be dropped, and we shall work through experience with the simpler system. Of course, I concur in the | criticism of my honourable and learned Friend the Member for Stroud as to the Chairmen of Committees as they are introduced in this Bill. I myself, if I were Chairman of Ways and Means, should be most reluctant to undertake the first task of separating the Bills which are received under the Bill to be sent before the tribunal, but when we came to the question of picking out and choosing those 25 Gentlemen—who are at least 22 Gentlemen too many—when we get these 25 Gentlemen, and I am called upon by the noble Lord, the Chairman of Committees in the other House, and the Secretary for

  605
  Scotland as to the choice of those Gentlemen, I feel that I should abandon my part of the business in despair. I do not know how anyone could bring the necessary knowledge to the transaction of that very delicate function of choice, and certainly the Chairman of this and the other House have quite enough work on their hands without being troubled with this other duty of making this choice. May I ask the Lord Advocate for an explanation of a very small matter? But it is a new point, and it may be of great importance in the Bill, for everything in an Act of Parliament is significant, and the judges are bound to give significance to everything, and if they find a variation of phraseology in one part as compared with another, they endeavour to attach some meaning to it out of deference to the intention of Parliament. Now in the fourth clause of this Bill it is provided that the Chairmen of Committees of the two Houses are to act jointly with the Secretary for Scotland, and in another place it is provided that the Secretary for Scotland is to act jointly with the Chairmen of Committees. If it means the same thing we had better have the same form, but if it means different things then I should have thought that it would have been better for the Secretary for Scotland to have chosen the 25 Gentlemen, and the Chairmen of Committees to have given their approval. I confess that in my judgment the electing of these 25 is a mistake. You may select this number, but before five years are over I think that you will find that they are 22 too many. I think the proper plan would be to select two or three Commissioners, such as the Light Railway Commissioners; and in reference to their conclusion discretion might be exercised just as is the case with the President of the Board of Trade in reference to light railways, the Secretary for Scotland being responsible to this House. By this means we may arrive at something which may be of great use to all parts of the country, to Ireland and to England as well as to Scotland. The honourable Gentleman who has just sat down complained that Scotland was being made the base of this experiment. They are a wise people, and they desire in other matters that their affairs should be managed in a different fashion, and I only wish my own countrymen felt the same resentment against the present system, -which is a hindrance to the development
  606
  of trade and of our country in many ways. This scheme, such as it is, will, I have no doubt, be accepted for the reason stated by my honourable and learned Friend, the Member for Durham, that something must be done. We want to see the Bill through, therefore let it go through, and let it be tried. It will do no harm, and it will do some good. It will create a simpler form of machinery in the future, and I accept this Bill as an experiment which will lead to a beneficial conclusion.
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: In spite of what was said by the honourable Member for Leeds and the honourable Member for Forfarshire, I cannot help feeling that I am in a much better position this year than I occupied when I had to defend the Bill which was introduced last year. My right honourable Friend who has just sat down has said, near the end of his speech, that he does not think anybody is enamoured of this Bill, but I recognise in that that my right honourable Friend has said so many pleasant things about it that it was quite impossible that he should not have a relapse before he sat down. I remember that last year he enjoined me to be of good courage, and intimated that he was very anxious to have what is described as a day out cross-examining the Chairman and the Secretary for Scotland. We agreed with him, and he had his day, or rather his days, and the result is that he has come back and has practically entirely blessed this Bill, only that he looks forward to the Bill only as a prelude to his own scheme, which is that of taking the machinery of the Bill as it is, but changing the Commission proposed to a permanent Commission with a smaller number of Members. No doubt, nominally, of these Amendments before the House, there is an Amendment which, I suppose, in form is destructive to the proposition that the Bill be now read a second time. If the honourable Baronet who moved the Amendment had devoted himself seriously to his Amendment, I should have thought it necessary to point out that really the present scheme is, at any rate, a great improvement upon our present Parliamentary procedure, because, while at present there is practically no possibility of any Scotch Member having any say on a Scotch Bill, under the scheme of this Bill there would at least be the possibility.

  607
  I should have thought it necessary to point out that his Amendment does not deal with any grievances, because there has been no complaint from Scotland that Scotch private legislation has been dealt with by Englishmen, Irishmen, and Welshmen, rather than by Scotchmen. But, as honourable Members know, the complaint has been of a perfectly different description. I am, however, entirely relieved from bearing upon these topics, because honourable Members who were in the House when the honourable Member for the Bridgeton Division moved his Amendment will recognise that he moved it in a speech which was not against the Second Reading of the Bill at all, but was really a speech which proposed a Committee Amendment, namely, to take the Bill as it stands and to alter the constitution of the tribunals by making it entirely consist of Members of Parliament. That Amendment was seconded by the honourable Member for Caithness in a speech which showed such a total disregard or ignorance of the provisions of the Bill that I really cannot follow his arguments at all. It is sufficient to say that he describes the Bill as giving Ministers power to grant concessions, and he illustrated that by a reference so unfortunate that I am glad to think his withdrawal has dispensed with any necessity for my dealing with that speech. But the real speech against the Second Reading of the Bill was delivered by my honourable Friend behind me, the Member for Stroud. Well, I am not altogether surprised at that speech, because the honourable and learned Member was well content with the way Private Bill legislation was now carried on, and we all remember where he was cradled and where he was bred. My honourable Friend was particularly anxious to make it clear that his speech was not entirely of a negative character, but that it was somewhat of a positive nature, But after all, what was the nature of his criticism, and what was his counsel of perfection? I put it to the House that his counsel of perfection was this: "Leave procedure exactly as it is, and reduce all fees except counsel's." But at the same time, my honourable Friend no doubt supported his view in a speech of very great ability. I may rest myself contented upon the fact that he has not had, I think, any support except from the honourable arid gallant Member for Forfarshire, in the direction of going against
  608
  the principle of the Bill altogether. But at the same time I do not propose to shelter myself on that plea, but I shall deal as shortly as I can with some of the arguments put forward by the honourable Member. I agree with him and others in saying that it is not a Scottish question. It is a House of Commons question. My honourable Friend's chief argument is this, and I hope I am putting it fairly: He said that the primary difficulty was that the subject-matter of other Private Bills was legislation, and he said, for I put down his words at the time, "I object to this wholesale transfer to a mere official tribunal of this power of legislation." Now I ask, is it a fair description of what is effected under the provisions of this Bill, to say that it is a wholesale transfer of powers to a mere official tribunal? I want to deal with this argument that there is no right to delegate what is really legislative work. The honourable Member for Stroud went on to say that delegation is only proper when the work is not legislative, but merely administrative or judicial, and as an illustration of what is properly judicial he cited the case of Divorce Bills. I am quite aware that the honourable Member for Durham and my right honourable Friend who has just sat down, take exception to my honourable Friend the Member for Stroud's definition of what is really legislative work. Their argument was very plain, and I will leave that argument where it is. But let me pass that, and let me suppose that the honourable Member for Stroud is right. I take simply his own criterion, that is, the criterion of the Divorce Bills. Does the honourable Member not see that every word of his own speech is an absolute condemnation of the Provisional Order system? He does not object to the Provisional Order system; he does not deny that by Provisional Orders you can get Gas and Water Bills, and Bills relating to piers and harbours. Now I ask him, is gas a question of right or wrong, or is a harbour or a pier a question of guilty or not guilty? And yet, tested by his own idea of a Divorce Bill, it is perfectly wrong for this House to have delegated its powers on questions of gas or water or harbours and piers, in the matter of a Provisional Order.
  MR. CRIPPS: I must point out that

  609
  the Provisional Order power has not been delegated.
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: My honourable Friend draws a distinction between Provisional Orders, because he said that in Provisional Orders you have control, and under this system you have no control, and he further said, "I want a real and not a sham control." I cannot help thinking that my argument up to this point is justifiable, because the question of whether the control is effectuated or not, is a question of the provisions of the Bill. My point is that my honourable Friend's view is right, that if delegation of anything which was not either purely administrative or purely judicial, such as divorce work, is wrong, then it was wrong to have given up the control of procedure and allowed people to proceed by way of Provisional Order in regard to gas, water, piers, and harbours. Then I come to the question as to whether there is a sacrifice of control, which sacrifice you do not find in the Provisional Order system, but before I come to that, let me say that there is one form of control which my honourable Friend seems to attach particular weight to, and that is in reference to discussions on question of principle on the Second Reading. I think it has already been pointed out by the honourable Member for Durham, that anything more unsatisfactory than a Second Reading discussion and division on a Private Bill in this House can scarcely be imagined. You do not know anything about it, and you find that you have been more or less "peppered" with literature on both sides; you are buttonholed in the Lobby in a way which you never are in regard to a Public Bill, and our ideas are in a state of confusion when we go into one Lobby or the other. But besides that, what is the argument which generally prevails upon the question whether one is to vote "aye" or "no" on a Private Bill? Is it this great question of principle which is supposed to be amalgamated in the Bill? I think the real question which determines votes on the Second Reading of a Private Bill is, "Shall we give them a chance of getting upstairs?" That is the question upon which the Measure turns in this House, and accordingly, I say, the Second Reading control in this House, though theoretically and nominally perfect, is practically no control at all.
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: But how about the Third Reading?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I was dealing with my honourable Friend's Second Reading argument as to control, and he gave as an illustration one of the Bills of this year. I remember the Bill which took most time this year was the London Water Bill, and there was a very long discussion upon it, and there were great questions raised as to whether it was right that the County Council should be the water authority, and whether they should go as far as Wales for water. But how was that solved? It was not solved by this House coming to a determination on the question of monopoly trading. It was solved by the old expedient of saying that the proposals of the water company should go upstairs, and that something else should be put in after the Commission had reported. Now let me come to the question as to whether there is a sacrifice of control in this Bill which we do not find under the Provisional Order system, and the question which was asked me in reference to the control of the Third Reading by my right honourable Friend the Member for Sheffield: What is the difference between the system under this Bill and the system of Confirmation Bills and Provisional Orders? There is one difference, and one difference alone. In the case of there being opposition, it is an absolute right on the part of the opponent to insist that there should be a Confirmation Bill in this House which he may oppose, and upon which he gets the verdict of this House. Of course I am quite aware that the actual inquiry, when the Bill comes before this House, is not the old method of two inquiries—one by each House—but it is an inquiry before a hybrid Committee of both Houses. That, of course, is a distinction of principle, and does not concern the question of Parliamentary control. Therefore, I think my right honourable Friend the Member for Bodmin made a slip when he said that by the assent of the Secretary for Scotland there would be a Confirmation Bill. If there is opposition, the opponents have an absolute right in the Confirmation Bill which will necessarily be presented, and they have an opportunity of coming and opposing the Measure before this House. If the intention to give that right to opponents is not expressed in

  611
  the Bill, it will be amended so that it will do so. I am quite aware that one loophole still remains. It is quite true that merely vexatious memorials may be put forward simply with the idea of gaining time; and I am aware that that one loophole still remains. It is quite true, however, that under the procedure of this Bill, if there is no opposition, then you do not need a Confirmation Bill, and at once the Provisional Order becomes law, and that theoretically does away with the control of Parliament. But for all practical purposes, what is the difference between that system and the Provisional Order system at present? If a Provisional Order or a Confirmation Bill is unopposed, what happens to it? It goes before the Unopposed Committee, and no possible opponents are asked to attend there, and it appears on the Papers of this House, and it is passed in the ordinary way as an Unopposed Bill. My honourable Friend has had a wide experience in these matters, but I will challenge the honourable Member for Stroud to produce any one case where a Member of this House has suddenly interposed and has raised a discussion in order to show the control of Parliament upon an unopposed Confirmation Bill. If it has not done so, the position is exactly the same under the one system as under the other. I may pass over, I think, some of the arguments of my honourable Friends, because they are arguments, concerning the demands which are made on the time of Members of this House, and it is only a matter of justice to say that I do not put forward this Bill on those grounds. The real truth is, as the honourable Member for Dumfries has said, that the gist of what is wanted is the provision for a local inquiry. And remember the local inquiry is anxiously wanted by people in Scotland, not only upon the question of expense, but for other reasons too. They think that in many cases the tribunal which will conduct the local inquiry will have a greater chance of making itself acquainted with the true circumstances of the case than a tribunal sitting far away, and they think also that it will give those opportunities of appearance on the part of the small opponents of Bills which they do not get under the present system. The honourable Member for Aberdeenshire quoted a sentence of the Town Clerk of Dundee, in which he said that local
  612
  inquiries stimulate objections. I am not at all astonished that that is the view of the Town Clerk of Dundee. I know no man who is so sorry to meet somebody who can be as big as himself, as the Town Clerk of Dundee, and he is entirely on the side of the big battalions, and therefore I do not wonder that he objects to the provision. But the local inquiry and control we believe are best secured by the Provisional Order system; and I would like to remind honourable Members upon this matter that we do not stand exactly where we did last year, for at least we have the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee. I would just like to remind the House of what the Select Committee said. The honourable Member for Forfarshire cannot find in the Select Committee's Report anything in favour of the Bill. I do not think he can have read the Report. What do they say? And this, remember, is a unanimous Report—
  "The present Bill differs from all former Bills in respect that it does not propose to alter the procedure in respect to Provisional Order Bills, but rather seeks to provide a method of obtaining Provisional Orders which shall have the effect of an Act of Parliament in all cases subject to such procedure, leaving other matters to be dealt with by Private Bill. By an almost unanimous decision, your Committee came to the conclusion that the scheme of the Bill is preferable to any scheme not embodying the Provisional Order system."
  Well, that unanimity I think is very fairly reflected in the Debate in this House to-night. Honourable Members may laugh; but who has spoken? Of course I agree that the honourable Member for Stroud is against it, and the honourable Member for Forfarshire is against it, but on the other side the honourable Member for Dumfries is entirely in favour of this Bill, and I acknowledge with great pleasure the services which I think the honourable Member for the Border Burghs, who, as I understood, spoke in the name of the Bench upon which he sits, and who undoubtedly advised [Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN dissented]—well, the right honourable Gentleman shakes his head, and I am very sorry to find he has gone back from that benevolent mood. I will take the right honourable Member as only representing himself. But he at any rate advised those who sat near him to vote for the Second Reading, and the tone undoubtedly of his speech was entirely in

  613
  favour of the Bill as a Bill, though no doubt with an appeal to us to alter our views upon the question of the constitution of the tribunal. But that is not, of course, subversive to the principle of the Bill, or against the Second Reading of it. He also, I think very rightly, called attention to the fact that it is really out of the question to say that this is any taking away of the constitutional right of Scotchmen to apply to Parliament, and that what is done under the Bill leaves them still the right to apply to Parliament, although in a somewhat altered name. He was not quite sure that he quite approved of section 2, because, he said, he thought that rather cut down the privilege of local inquiry. But I may remind him that the reason for section 2 is this. It is not only the one which he seemed to give, that we were anxious to move one step at a time, and not entirely to abolish the old system, but it was also this, that we do recognise the necessity of Parliamentary control. We have been very anxious in framing the provisions of this Bill to maintain Parliamentary control, and to keep in this House those things which we think ought to be kept in this House, and accordingly we have included the Provisional Orders in this scheme instead of making it a scheme of Private Bill legislation altogether. That brings me to the other question which has been alluded to, and which really is my honourable Friend's only real objection to the Bill, and that is the constitution of the Commission. May I say here, first of all, that quite inadvertently we have infected honourable Members with a certain misapprehension as to the constitution of this Commission. They have fastened their eyes upon the clause in italics, sub section 2 of section 5, which is a Treasury Clause, which provides payment for two of the Commissioners, not being Members of either House of Parliament, and they have read that as if by that we necessarily meant that there were always to be two paid Members and only one unpaid Member; and by the same process of reasoning, though it is not so apparent, they have come to the conclusion also that upon the panel of twenty-five we really meant to put very few-Members of Parliament. I think one honourable Gentleman in speaking of the subject has talked of four Members of Parliament out of the twenty-five.
  MR. MUNRO - FERGUSON: The third Member may be paid also under the Act.
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: Yes, in the event of his not being a Member of either House of Parliament. I am sure the honourable Member must see why that clause is put in. We had, of course, to make some arrangement with the Treasury, and the view was, that any Member of Parliament who served ought not to be paid, and accordingly the phraseology, "not being Members of either House of Parliament," is only really a rider upon the power of payment, and has not anything to do with the suggestion as to what are to be the numbers of the Members of the Commission as between Members of Parliament and other people. There is no such suggestion intended, and if these words are in any way misleading, we shall be most happy to alter them. The reason for the third Member is that, of course, there might be circumstances in which we cannot get a Member of Parliament, and then we do not want our scheme to break down, and so it was necessary to make provision in exceptional circumstances for the possible payment of the third Member. At any rate, I can assure the House that certainly in the mind of the framers of the Bill there was no intention to suggest that the ordinary constitution of the Commission should be two paid Members to one unpaid Member, nor was there any idea that Members of Parliament should be so very limited in number as honourable Members have thought. The honourable Member for the Border Burghs said particularly that he feared that any tribunal composed of anyone else but Members of Parliament would be hampered by precedent, and you would have a conflict between the decisions of the tribunal and what he called the general feeling of public opinion as represented by Members of this House. May I point out to him that, after all, the panel is only to be fixed for five years, and so far as precedent is concerned I should think that a Member of this House would be just as much troubled by precedent during his term of office as a member of a tribunal which sits for five years. But, at any rate, I am rather inclined so far to welcome the argument of the honourable Gentleman, because I think he will agree with me that that at least disposes of the argument of the right honourable Gentle-

  615
  man the Member for Bodmin, because it is entirely against the idea of a fixed tribunal. The right honourable Member for Bodmin thinks that the ultimate solution of this will be three. He says that 22 of these men are useless. Take three: there you have enough, and keep them there for ever. I would like to point out that at least he would not satisfy the honourable Member for the Border Burghs. Well, the real truth is, Mr. Speaker, that I personally have never been at all opposed to the employment of Members upon this Commission. The honourable Member for Leith said that I had made fun of his proposal last year. I do not think I made fun of it at all.
  MR. MUNRO-FERGUSON: A peripatetic Commission!
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I have never heard of peripatetics being the cause of fun. I had thought they were rather philosophers. But I may appeal to this; in the Draft Report which was brought up and prepared by myself, I notice that in paragraph 5 I say—
  "The minority of your Committee were of opinion that the tribunal should be composed of Members of the two Houses of Parliament. This proposal has much to recommend it. Your Committee believe that the confidence in the impartiality of the tribunals, which has been felt in the past in regard to Parliamentary Committees, would be extended to a Commission so composed, and they would be in touch with Parliamentary feelings, which could not fail to be of high advantage."
  I do not think that is making fun of the proposal, and, as has been pointed out, the Noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland expresses himself very much in favour of the employment of Members in his evidence. But then, Mr. Speaker, we here as a Government propose what we hope to be a practical measure, and I say it would be an act of madness for us to have proposed a tribunal composed only of Members of Parliament—to have risked our all with this Measure upon a tribunal composed only of Members of Parliament, when we had staring us in the face the evidence given last year by the Chairman of the Committee of Selection in this House. My honourable Friend the Member for Stroud, and my honourable Friend the Member for Durham, and the honourable Gentleman the Member for Forfarshire— all of them have lifted up their voices and said that they did not consider it a prac-
  616
  tical proposal to send down Members of Parliament. Well now, in that case, wishing to do our best with the Bill, and wishing—I do not take any shame in saying it—to be as conciliatory as we could be, what did we do? I think we have taken the most excellent way. We have said we are perfectly willing to have Members of Parliament. After all, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and we shall find out who is right when we see whether Members can be got or not. But we are not going to risk our scheme by not having somebody else, and therefore we have associated with these Members of Parliament other men upon whom this work can be devolved if Members of Parliament are not forthcoming. The honourable Member for North Ayrshire made a very excellent suggestion to-night. He was anxious that we should not in any way limit the time of Parliament, and he made a proposal that instead of putting Members of Parliament upon this panel of 25, we should take a panel of other people, a smaller panel than 25, and then you could go to the actual panel which was to be taken for the particular inquiry, from which the Chairman would be at liberty to select not only the panel which we constitute in the Bill, but also from Members of Parliament. All I need say is I should not like to give any pronouncement upon that proposal at this moment. I should be very glad to consider that matter, and perhaps my honourable Friends on the other side would meet and see whether that would in any way meet their views. I must say—if I may say so respectfully—that I never heard a more unbusinesslike proposal than was made by some honourable Member (I have forgotten his name), when he proposed that we should try it with Members of Parliament, and then, if that broke down, that afterwards we should get an amending Bill and try some other way. We really are not going to so risk our own credit and so risk the convenience of Scottish promoters of Private Bills as to initiate a system with the possibility of a breakdown staring us in the face. Accordingly, the scheme of the Bill has been to meet honourable Members on the other side, who are entitled to our respect, and who are entitled to consideration of their schemes as far as possible. We are perfectly willing to work this scheme by means of Members of Parliament, but at the same time we must insist that there

  617
  should be that reserve power which should prevent the breakdown of the Bill if the prophecies of certain honourable Members are light. I have confined my remarks up to the present to dealing really with the principle of the Bill and what is the main provision of it. There were a great many other points which were acute, all of which I am sure honourable Members have duly noticed, but they really were Committee points. What I put to the House is that this scheme has this great merit, that there is so little dislocation of the existing system that if it were found not to work you could go back upon what we have done without any practical harm. The honourable Member for Caithness-shire made a sort of bombastic utterance as to repealing this Bill in the next Parliament. I am not much troubled with that, because whatever Government comes into power I do not think it is probable he will have the direction of it. It has not been the custom, I am glad to say, of successive Parliaments simply to repeal everything that has been done by the Governments before in office. There is in the Hill this peculiarity. If you get a new state of affairs, if you repeal this Bill, and if you create this great dislocation, it is one great merit of the scheme, in my humble judgment, that we leave our Parliamentary procedure untouched, and, therefore, if it was found that the scheme of the Bill and the extension of the Provisional Order system did not work, there would be really no dislocation in again reverting to the old system. The other keynote of this Bill has been that I think we have recognised what has been pressed upon us by many honourable Members to-night, that this is not a Scotch question; and, therefore, although I have not heard it commented upon by any speaker to-night, I am certain the House will recognise that this is a system which is capable of indefinite extension to all other parts of the kingdom. There is no part of the provisions of this Bill which might not be quite as easily extended to either England or Wales, or to any part of England or Wales or Ireland, and that, Sir, is a question which I think is a House of Commons question, and surely one of great merit. Mr. Speaker, on the whole I must say that I am not at all disappointed with the reception which this Bill has had, because I recognise, although it is very easy to criticise details, that really, with the
  618
  exception of the honourable Member for Stroud, there has not been a speech made against the Second Reading of the Bill at all. The honourable Member for Forfarshire said that he could not recognise that there was any great cause for this legislation in Scotland. All I can say is he must have kept his eyes very much shut, and his ears too. I have known Scotland quite as long as he has, and there is scarcely a public body in Scotland which has not agitated in favour of this Measure. We have the fact that year after year the principle of this Private Bill Procedure reform has been passed by immense majorities in this House. I have my doubts as to whether the honourable Baronet will go to a division. If he does I am sure he will be triumphantly beaten, and I hope that on this occasion we shall not only get the Second Reading of the Bill, but that this Session will not pass without its being-added to the Statute Book.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: The right honourable Gentleman expressed some fear lest I should be found to have gone back from what he described as the benevolent attitude which I at one time assumed toward this Measure. I thought it right in the interests of caution not to commit myself to making a direct response to his appeal, and in the interests of the same caution I decline to be altogether responsible for all that my honourable and learned Friend the late Solicitor-General for Scotland said, but I do not know that the right honourable Gentleman will be very disappointed with me before I have finished. The honourable Member for North Ayrshire has dug up some autumnal speech of mine in which he says I blessed this Measure in anticipation. I assure him it was not the Measure I blessed: it was its author. I blessed the right honourable Gentleman, and I said there was no one than he more calculated to bring this matter, which has been gradually ripening, to a successful issue. It yet remains to be seen whether he has acted up to what I thought might be his attitude. Well, Sir, certainly the Lord Advocate takes a sanguine view of the discussion to-night when he speaks of the unanimity reflected in the discussion, because I have not discovered any two Members on either side of the House who agree on the Bill at large. I certainly am not myself able entirely to agree with any

  619
  honourable Member that I have heard speaking upon it. That is the result of having had about 12 years of wrangles and discussions over this subject, a process which is sometimes assumed to be the best prelude to safe and lasting legislation upon a particular subject. Sir, there are two aspects to this question. There is the Scotch aspect and the public aspect. From the Scotch point of view, it is simply this. The Scotch people have a strong desire to have a cheaper and easier method of obtaining the benefits that are got through Private Bill legislation, and they wish to have the inquiries on these subjects held locally. But here let me make a distinction, which I have often drawn before, of this subject in the House. There is a great distinction between the large railway companies and other wealthy corporations on the one hand, and the necessities of individuals and of local authorities on the other hand. So far as railway bills are concerned, I find that they constitute about three-fourths of the Scotch Private Bills which come up to this House. Is there any grievance connected with the railway business? I confess that it seems to me to be slight, if it exists at all. It was said, I think, in a comic opera, that every Englishman is born a little Liberal or a little Conservative. Everyone in Scotland is born either a partisan of the North British Railway or a partisan of the Caledonian Railway. The rest of the community are either wholly indifferent, or else attached to one or two of the other railway companies, and they range themselves as occasion may serve -on the side of one or other of these great companies. Now, my view of this matter has been greatly eased since I was informed some years ago by one of the most important directors of one of those companies—who is no longer in the House of Commons, although we have had a good many of them here to-night on both sides —that we need be under no feeling of pity or alarm for the fate of the poor man who has to oppose a Bill promoted by one these companies, because the rival company always pays his costs whatever happens. If that is so—and I believe to a large extent it is so—I do not know that there has been for a number of years so much hardship in connection with that large part of Private Business. The side of the question which really affects the people of Scotland is the municipal side,
  620
  the promotion of small Measures of utility brought forward by local authorities and others which are really of immense benefit to the community, and it is there that the expense and the trouble of having to come to London, and the doubt of the sufficiency of the inquiry when they get to London—it is there that these elements press upon the minds of those engaged, and they seek relief; it is there, I think, more than in any other quarter, that relief is sought in some way from the present cumbrous and costly system. I am rather pleased to remember that a good many years ago I moved an amendment to a Bill of this sort in the House of Commons, in which I said that the proper relief was to be found by reducing the foes, by extending the system of Provisional Orders, and by increasing the powers of municipal authorities. I take credit to myself, or to those who suggested that excellent amendment to me, for having foreseen what was going to occur, because these are the directions in which we all with one accord are moving now. My honourable and learned Friend the Member for Stroud, the stoutest upholder of everything that exists in these matters, has no word to say for the fees and for the costs imposed by the Standing Orders of the House.
  MR. CRIPPS: Perhaps my right honourable Friend will allow me to say that I have always advocated a reduction of the fees, as I did to-night.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: But there is this difference. We have done a great deal in Scotland in the way of extending the powers of local authorities under several Acts passed within the last two or three years. We have done a great deal in the way of increasing the facilities for obtaining Provisional Orders. Now we have this scheme of the Government, which differs very much from the system of Provisional Orders under which a Departmental Inquiry is conducted in a very simple manner before a tribunal consisting of one officer of the Department. When that simple inquiry is made, the matter is submitted for the approval of the House. The proposal of the Government is for a solemn tribunal of three Members, and if a scheme is rejected by that tribunal it goes no further, but if it is approved it has to come before

  621
  Parliament, and mar be submitted to a second costly inquiry before a joint Committee of the two Houses. In that way I am afraid very little will be gained to the public. I am very strongly of opinion that it is necessary to maintain the control of Parliament over the whole of its business. I agree with the spirit of what has been said by my honourable and learned Friend the Member for Stroud. The Lord Advocate, I think, disputed the efficiency of the control of the House of Commons in many ways. He said our Second Heading Debates on Private Bills were unsatisfactory, and seldom had very much real effect. He quoted instances this Session, but he did not quote the instance of the Electric Powers Distribution Bill, which was thrown out by the House on the very ground that they considered the proposals in the Bill were contrary, not to the interests of any individual locality, but contrary to the general public interests throughout the country. It is the general public interest that this House represents. It is not a question of individual interests, but the House has to see that what is proposed is not contrary to public policy. Therefore it is that we must be very fastidious as to the tribunal which is to be established if any change is made. This year the Lord Advocate has made a very obvious effort to meet the opinions expressed on both sides of the House last year. I recognise the right honourable Gentleman's desire to do so, but I doubt whether with all his ingenuity he has been successful. There is to be this panel of 25. Why 25? There were 12 Apostles, and I should have thought that number would be better. And who are to be these persons with a knowledge of local affairs? There is a dreadful hypothesis put forward that there may be a desire to fetch out of the limbo into which they have gone old Members of Parliament who have retired, or who have otherwise left this House. I remember Lord Beaconsfield once, on being found fault with for having made a certain appointment which it was said ought to have been given to a man with expert knowledge of trade, said—
  "There are two kinds of retired tradesmen— the tradesman who has retired from trade, and the tradesman from whom his trade had retired."
  There are also two kinds of Members of Parliament, and I do not think that some of them would be any better qualified
  622
  than other people. The real objection to the proposed remedy is this. The panel is to be chosen by the two chairmen, who know nothing about them, and by the Secretary for Scotland, who possibly knows a great deal too much. It would be bad enough if it were to be a purely honorary position, but they have a chance of being selected for a paid appointment, and, that being so, I am afraid you will have a great many competitors for the office, and when it comes to the final selection of the actual tribunal, what a pressure there will be! I should be disposed rather to recommend what the right honourable Gentleman seemed to reject — that is, that the Government should trust to the employment for this purpose of Members of Parliament only, and have no panel, but choose from the Scotch Members as required. I know that my right honourable friend the Member for Bodmin does not approve of any such proposal, and does not believe it possible that Members can be found to go down to Scotland for that purpose, and he thought that, if they could, it would be taking them from their proper sphere of duty. The right honourable Gentleman made some observations which opened up one key, at all events, to the difficulty. He pointed out, and he was quite justified in doing so, that a great deal of the cost, hurry, and high pressure of the conduct of Private Business arises from the fact that such Business has to keep pace with, and wait upon, the convenience of the Public Business of the House. But, is there any reason why Private Business should be confined to two or three months of the year? Is this not a large part of those— I will not call them abuses, but peculiarities—attaching to the practice of the Parliamentary Bar, which is crammed into so short a space of the year that those who practise at it are overworked, and probably, on the whole, overpaid, not for the work they do, but paid to a degree which would not be necessary if the time had been more evenly distributed? Is there any reason why this class of business should not be extended beyond the Session? Why should there not be some arrangement whereby some portion, at least, of the long Recess should be utilised? Every step taken in that direction will make it easier for Scotch Members of Parliament to attend, and I do not think there would be any of the difficulties in the way of securing their attendance which have been suggested.

  623
  There is a strong feeling in Scotland for a local inquiry, and I am convinced that the only tribunal that will fulfil the two conditions which would give what is wanted by litigants and the public in Scotland, and at the same time maintain, not only the traditional power, but the essential and wholesome control of Parliament over these matters, is one composed of Members of Parliament. I trust, therefore, the right honourable Gentleman will be able, when we arrive at the Committee stage, to practically carry out that change, and if he does I can assure him that to the best of my belief the feeling of opposition to the Bill or the greater part of it will disappear. I hope the honourable Baronet the Member for Glasgow will be satisfied with the discussion that has taken place on his Amendment and will not press it to a Division.
  MR. CALDWELL: This Bill is simply a continuation of the Bill of last year, which was condemned, perhaps, as much as the present Bill. It was remitted to a Select Committee, but the Select Committee were informed that it was not the intention of the Government to proceed with the Bill last Session. Under these circumstances very little interest was taken in the proceedings by the Committee. The Lord Advocate has practically admitted that if there is to be delegation at all, that delegation ought to be to Members of Parliament in the first instance. The proposal of the Bill to delegate the Private Bill business of Scotland to a Commission composed of non-Members of Parliament with no practical experience of legislation, and out of touch with the constituencies, involves a constitutional change of great magnitude. It is true that this House has delegated its legislative functions in respect to the Light Railways Act, but it must be remembered that the Railway law is very well defined, and that only questions of detail have to be decided by the Light Railways Commissioners, who number only three, whereas under this Bill you would have 25 Commissioners. In the case of the Light Railways you are dealing with one subject, and you have three men appointed who are qualified to deal with that subject, but in the case of this Bill you are dealing with every question that might come up under the system of Private Bill Legisla-
  624
  tion. There is a very great difference between the Provisional Order which is issued under the present circumstances, and what is termed the Provisional Order under this Bill. Under the present system you have in the first instance a local inquiry of a very informal character. It is held by only one Commissioner, and there are no questions of locus standi or Standing Orders, and the result is that those inquiries made previous to the issue of a Provisional Order give general satisfaction. I would ask the House to observe the difference between an inquiry under the system proposed by this Bill. In most cases of importance there would be an appeal to Parliament. The local inquiry under this Bill would be much more costly, and under the proposed new arrangement the smaller interests would not be able to reach Parliament if the Secretary for Scotland and the right honourable Gentleman are of opinion that an appeal to Parliament would be unreasonable or vexatious.
  Question proposed,
  "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time and committed for Monday 10th April.

  INFECTIOUS DISEASE (NOTIFICATION) ACT (1889) EXTENSION BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed for Friday 14th April.
  FINE OR IMPRISONMENT (SCOTLAND AND IRELAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported; Bill, as amended, re-committed for Wednesday 3rd May, and to be printed. (Bill 147.)

  THE EDUCATION CODE.
  Motion made and Question proposed—
  "That this House do now adjourn"(Sir W. H. Walrond.)
  MR. JEFFREYS: Mr. Speaker, Before the House adjourns may I ask my right honourable Friend the Vice-President of the Council whether he is aware that the Education Code,

  625
  which was laid on the Table on 6th March, was issued to Members only on 21st March; and that as the Code is only required to lie on the Table for 30 days before becoming law, there will be no opportunity of discussing it. as the time will have expired before the holidays are ended. There are one or two rules which bear hardly on certain schools, and I hope the right honourable Gentleman will promise that an opportunity for discussing these rules will be given.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): I understand I have no power in the matter at all. It is true that the Code was only in the hands of Members on 21st March, and I understand that the object of laying it on the Table for 30 days is to give honourable Members an opportunity of considering it and of raising any objection to it which they may think fit. I am rather of the opinion that it will be held by you, Sir, that the 30 days have not expired until the Code has been for that time effectively in the hands of Members.
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not understand whether the Code was laid on the Table in full on March 6, or only in dummy. I am informed that it was only laid in dummy.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I ask my right honourable Friend the question—When ho laid the Code on the Table, was it in full or in dummy?
  SIR J. GORST: I am afraid I cannot answer now, but I will inquire before tomorrow.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I understand your ruling to be that if the Code is laid in dummy, the 30 days will run only from the time when the Code was effectively in the hands of Members. In these circumstances I appeal to my right honourable Friend to describe the precise nature of the operation which took place when he laid the Code on the Table, and to undertake, on behalf of the Government, that the House shall have ample time to discuss this very important matter. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will say that the Government will abide by the feeling of the House as to whether the Code is to become law within the 30 days from March 6.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I have made inquiries at the Bill Office, and am informed that the Code was not printed until March 21. Whether it was laid in dummy or in writing I do not know, but certainly it was not printed until March 21, and therefore could not be distributed before.
  MR. SPEAKER: I assume that it was laid on the Table in dummy only, for the practice is that when it is laid on the Table in full, orders are given for it to be printed and issued immediately. But the Statute only speaks of laying it upon the Table, which I take to mean "in full," so that anyone can consider it.
  MR. JEFFREYS: My right honourable Friend the Vice-President of the Council has made no answer to the appeals which have been addressed to him, although, as things at present stand, the Code will, by the efflux of time, become law next week, and before there can be any opportunity of discussing it.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is not for me to say any more on the subject. The thirty days commence from the day on which the Code itself was laid on the Table.
  MR. H. S. FOSTER: I hope my noble Friend will raise the question to-morrow on the Motion for the Adjournment, as there is a strong feeling on the question.

BILLS DEFERRED.
  PERMISSIVE LICENSING POWERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred from Wednesday till Tuesday 18th April.
  PARLIAMENTARY DEPOSITS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred from Tomorrow till Thursday 13th April.
  COLONIAL LOANS FUND BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 10th April.
  INEBRIATES ACT (1898) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 10th April.
  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading (9th March) further adjourned till Monday 10th April.
  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday 10th April.
  REGULATION OF RAILWAYS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 10th April.
  CHARITABLE LOANS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 10th April.
  IMPROVEMENT OF LAND BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 10th April.
  FARNLEY TYAS MARRIAGES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 10th April.
  PALATINE COURT OF DURHAM BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 10th April.
  LICITORS BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 10th April.
  TELEGRAPH (CHANNEL ISLANDS) BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 10th April.
  LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading (23rd February) further adjourned till Monday 10th April.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING (CLAUSES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 10th April.
  HORS AND CHAIN CABLES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 10th April.
  SUPPLY.
  Committee deferred till Monday 10th April.
  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Committee deferred till Monday 10th April.
  WILD BIRDS PROTECION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 11th April.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1888) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 11th April.
  COLONIAL SOLICITORS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 10th April.
  HIGHWAYS AND BBIDGES ACT (1891) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday 12th April.
  CORONERS' INQUESTS (RAILWAY FATALITIES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 11th April.
  EXECUTORS (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 11th April.
  UNIVERSITY DEGREES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 10th April.
  CONSTRUCTIVE MURDER LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 13th April.
  TANCRED'S CHARITIES SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 10th April.

  PARISH COUNCILLORS (TENURE OF OFFICE) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday 10th April.
  House adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve of the clock.

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Fishguard Water and Gas:
Also the Certificate that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Crowborough District Water;
And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the petition for additional provision in the following Bill:
Workington Corporation Water [H.L.];
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

ST. ALBANS GAS BILL [H.L.]
Committee to meet on Tuesday the 18th of April next.
Loughborough and Sheepshed Railway Bill [H.L]
Yeadon and Guiseley Gas Bill [H.L.]
Northern Assurance Company Bill [H.L.]
Bristol Gas Bill [H.L.]
Airdrie and Coatbridge Water Bill [H.L.]
Lea Bridge District Gas Bill [H.L.]
Queen's Ferry Bridge Bill [H.L.]
Herne Bay Water Bill [H.L.]
Walton-on-Thames and Weybridge Gas Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (TRAINING COLLEGES).
  Reports for the year 1898, by—

  1. Sir H. E. Oakley and W. Scott Coward, Esquire, on the training colleges for schoolmasters and schoolmistresses;

  2. The Honourable Mrs. Colborne, on needlework in the training colleges for schoolmistresses;

  3. Sir John Stainer, on music in the training colleges for schoolmasters and schoolmistresses;

  4. List of training colleges under inspection.

EGYPT, No. 2 (1899).
Dispatch to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, enclosing a copy of a declaration relative to the British and French spheres of influence in Central Africa.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated 27th March 1899, amending the terms of Article 118 of the Code of 1899.

IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
1. (Proceedings.) Return of proceedings for the month of December 1898;
2. (Rules.) Rules dated 13th March 1899—

(i.) as to Assistant Commissioners;

(ii.) in relation to proceedings under the Land Law Acts.

MARRIAGES, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS (ENGLAND).
General abstract for 1898,—presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888.
Part I.—Orders under Section 57 of the Act, as confirmed by the Local Government Board, of the following county and county borough councils;

(1.) Bristol, county borough of, for uniting the parishes comprised in the city and county of Bristol and the Bristol union, to form the parish of Bristol;

(2.) Carnarvon, for the conversion of part of the rural district of Bettwsycoed into the urban district of Bettwsycoed;

(3.) Cornwall and Devon, for transferring the parish of West Putford from the rural district of Bideford to the rural district of Holdsworthy;

(4.) Cumberland, for altering the boundaries of the parishes of Great Broughton and Little Broughton, and constituting the new parishes of Broughton and Broughton Moor;

(5.) Derby, for transferring a part of the parish of North Wingfield to the parish of Egstow;

(6.) Hertford, for uniting the parishes in the city of St. Alban to form the parish of St. Alban;

(7.) Lincoln (parts of Kesteven), for the conversion of part of the rural district of Bourne into the urban district of Bourne;

(8.) London and Surrey, and Croydon county borough, altering and defining the boundary between the parishes of Merton and Wimbledon;

(9.) Northumberland, for constituting the parish of Camperdown from parts of the parish of Longbenton and Weetslade, and transferring part of the urban district of Weetslade to the rural district of Tynemouth;

(10.) Nottingham, for uniting the parishes of Park Leys and Kelham, in the Southwell rural district and poor-law union;

(11.) Salop, for constituting part of the parish of Wellington Rural, known as Hadley Ward, into a new parish, to be called the parish of Hadley;

472

(12.) Southampton, for the conversion of part of the rural district of Christ-church into the urban district of Win-ton;

(13.) Southampton, for the alteration of the boundaries between oertain parishes in the Christchurch union;

(14.) Isle of Wight, for uniting the parishes of East Shanklin and Shanklin;

(15.) East Sussex, for uniting the parishes of Eastbourne and Norway;

(16.) Worcester, for transferring part of the parish of Welland, in the rural district of Upton-upon-Severn, to the parish of Malvern Wells, in the urban district of Malvern;

(17.) East Riding of Yorkshire, for conversion of part of the rural district of Sculcoates into the urban district of Hessle.

Part II.—Orders under section 59 of the Act, as confirmed by the Local Government Board—

(1.) Derby, county borough of, for amending the Derby Confirmation Order, 1898;

(2.) Middlesex, county council of, for amending the County of Middlesex (Harrow, etc.) Confirmation Order, 1894, and the County of Middlesex (Harrow-on-the-Hill and Wealdstone) Confirmation Order, 1895.

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACT, 1890 (METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES).
Order of the Secretary of State for the Home Department permitting a modification in the London (Churchway, St. Pancras) Improvement Scheme, 1895.

NATIONAL DEBT (ANNUITIES).
Account of the gross amount of all bank annuities and any annuities for terms of years transferred, and of all sums of money paid, to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt; and the gross amount of annuities for lives and for terms of

473
years which have been granted for the same, and contracts for payments on death, which have been made within the year ended 5th January 1899.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

ST. ANDREWS BURGH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFRMATION BILL [H.L.]
Read a second time (according to order).
NEW BILLS.

  LUNACY BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Lunacy Acts. (No. 38.)
  Presented by the Lord Chancellor; read a first time; and to be printed.

  LAND CHARGES BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law relating to charges on land, and to matters connected therewith. (No. 39.)
  Presented by the Lord Chancellor; read a first time; and to be printed.

  ISOLATION HOSPITALS (AMENDENT) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Isolation Hospitals Act, 1895. (No. 40.)
  Presented by the Earl of Lichfield; read a first time; and to be printed.

  COMMISSION.
  The following Bills received the Royal Assent—

  1. Consolidated Fund (No. 1.)

  2. Partridge Shooting (Ireland).

  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Three of the clock.