Sitting of 18 May 1899

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (CODE OF REGULATIONS FOR DAY SCHOOLS).
The Comptroller of the Household reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address of the 17th day of April, as followeth:—
"I have received your Address praying Me to withhold My consent to the new portions of Articles 37 and 42, on pages 90 and 91 of the Code of Regulations for Day Schools, which was presented to you on the 21st of March last.
I will comply with your advice."

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  HORSFORTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (WATER) BILL
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION BILL.
  (Queen's Consent signified),—read the third time, and passed.
  COALVILLE URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  GREAT WESTERN AND GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL.
  (Queen's Consent signified),—read the third time, and passed.
  LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
  (Queen's Consent signified),—read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]
  LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]
  WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  LINCOLN AND EAST COAST RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL.
  Ordered, That, in the case of the Lincoln and East Coast Railway and Dock Bill, Standing Order 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  UXBRIDGE AND RICKMANSWORTH RAILWAY BILL.
  Ordered, That, in the case of the Uxbridge and Rickmansworth Railway

  905
  Bill, Standing Order 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]

  MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDER.
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Secretary of State under The Military Lands Act, 1892, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Wyndham and Mr. Hanbury.
  MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  "To confirm a Provisional Order of the Secretary of State under the Military Lands Act, 1892," presented accordingly and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. (Bill 213.)
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS.
  Copy ordered "of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill" (Mr. Ritchie). Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 204.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment (Provisional Orders confirmed); Report to lie upon the Table; Bill to be read the third time to-morrow.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments (Provisional Orders confirmed); Report to lie upon the Table; Bill, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments (Provisional Orders confirmed); Report to lie upon the Table; Bill, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments (Provisional Orders confirmed); Report to lie upon the Table; Bill, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.
  WOKING WATER AND GAS BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table and to be printed.
  SHEFFIELD CORPORATION MARKETS BLLL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  HULL, BARNSLEY, AND WEST RIDING JUNCTION RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table and to be printed.
  ST. ALBANS GAS BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table and to be printed.
  NORFOLK ESTUARY BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table; Bill to be read the third time.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Reported, with an Amended Title (Provisional Order relating to Ystrad-yfodwg (Maerdy) not confirmed; remaining Orders confirmed); report to lie upon the Table. Bill, as amended, to be considered tomorrow.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP J).
  Sir Henry Fletcher reported from the Committee on Group J of Private Bills, that the parties opposing the Airdrie and Coatbridge Water Bill (Lords) had stated that the evidence of James Wilson, Chairman of the Airdrie and Coatbridge Water Company, was essential to their case; and it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said James Wilson do attend the said Committee on Wednesday, the 7th of June, at 12 o'clock.
  Ordered, that James Wilson do attend the Committee on Group J of Private Bills on Wednesday, the 7th of June, at 12 o'clock.

  PRIVATE BTLLS (GROUP J).
  Sir Henry Fletcher reported from the Committee on Group J of Private Bills, that for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday, the 6th of June, at half-past 11 of the clock. Report to lie upon the Table.
PETITIONS.
  FIRMS REGISTRATION BILL.
  Petition of the Scottish Trade Protection Society, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  GROCERS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND) ABOLITION BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, in favour; to lie upon the Table
  GROUND RENTS (TAXATION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Petition from Luton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Annesley;
  —Aberbeeg;—Llanhilleth;—Aldridge;—Ashmore;—Walsall Wood;—Brownhills;—Holly Bank;—and, Digby Collieries; to lie upon the Table.

  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petition from London, against; to lie upon the Table.

  ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Petitions against establishment;—
  From Cambuslang;—and, Dumbarton; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Liverpool;—Middlesbrough;—and, Bolton; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOPS BILL.
  Petition of the Scottish Trade Protection Society, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL.
  Petition of the Scottish Trade Protection Society, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL.
  Petition from London, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS(PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL.
  Petition of the Scottish Trade Protection Society, against; to lie upon the Table.
  TEMPERANCE REFORM (THREEFOLD OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  FREE TRADE.
  Petition for reciprocity in Free Trade; of Charles Whitmore Stokes, silk manufacturer, London; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
  PUBLIC REVENUE (AGGREGATE RECEIPTS).
  Return [presented 17th May] to be printed. (No. 203.)
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented,—of Minutes of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland providing for the distribution of the sum available for Secondary Education under Section 2 (1) of The Education and Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1892, [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented,—of Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated 18th May, 1899, as to the application of Article 21 and Chapter IX. of the Code of 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889, LOCAL TAXATION (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) ACT, 1890, EDUCATION AND LOCAL TAXATION ACCOUNT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1892, AND AGRICULTURAL RATES, CONGESTED DISTRICTS, AND BURGH LAND TAX RELIEF (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented,—of Returns, showing the Total Payments into and out of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account for the Financial Years 1896–7 and 1897–8 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVIGATION AND SHIPPING.
  Copy presented,—of Annual Statement of Navigation and Shipping of the United Kingdom for the year 1898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (IRELAND), 1877.
  Copy presented,—of Order in Council, dated 13th May, 1899, giving effect to additional Rules of Court [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PATRIOTIC FUND.
  Copy presented,—of Thirty-seventh Report of the Royal Commissioners [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented,—of Report, No. 259 (Bermuda, Annual Report for 1898) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SOUTH AFRICAN REPUBLIC.
  Copy presented,—of Correspondence relating to the Explosives Monopoly in the South African Republic [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EGYPT (No. 4, 1899).
  Copy presented,—of Return showing the Expenditure for Military Operations in the Soudan charged on the Public Revenues of the United Kingdom since January 1883 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  1. Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated 18th May, 1899, as to the application of Article 21 and Chapter IX. of the Code
  of 1899.
  2. Minutes of the Committee of Council
  on Education in Scotland, providing for the distribution of the sum available for
  Secondary Education under Section 2 (1) (b) of the Education and Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1892.

  Thirty-seventh Report of the Royal Commissioners of the Patriotic Fund, 1899.
  Annual Statement of Navigation and Shipping of the United Kingdom, for the year 1898.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889; LOCAL TAXATION (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) ACT, 1890; EDUCATION AND LOCAL TAXATION ACCOUNT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1892.
  Summaries of the total payments into and out of the Local Taxation (Scotland)
  910
  Account, for the financial years 1896–97 and 1897–98.

  EGYPT, No. 4 (1899).
  Return showing the expenditure for Military operations in the Soudan charged on the Public Revenues of the United Kingdom since January, 1883.
  Correspondence relating to the Explosives Monopoly in the South African Republic.
  COLONIES (ANNUAL)—No. 259. BERMUDA: ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1898.
  Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (IRELAND), 1877.
  Order in Council, dated 13th May, 1899, giving effect to additional rules of court.
  PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS.
  Sixteenth Report of the Comptroller-General, with Appendices, for the year 1898; laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.
QUESTIONS.

  MILITIA SERVICE ABROAD.
  GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether, under the provisions of The Reserve Forces and Militia Act, 1898, when 75 per cent, of the men of a Militia battalion volunteer for service abroad, such men as do not volunteer for Foreign service can be compelled to proceed with their battalion, although the terms of their enlistment only bind them to serve at home.
  THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. GEORGE WYNDHAM, Dover): I am obliged to the honourable and gallant Member for giving me an opportunity of correcting my statement of 3rd March. The Army Orders based on 61 and 62 Vict. c. 9 and 45 and 46 Vict. c. 48 give no powers over the 25 per cent, who do not volunteer.

  THE KARENI EXPEDITION.
  CAPTAIN CHALONER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War when it is proposed to grant a medal and other reward to the troops engaged in the Kareni Expedition, in which a large number of British officers and non-commissioned officers were killed or wounded.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The report of the officer in command of the expedition has not yet reached the War Office. When it is received the question of rewards will be considered.

  OVERTIME AT GOVERNMENT FACTORIES.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he could see his way to give the men employed at Waltham, Enfield, and Woolwich the option of working overtime in order to make up for the loss of pay occasioned by the closing of the factories on Whit Monday and Whit Tuesday.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): Recourse to overtime is an undesirable expedient, and is resorted to only in cases of urgency. The practice in question has been abandoned since 1894, with a single exception in the Jubilee year, and the Secretary of State does not propose to revert to it.

  BRIGADE COMMANDS.
  MR. CUBITT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in connection with the new arrangements for the commands of volunteer infantry brigades, it is proposed to divide those brigades which are now composed of battalions drawn from more than one regimental district: and, in these joint brigades, what course it is proposed to pursue with regard to members of the brigade staffs other than the brigadier either in the case of division or otherwise.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There is no present intention to make the areas of Volunteer brigades coincide with the areas of Regimental Districts. The difficulty suggested by the honourable Member will be dealt with in accordance with the circumstances of each case. In reply to the
  912
  second paragraph, the duties of Brigade Major will be performed by an officer on the Depôt Staff whenever such an arrangement can be conveniently made.

  FUZE MANUFACTURE AT. ENFIELD.
  CAPTAIN BOWLES: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, that, as £4,673 has been expended on plant for manufacture of fuze bodies at Enfield, and as the cost of manufacture compares favour-ably with Woolwich, for what reason has a notice to discontinue the manufacture been given.
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The
  arrangements for the manufacture of fuze bodies at Enfield and Woolwich are still under consideration.

  CONVEYANCE OF VOLUNTEERS ON RAILWAYS.
  MR. MALCOLM: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the understanding arrived at with the railway companies as to the conveyance of Volunteers to camp on Saturdays has worked satisfactorily.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am sorry to say that although the majority of the railway companies consented to fulfil the requirements of the Volunteer corps, in two cases recently companies failed to do so. The Midland Railway have declined to run special trains on the 5th August to convey Volunteer battalions of the Western Brigade to Bournemouth, and the arrangements made by the North Western Railway have necessitated the arrival of two Lancashire battalions at Conway on Whit Sunday.
  MR. MALCOLM: Is there any redress obtainable?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I think not. But the Great Western Railway Company quite recently assented to the request of the Secretary of State.

  THE GUARDS BATTALIONS.
  Mr. ARNOLD FORSTEK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what are the circumstances which made it permissible in the public interest to furnish the House with full particulars as to the age and services of

  913
  the men of the 1st Battalion Coldstream Guards on the 17th March last, and which make it impossible in the public interest to furnish similar particulars with regard to men serving in the 2nd Battalion of the same regiment on 1st May last; and will he explain why the Government have now for the first time withheld information of this kind from Parliament.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Perhaps the honourable Member will allow me to answer this question by stating the policy which governs the granting of particulars as to age and service. Such information has not been given for all units except at long intervals and on exceptional grounds; when, for example, our system as a whole has been under consideration, as in the report of Lord Wantage's Committee, or when an extensive reform has been newly sanctioned by the House, as in the case of the Return granted last year. The only other precedent was in 1879. But to enable the House to follow the progress made in raising new battalions the Secretary of State will grant these particulars in respect of the regiments to which battalions are being added.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Will the honourable Gentleman answer the question as to the distinction between the first and second battalions?
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, sir. The honourable Member stated that part of his question in terms which admit of no answer.

  INDIAN FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state when the financial statement, with the proceedings thereon, in the Viceroy's Legislative Council will be placed in the hands of Members.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): In order to save the expense of reprinting, it was arranged last year that copies of the financial statement, with the proceedings in the Legislative Council thereon, should be despatched from India for the use of Members of the House. I have ascertained that the requisite supply is on its way to England, and may be ex-
  914
  pected to be in the hands of Members by about the end of the Whitsuntide recess.

  COST OF TROOPS IN INDIA.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state what number of the 258,010, appearing on the Estimates for 1899–1900 as forming the regular Army, are at the present time stationed in India, and are paid for out of the Indian Revenue; and what is the total amount charged to India on account of the troops referred to.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Of the 256,010 men appearing on the Estimates for 1899–1900 as forming the regular Army, 73,157 are on the Indian establishment, and the whole of their pay, food, clothing, and other charges, including transport to and from India, is defrayed from Indian revenues. The Estimates do not admit of an accurate separation of the charges under all heads, for the European and the Native forces; but in a return given to Parliament a few years ago (No. 20, of 1894) Rs. 891 was given as the average annual cost of a British soldier in India. Taking this rate, the cost of those men would be about 650 lakhs of rupees, or (at 1s. 4d. the rupee) £4,333,000. Perhaps the rate may now be somewhat higher. This is exclusive of a payment of £548,700 (or £7 10s. per head) to the War Office for depot and recruiting charges in this country, and of the cost of deferred pay and pensions.

BOMBAY INSOLVENCY COURT.
SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he could state what is the total cost of the establishment maintained by the clerk of the Insolvency Court, at Bombay, out of his fees; and, if, as stated by the Secretary of State for India, the clerk pays the cost of the establishment out of his fees, he could explain why Rs.4,438 per annum is shown in the Civil Estimates, 1897–8, Vol. II., Bombay, page 78, as paid by the Government for the establishment of the clerk of the Insolvency Court.
LORD G. HAMILTON: The total cost of the establishment maintained by the clerk of the Insolvency Court at Bombay out of his fees was stated in 1895 at Rs.2,194 per annum. This is in addition to

915
the sum of Rs.4,374 (in 1895) contributed by Government. I did not state in my previous answer that the clerk paid the cost of the whole establishment out of his fees. What I said was that out of the fees he receives "he meets certain charges for establishment."

OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE AT BOMBAY.
SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he is aware that the official assignee in Bombay is paid by commissions and fees, averaging about Rs.3,000 per mensem, and the cost of his establishment, about Rs.3,200 per annum, is paid by Government; and, whether, considering that the Finance Committee of 1886 recommended, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice, that the salary of the official assignee should be Rs.1,000 per mensem, and that the commissions and fees should be credited to Government, he is now prepared to give effect to that recommendation.
LORD G. HAMILTON: I believe it is true that for the three years ending in January, 1894, the average receipts of the official assignee were about Rs.3,000 per mensem, but this was owing to exceptional circumstances. In the year 1895–6 the average receipts were only Rs.1,125 per mensem. I cannot at such short notice give in detail the reasons why the recommendations of the Finance Committee have not been acted upon; but I think it probable that the matter has been held over pending the passing into law of the Insolvency Bill, which has only recently been abandoned; on this as on the other similar matter about which the honourable Baronet questioned me on the 11th instant, I will communicate with the Government of Bombay.

CHITRAL.
SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether it has been decided to reduce the garrison at Chitral; whether he will consider the advisability of withdrawing this garrison altogether from Chitral and Gilgit; and, if he could state what saving would be effected by such withdrawal.
LORD G. HAMILTON: My answer to the first clause of this question is in the affirmative. As to the possibility of with-
916
drawing the garrison altogether, I can only say that no proposal of that kind is before me, nor can I give any undertaking of the kind which the honourable Baronet desires. I am not able, without a reference to India, to state accurately what saving would be effected by such withdrawal.

INDIAN SUGAR IMPORTS.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is yet in a position to give the House the figures for the imports of sugar into India for the 12 months ending March, 1899, specifying the different countries of origin.
LORD G. HAMILTON: I have as yet received from India no trade statistics later than those for February, 1899; but I expect to receive the final volume for the financial year in the course of a week or a fortnight.

SIERRA LEONE.
MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the whole number of the natives who were recently tried on capital charges in Sierra Leone; how many of these were left without professional assistance in their defence, how many of the undefended prisoners were convicted, and how many have been executed; whether it is the long-established practice of the Colonial Office to provide natives tried on capital charges with professional assistance; if so, why was this practice departed from in the recent cases; and, why was not Chief Doonahay afforded an opportunity of obtaining funds for his defence.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I understand that 229 natives were tried; of these 77 were undefended, of whom 62 were convicted, and of these 33 were executed. The Colonial Government endeavoured in every case to obtain counsel for the prisoners, but the local practitioners were unwilling to be engaged and it was found impossible to provide for the defence in all cases. It does not appear that Doomabey (not Doonahay) expressed any desire to obtain funds for his defence.
MR. DAVITT: May I ask if interpreters were employed to explain to the accused the evidence brought against them?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no doubt interpreters were employed, but if a positive reply is wanted the honourable Member must put a question upon the Paper.
SIR W. LAWSON: With what were the prisoners charged?
MR.J. CHAMBERLAIN: With murder under circumstances of the grossest character.
MR. PICKERSGILL:Why did the local practitioners object to appear for the prisoners?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN:The local practitioners were natives, and they declined to appear, but way I cannot say.

BRITISH SUBJECTS IN THE TRANSVAAL.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether British subjects in the Transvaal can acquire the rights of citizenship in the South African Republic without thereby forfeiting their allegiance to Her Majesty and all their privileges as British subjects; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will use their influence with the British Uitlanders to dissuade them from abandoning their allegiance to the British Crown.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first question is contained in Lord Ripon's despatch, p. 92, C. 7,933, and is in the negative. Her Majesty's Government have never dissuaded Her Majesty's subjects from obtaining naturalisation in foreign countries where they intend to reside.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS: Have the Government ever taken any steps in the matter either way?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No; certainly not.

THE TRANSVAAL DYNAMITE CONCESSION.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Mr. Westlake, Q.C., and other leading internationalist jurists are of opinion that the Transvaal Dynamite Concession is not an infringement of the London Convention; whether he sought any and what legal advice before complaining of the Concession as contravening the Convention; and, whether Her Majesty's present and every former Government acquiesced in the Concession without complaint from its original grant in 1882 until after the Jameson Raid in 1896; and, if not, when complaint was first made.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have observed a letter in the Spectator from Mr. Westlake to this effect. The action of Her Majesty's Government was taken upon the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown. Her Majesty's Government were not made aware at the time of the first Concession in 1882 and are now not aware of its terms. The Concession granted in 1887 was brought to the notice of Her Majesty's Government in 1891, and upon this, representations were made to the Government of the South African Republic and the Concession was cancelled. The present monopoly dates from 1893 and is nominally a State monopoly. The reasons why Her Majesty's Government have only recently protested against it are given in the Papers shortly to be distributed.
MR. COURTNEY: Can the right honourable Gentleman say when discovery was made of the last arrangement?
J. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the right honourable Gentleman will put that question down.
MR. DILLON: How soon will the Papers be distributed?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Circumstances change so quickly that I have some difficulty. I hoped to distribute them after Whitsuntide, but I am afraid now they may be some time.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS: Can the right honourable Gentleman say when complaint was first made?
No answer was given.

THE BLOEMFONTEIN CONFERENCE.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information in regard to the proposed conference between President Kruger and Sir A. Milner.
Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The President of the Orange Free State has invited Sir Alfred Milner to Bloemfontein to meet President Kruger. Sir A. Milner, with my approval, has accepted the invitation with the earnest hope of arriving at a satisfactory settlement, and as a proof of the desire of Her Majesty's Government to maintain cordial relations with the South African Republic, and the meeting will take place for the purpose of discussing the situation and with a view of arriving at such an arrangement as Her Majesty's Government could accept and recommend to the Uitlander population as a reasonable concession to their just demands, and a settlement of the difficulties which have threatened the good relations which Her Majesty's Government desire should constantly exist between themselves and the Government of the South African Republic. I understand that President Kruger has stated that the terms of Sir A. Milner's reply go further than his intention, but that he remains disposed to go to Bloemfontein and will gladly discuss every proposal in a friendly way that can conduce to a good understanding between the South African Republic and England, and to the maintenance of peace in South Africa, provided that the independence of the Republic is not impugned. I understand that the meeting will probably take place on Tuesday the 30th May.

PEKIN-HAN KAU RAILWAY.
MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state, either exactly or approximately, the point at which the I railway now under construction from Pekin to Hankau will enter the area referred to as the basin of the Yang-tsze in the Anglo-Russian Agreement.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,: The railway from Pekin to Hankau will enter the area referred to at the basin of the Yang-tsze in the Anglo-Russian Agreement at the point in the province of Honan where it crosses the watershed of the Yang-tsze.

THE YANG-TSZE BASIN.
Mr. JOSEPH WALTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to secure the delimitation of the northern boundary of the basin of the Yang-tsze, referred to in the Anglo-Russian Agreement.
Mr. BRODRICK: As already stated by mo in this House, the Yang-tsze basin has been defined as the provinces bordering on the river and Honan and Chekiang. No delimitation appears necessary.

DUTIES ON IMPORTS INTO CHINA.
MR. MOON: On behalf of the honourable Member for Chester I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether goods imported into China by rail from Port Arthur and from that portion of Talienwan which is to be reserved for the exclusive use of Russian and Chinese ships will come under Clause 3, section (H), Sub-sections (c) and (d), of the Agreement between Russia and China for the construction of the Manchurian Railway, which provide that goods imported from Russia into China by rail shall pay an import Chinese duty to the extent of one-third less as compared with the duty imposed at Chinese seaport custom-houses and if destined for conveyance inland shall in such case be subject to payment of transit duty to the extent of one-half of the import duty levied on them, which payment shall free them from any additional imposts; and, whether, seeing that the charge for transit duty, in addition to the five per cent. Customs duty on British goods imported into the interior of China through the Treaty Ports is two and a half per cent, ad calorem, the result of the concession made to Russia will be to give Russian goods imported into China by rail from Port Arthur or the Russian portion of Talienwan an advantage of two and a half per cent, ad valorem over British goods imported into the interior of China through the Treaty Ports.
MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's Government are not aware that the Russian Government have claimed for goods which may be imported into China by rail from Port Arthur and from that portion of Talienwan which is to be reserved for the exclusive use of Russian and Chinese ships the advantages conferred by the subsections mentioned. Enquiry will be made at Pekin as to the truth of the report. If those advantages were given to the goods in question the result would be as stated by the honourable Member.

TALIENWAN.
MR. MOON: On behalf of the honourable Member for Chester I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a competent police administration has yet been established at Talienwan; and, if so, whether passports can now be dispensed with as promised by Count Mouravieff on the 15th June last.
MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's Government have not yet heard of the establishment of a competent police administration at Talienwan.
MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Customs service for the purpose of organising which the Russian Chargé d'Affaires left Pekin on the 22nd June last, has yet been established; and if so, whether part of Talienwan will be opened to foreign trade, as promised by Count Mouravieff on the 15th June last.
MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's Government have not yet heard of the establishment of a Customs service at Talienwan, but they await a further communication from the Russian Government.

DISTRESS AT VAN.
MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government are able to confirm the statements made on the authority of the Commissioners of the Grosvenor House Committee in Kurdistan, that the supply of grain in the vilayet of Van is practically in the hands of a syndicate of merchants, who by hoarding the grain are artificially
922
raising prices; and whether, in view of the distress prevailing in that province amongst the agricultural population, the British Ambassador at Constantinople has been able to induce the Turkish Government to adopt remedial measures at Van.
MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's Vice-Consul at Van has mentioned in despatches the hoarding of wheat by local merchants in the hopes of a further rise in price, and he reported in February that the Vali had forced the sale of these stores of wheat. Her Majesty's Ambassador lost no time in calling the attention of the Turkish Foreign Minister to the distress in the vilayet of Van, and expressed his hope that the necessary assistance would be afforded. In March Captain Maunsell reported that the Government had allotted a sum of £2,000 for the distribution of seed in the vilayet, that a mixed Commission had been appointed, and that relief work was progressing favourably.

OUTRAGE ON A BRITISH MISSIONARY AT FUNCHAL.
ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Consul at Funchal, Madeira, has been called upon to report on the alleged outrage said to have been committed upon a British missionary (Mr. Jefferd) in April last, at the instigation of the Roman Catholic vicar of San Antonio, who is reported to have harangued a mob of some thousand persons, and as a consequence a body of some 200 men, with swords and knives and stones, proceeded to attack the residence of the missionary in question, one of the inmates being stabbed, and Mr. Jefferd being compelled to hide himself to save his life; whether the British Consul at Funchal has been appealed to by the friends of Mr. Jefferd for protection, but in vain; and, whether Her Majesty's Secretary of State has made any representations to the Portuguese Government for redress; and, meanwhile, will instructions be sent to the Consul to afford all the protection in ins power to safeguard the missionary from further molestation.
MR. BRODRICK: On news of this case reaching Her Majesty's Government Her Majesty's Consul at Funchal was at

923
once instructed to report upon it, and from the statement which he sent home it appears that he took all proper steps for the protection of Mr. Jefferd. He will naturally continue to afford him his protection. In reply to representations made by Her Majesty's Minister at Lisbon the Portuguese Government have stated that one of the rioters was at once arrested, and that steps have been taken for the prosecution of any others who can be traced. Her Majesty's Minister at Lisbon has further received instructions to draw the attention of the Portuguese Government to the language used by the Roman Catholic vicar of San Antonio in his address previous to the attack on Mr. Jefferd, which if correctly reported, appears to be a direct incitement to murderous assault.

RUSSIAN DEMANDS ON CHINA.
MR. GRETTON:I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether he can give any further information with regard to the demand made by Russia for a concession to construct a railway to Pekin.
MR. BRODRICK: We have been making inquiry, but we have not yet been able to ascertain what course it is proposed that the line should follow.

LABOUR DEPARTMENT STAFF.
COLONEL DALBIAC: I beg to ask the President of the Board
of Trade whether two of the personal clerks likely to be promoted to the staff of the Labour Department of the Board of Trade are receiving £140 per annum.
whereas established abstractors of nearly 20 years' service are receiving but £110; and, whether, if these promotions are sanctioned, these men will receive the same salaries they are now receiving, on promotion, viz., £140 per annum; and, if so, will he provide that the men now no the establishment, of longer service, shall receive the same rate of pay.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): Two personal clerks in the Labour Department of the Board of Trade are about to be placed on the establishment at their existing salaries of £140. I cannot properly enter into comparisons between
924
the relative merits of officers in the Department, which is a very large one. These merits are carefully weighed whenever promotions or appointments are considered. The answer to the last part of the question is "No."

COMPANIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL
MR. FAITHFULL BEGG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can now state when the Companies Acts Amendment Bill will be brought down to this House for consideration.
MR. RITCHIE: No, sir the Select Committee on the Bill have not yet finished their labours.

POSTMEN'S LEAVE.
MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, is he aware that it is very difficult for officers of the Postmen's Federation at Edinburgh to obtain special leave of absence to attend to business of the Federation elsewhere; whether the Controller at Edinburgh or the Secretary for Scotland has the power to grant leave without the consent of the Secretary in London; whether he is aware that a man who applied on the 31th March last for leave on the 7th and 8th April received no reply till the night of the 7th, one of the days asked for being then past; and, whether he will make inquiries into the ease.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY, Preston): The Postmaster-General is not aware of the great difficulty referred to. On the contrary, whenever special leave to attend the meetings of the Postmen's Federation is asked for it is allowed, provided no inconvenience is caused to the public service. Such applications are referred to headquarters in London for sanction. The postman Holmes who applied for special leave for the 7th and 8th ultimo to proceed to Glasgow to audit the accounts of the Postmen's Gazette, was given leave, but his application could not be dealt with immediately; and the authority was sent by telegraph on the 7th ultimo. I may point out also that the Easter holidays intervened.

SUB-POSTMASTERS ANN RURAL POSTMEN.
MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether it is in accordance with the rules of the Department for a rural postman to act as assistant to a sub-postmaster situated at the outward end of his journey, especially if the assistance can be rendered without interference with the postman's duty and during the period of waiting before commencing his return journey.
MR. HANBURY: The rules of the Department do not forbid a rural postman to render assistance to a sub-postmaster in his private business so long as it does not interfere with the proper performance of his own duty. It is not, however, desirable that any part of the official duty assigned to a sub-postmaster should be performed by a rural postman as the foreman has to keep an exact check over everything done.
MR. STEADMAN: May I ask if a sub-postmaster can compel a rural postman to assist him in his private business without payment.
MR. HANBURY: I should certainly say not.

SEVEN DAY NEWSPAPERS.
MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he is aware of the recent action of the Highways Committee of the London County Council in ceasing to advertise on behalf of the Council in the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail; if his attention has been drawn to a unanimous resolution of the Battersea Vestry in which they deprecated the issue of seven-day newspapers as being fraught with serious industrial consequences to the working classes, and therefore determined to discontinue the purchase of those papers for the libraries of the parish until their Sunday issue ceases, and to affix copies of the resolution in the places of those papers in their public libraries; and, whether, in view of this and the similar action of other public bodies, and further, with the object of giving practical effect to the approval expressed by the Home Secretary on the part of the Government to the deputation which he received protesting against a seven-day
926
issue of newspapers, he will consider the propriety of discontinuing all Government advertisements in these papers. I may mention that since I put this question on the Paper it has become inapplicable to the Daily Mail, owing to the proprietor having ceased Am Sunday issue. May I point out, with reference to the action of public bodies upon this question, that such action has seriously diminished the circulation of the Daily Telegraph.
MR. HANBURY: It does not rest with the Treasury, but with the responsible heads of the Departments concerned, to make a final selection of the newspapers in which their advertisements shall appear. I can only say that, if the circulation of any seven-day paper should diminish in consequence of the withdrawal of advertisements, the question of employing it for Treasury advertisements might have to be re-considered.

COST OF POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK ADMINISTRATION.
SIR JAMES RANKIN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, what is the cost per £100 of deposits of the management of the Savings Bank Department.
MR. HANBURY: The rate per cent. of expenses of management of the Post Office Savings Bank to the total amount standing to the credit of depositors was in 1897 7s. 9¼d., if the amount expended on buildings during the year be included, and 7s. 6¾d. if that amount be omitted, but interest thereon added at the rate of 5 per cent. The rate per cent. of expenses of management for the year 1898 cannot yet be stated, but will, it is estimated, be slightly less than in 1897.

METROPOLITAN POLICE—LODGINGS FOR MARRIED CONSTABLES.
CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Home Secretary in 1890 stated that he was giving consideration to the question of lodgings for the married tint of the Metropolitan police stationed in the highly-rented inner divisions; and, whether, seeing that since 1890 the difficulty and expense of obtaining lodgings in a respectable neighbourhood has greatly increased, he will make renewed

927
efforts with a view to giving some relief to police constables, who, owing to the nature of their duties, are unable to take advantage of the cheaper rents prevailing; in certain suburban districts.
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY, Lancs, Blackpool): I am aware that my predecessor considered the question referred to, and stated that he was doing so, but he did not see his way to take any action in the direction indicated by the honourable and gallant Member,and I am afraid I lied myself in the same position.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.
MR. J. WALTON: On behalf of the honourable Member for the Normanton Division, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, among other doctors of indemnity societies, one Dr. Macphail, of Barnsley, especially assumes that he has power, under the Compensation Act, 1897, to insist upon patients submitting themselves for examination at his office or surgery at Barnsley, and in cases where workmen have been injured, writes to them that they must so attend on certain days and at certain times; whether this or any other doctor can, under the Act, order any injured work man to attend his office or surgery for the purpose of examination, seeing that he is an insurance or an indemnity association officer; and, if such action the port of a doctor is a violation of the Act, what steps he will take to prevent such practices in future.
SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I have
not, heard of the case referred to. I presume that the honourable Member is referring to cases in which a workman has given notice of an accident or is in receipt of a weekly payment. In these cases the Act requires a workman to "submit himself for examination" by a medical practitioner provided by the employer or by an insurance society. It is impossible for me to lay down any general rule as to when and how this obligation should be fulfilled, and I have no power to interfere in the matter.

THE PEN TRADE.
MR. J. G. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Secretary of
928
State for the Home Department whether he has received applications for the making of an order for particulars (under the Act (58 & 59 Vict., c. 37) relating to the pen trade; and, if so, whether he is prepared favourably to consider such applications.
SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I have not received any such application; but in consequence of complaints which reached the inspectors inquiries are now being made with regard to "particulars" in the pen trade.

FRUIT PRESERVING INDUSTRY.
MR. J. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can hold out hopes that
a measure dealing with the fruit preserving industry, On which he has declared
legislation to be necessary, will be introduced during the present session.
SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I am afraid that I can only say that a measure has been prepared which embraces amendments of the Factory Law relating to the fruit preserving industry; but in the present state of public business I c]fan make no definite statement with regard to it.

TREATMENT OF FEEBLE-MINDED CHILDREN.
MR. FLOWER: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education what progress has been made with the Bill dealing with feeble-minded children which he stated to be in course of preparation, and when it will be introduced.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST, Cambridge University): The Bill referred to by the honourable Member is in an advanced state of preparation. I am unable to say when it will be introduced.

SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM STAFF.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Civil Service examination announced to be held on 13th December last, to fill a vacancy in the position of assistant in the South Kensington Museum (Art Branch) was actually held, and, if so, who the

929
successful candidates were and why the usual announcement of the result was not published in the Gazette; and in case such examination was not held, will he explain whether, and how, the vacancy in question was filled up.
SIR JOHN GORST: I understand that the examination announced for the 13th December was held by the Civil Service Commissioners, and that on the result of it the vacancy in the position of assistant in the South Kensington Museum was filled. I have no information as to who the other candidates were, or why the result was not published in the Gazette.

CONSTITUTION HILL.
MR. GALLOWAY: On behalf of the honourable Member for Cheltenham I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if his attention has been called to the condition of Constitution Hill almost nightly after dusk, and if he can see his way to improve the lighting of this thoroughfare, and to have the police supervision increased.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): According to the statement I made in the discussion on the Estimates, my attention has been given to the matter of improved lighting on Constitution Hill, anti my honourable and gallant friend will see that new lamps have already been put up there. The question of police supervision is not under my control, but I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that there is a constable on duty at night at each end of the road and also in the middle, whilst a mounted officer is continually on patrol duty.

SCOTTISH BAIT SUPPLIES.
SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the Scottish line fishermen have for some years suffered much loss and inconvenience from want of a cheap and plentiful supply of mussels for bait; and that in 1898, as compared with 1897, the supply of mussels from Scottish beds has declined by about 30 per cent.; and whether, looking to the cost, waste, and inconvenience involved in bringing mussels from the Continent, the Government will take such steps as will enable local mussel beds to be established, as
930
contemplated in Section 13 of the Sea Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Act, 1895, to supply in each locality the bait without which this national industry cannot be carried on.
THE LORD ADVOCATE. (Mr. A. G. MURRAY,: I am informed by the Fishery Board that the supply is not the sole determining factor in accounting for the diminution referred to in the question. The demand for bait is at least an equally contributory cause, and that varies according to the success of the white fishing for which the bait is required, and according to the supply of fresh herrings which, as bait, is preferred to mussels, the latter seldom being used when the former can be obtained. With reference to the importation of foreign mussels, the quantity imported has been failing off for some time. Within the last three years there has been a decrease of over 40 per cent. The Board up to the present time have done all they can to enable local mussel beds to be established, but it must be borne in mind that few localities round the coast of Scotland lend themselves to the cultivation of mussels.

DR. LAMONT.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the Sheriff Clerk Depute at Lochmaddy, in reply to a letter from Dr. Lamont's agent desiring to know whether the warrant for Dr. Lamont's arrest, dated 10th September, 1898, was signed on the date it bears, has replied, acknowledging receipt, and begging to refer the writer to the Crown Office; whether the warrant dated 10th September, 1898, was actually signed on that date; and whether the issue of the warrant was duly recorded in the Sheriff Court books on 10th September; or, if not, when was it so recorded.
MR. A. G. MURRAY: I am Hot aware of the statements made in the first paragraph of the question, lint I accept them from the honourable Member. In reply to the second paragraph, I am not aware of any reason to doubt that the warrant was signed on the date it bears; and in reply to the third paragraph, I have no information, but will inquire and privately inform the honourable Member.

DR. QUARRIER'S ORPHAN HOMES.
SIR. CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether he is aware that some thousand children of school age in the district of Kilmalcolm, having been formally refused admission to the public school, have for some week been receiving no education; that this state of matters has arisen from the closing, in consequence of the levying of local rates on the orphan homes of Scotland, of the school in connection with these house in which, without any charge on the rates, the children in question have until recently been educated; and that Mr. Quarrier is willing to resume his work of education if freed from the burden of rates; and, if so, whether he will bring the present deadlock to an end by undertaking to legislate for the exemption of purely charitable institutions from local rates; or, if not, whether he will take steps to compel the school board to provide education for the children in respect of the buildings occupied by whom they exact rates.
MR. A. MURRAY: The Department is now in correspondence with the school board on the subject referred to in the question of the honourable Member, and in these circumstances it is undesirable that I should make any statement regarding, it. The matter will receive the careful attention of the Department, but the Government cannot undertake to deal with it by special legislation.

THE SCOTTISH EDUCATION GRANT.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer how it is that under the Estimates for the present year the cost of keeping up the 12s. capitation grant for Scotland comes to£5,000, instead of £26,000, as estimated by himself and the Lord Advocate during the discussion of the Education (Scotland) Bill in 1897; and, whether he will credit Scotland with the difference, namely, a sum of about £21,000.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS-BEACH, Bristol, W.): The Lord Advocate has already explained why the full amount which may be required in future years for keeping the capitation grant for Scotland up to 12s. will not be necessary this year. I do not understand what the honourable Member means by crediting Scotland
932
with the difference; it was always stated that the matter was not and could be dealt with the matter was not and could not be dealt with on the basis of equivalent grants.
DR. CLARK: Will the sum received in future be a lessening or increasing amount—will it progress as fast as the children do?
MR. BUCHANAN: Is it not a fact that two years ago the House was informed by the Government that £66,000 in all would be given to Scotland, whereas only £41,000 is being given.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: No promise of any fixed sum was ever made, but an estimate was given of the probable cost of making the change in the educational system for that year. No pledge was given as to future years.

COUNTY MONAGHAN MAGISTRACY,
MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he will agree to the Return as to magistrates in county Monaghan, which stands on this day's Paper.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): There have been eight appointments to the Commission of the Peace in county Monaghan since the 18th June, 1897, of whom six are Protestants and two Roman Catholics. A list containing the names of these gentlemen, with the dates of their appointment, and particulars as to their profession or occupation, can be supplied to the honourable Member, if he desires it; but it would be contrary to practice to specify the religious denominations of individual Justices of the Peace, and the Government are not prepared to consent to a formal return of such small dimensions.

IRISH EDUCATIONAL FEE GRANTS.
MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether any application has been received by the Treasury from Mr. Thomas O'Donoghue, late teacher under the National Board of Education in Ireland, for arrears of fee grant due to him for the years 1893, 1894, and 1895; and, whether steps will be taken to investigate this claim, and to satisfy it if it is found to be a just one.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: An application of the kind referred to in the Question has been made; but it is part of the general subject, and can only be treated as such. I stated last year the conditions under which I was prepared to make a proposal to parliament; but, so far from those conditions having been fulfilled, the teachers are at present in litigation with the Government about the new rules.

CURRACROW POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS
MR. DAVITTI beg to ask the secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain why it is that letters were sent from Holly-mount, South Mayo, to Curracrow up to the beginning of last April, and have since ceased to be delivered in the ordinary way; and, whether, as the district around Curracrow is a populous one, he will take into consideration the claims of the inhabitants to have their letters delivered direct as heretofore.
Mr. HANBURY: With the view of extending the house-to-house delivery in the Hollymount district the question of revising the postal arrangements in the neighbourhood of Curracrow has recently been under enquiry, and, owing to a misunderstanding on the part of the local officials, the foot post from Hollymount to Curracrow was temporarily discontinued. The service was, however, resumed on the 8th instant.

ULSTER SUB-COMMISSIONERS.
MR. M'CARTANI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether be is aware that the Sub-Commissioners at present working in Ulster have declared that they cannot fix fair rents in cases where the valuations for the standard year on houses and land have not been lodged with or given to the Court; whether he can state how many applications have been made by solicitors for the tenants and by others for certificates of such valuations and as yet unattended to; whether he will take into consideration the desirability of suggesting to the Land Commission the propriety of having such certificates furnished to the different Sub-Commissions in respect of the holdings mentioned in the fair rent
934
applications in their lists for hearing; and, whether Ordnance Survey maps are at present furnished to the Sub-Commissioners in the same way for the convenience of the Court and the parties.
Mr. G. W. BALFOUR: With regard to the first and third paragraphs, I am informed that some inconvenience has been experienced by a few of the Sub-Commissioners owing to their not having had before them, at the hearing in Court, certificates of the revised valuation of each holding in the standard year. Arrangements were made some time ago to supply them with these certificates from the general valuation office, and they are being issued as quickly as possible. The Land Commission have applied for certificates in 2,570 cases; of these 1,170 have been issued and the remainder will be in their hands before the end of the month. 2,500 certificates have been applied for by solicitors and others, of which 2,250 have been issued, and as to the balance, 100 cases await further particulars for identification, and the remaining 150 will issue before Saturday next. With reference to the last paragraph, it is the fact that ordnance sheets, in blank, are supplied to Assistant Commissioners, who mark on the sheets the boundaries of the holding as pointed out to them at the inspection.

NEWCASTLE (CO. DOWN) PIER AND HARBOUR WORKS.
MR. M'CARTANI beg to ask the Secretary to tile Treasury whether the loan promised by the Treasury will be forthcoming for constructing and completing Newcastle (County Down) pier and harbour works in case the County Council adopt the suggestion made by the Treasury as to supplementing the advance promised by the Treasury.
MR HANBURY:The original offer of the Treasury, which contemplated a grant (not a loan) of £5,000 on certain conditions, was frustrated by certain legal difficulties which may have been modified by the Irish Local Government Act of last session. I cannot give any detailed undertaking until a definite proposal from the County Council comes before the Treasury; but I may say in general terms that the offer of 1896 is still Open.

MR.HENN,R.M.
MR. DILLON:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the Ballintoghe Petty Sessions on Wednesday, 10th May, Mr. Henn, R.M., insisted on taking the chair, and when his claim to that the chair was resisted, succeeded in getting the petty Sessions adjourned; and, whether any notice will be taken by the Executive of the proccedings of Mr. Henn on that occasion.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: On the occasion referred to, the honourable Member for North Leitrim insisted on retaining the Chair, although Mr. Henn was voted into that position by the majority of the Magistrates present. As the honourable Member for North Leitrim declined to make way for Mr. Henn the Petty Sessions Court was adjourned, again by a vote of the majority of the Magistrates present. There is nothing in the action of Mr. Henn calling for the notice of the Executive.
MR. DILLON: Is it not the fact that the majority consisted of Mr. Henn, who seconded his own nomination, and then moved the adjournment of the Court?
Mr. G. W. BALFOUR: The bench consisted of three magistrates, and Mr. Henn was one of the two who formed the majority.
MR. DILLON: Am I to understand that the Executive approve of this conduct on the part of an executive officer?
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: As I have said, I see nothing in the action calling for the notice of the Executive.

IRISH CHURCH FUND.
MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Land Commission was consulted by the Irish Government as to the provisions of the Tithe Rent-Charge Bill and the condition of the Church Fund before the Bill was introduced; whether any correspondence has passed between the Treasury, the Land Commission, and the Irish Government on this subject; if; any correspondence has passed, whether he will lay it
upon the Table of the House.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The Land Commission, as such, has not been formally consulted by the Irish Government on the Tithe Rent charge Bill, but full information has been placed at the disposal of the Irish Government by the office of the Land Commission. All communications that have passed on this subject are of a confidential character, and I cannot consent to lay them on the table of the House.

MOUNT BELLEW UNION.
MR. JOHN ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the Killcroran division of Mount Bellew Union the rateable value of the lands in the hands of small tenants is under £1 per head of population, and that there are in the division considerable tracts of grass lands; and, whether he will consider the desirability of having the division scheduled as a congested area.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The facts may be as stated in the first paragraph. The electoral division referred to is not, however, a congested area within the meaning of the 36th Section of the 54th and 55th Vict. cap. 48, and there is no legal power to schedule it as such.
MR. DILLON: Will the Irish Government consider the advisability of introducing some modification of the Act to enable it to be done?
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: As at present, advised I do not think it desirable.

AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION BILL (IRELAND).
MR. AUSTIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the importance of the Ireland and the distinctive character of the legislative and other condition relating to them respectively, the Government are prepared to make provision for the subject of technical instruction being separately dealt with by an officer of the Department, acting under the advice of the Board of Technical Instruction proposed to be created by the Bill.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: If the honourable Member does not think that sufficient account has been taken in the Bill of the distinctive character of agricultural as contrasted with manufacturing industries, it will be open to him to raise the question on the Second Reading of the measure, or in Committee.

COUNTY ANTRIM CONSTABULARY.
MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the action of County Inspector Scott, in promoting Protestant constables over Roman Catholics, has produced discontent in the ranks of the Country Antrim Constabulary; whether he can state how many Roman Catholics have either left the force altogether or applied for transfers to other counties since Mr. Scott's appointment in 1897; and, will he confer with Sir Andrew Reid, Inspector-General, in order to redress the balance in the County Antrim Force.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR:: I am not aware that any discontent has been produced, as alleged, in the ranks of the County Antrim Constabulary. The number of men serving in the county who have left the force since Mr. Scott's appointment in 1897 is as follows: —

Roman Catholics.

Protestants.

Pensioned

11

11

Resigned

4

2

Applied for transfer to other counties

33

25

Of the four Roman Catholics who resigned, two did so to save themselves from dismissal. The county force consisted of 258 men at the end of last year, of whom 132 were Roman Catholics and 126 were Protestants. Promotions in Antrim, as elsewhere, are not regulated by considerations of religion, and the claims of all deserving constables are considered quite irrespective of their religious views.

NEWBLISS MAILS.
MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the
Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the English and late Dublin letters, which arrive at Newbliss about 8.40 a.m., lie in the post office till 11 a.m.; whether an additional postman has been appointed at Newbliss; and, if so, what are his duties and salary; and seeing that Newbliss is a town of about 100 houses altogether,
938
what difficulty is there in the way of having the 8.40 a.m. mails delivered immediately on their arrival.
MR. HANBURY:: It is the fact that the English and late Dublin letters which arrive at Newbliss about 8.40 a.m. lie in the post office till 11 a.m. The explanation is that the mail from Belfast containing the Scotch and North of Ireland letters does not arrive until the latter hour, and a combined delivery is then made. An additional auxiliary postman has recently been appointed at Newbliss. His duties consist in making two deliveries of letters in and about Newbliss, and in fetching the Belfast morning mail from the station. His pay is 6s. a week with 5d. additional for Sunday duty. If the English and Dublin late letters were delivered immediately after their arrival at 8.40 a.m., the North of Ireland and Scotch letters would have to be called for by the public at the post office, as a third delivery by postman would not be justified.

SUPPRESSION OF PUBLIC MEETINGS IN COUNTY MAYO.
MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the suppression of the meeting; at Breaffy, county Mayo, on Sunday last was based upon an information sworn by some person that such meeting, if held, would lead to intimidation; and whether he can say if such information was sworn by a police officer or by a civilian.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The proclamation which was issued prohibiting the bolding of this meeting was based upon an information sworn by the district Inspector of Constabulary. This information was to
the effect that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, that the meeting would cause a breach of the peace and tranquility of the neighbourhood and would lead to boycotting and intimidation.
MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-land how many public meetings announced to be held, in the usual way of popular demonstrations, have been proclaimed and suppressed in the county of Mayo during the past twelve months: and if he can state whether such action by the

939
police authorities has in each instance been ordered by the Executive in Dublin, or was taken on the initiative of the resident magistrates in the county.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Five meetings of the United Irish League have been prohibited in the county of Mayo during the past twelve months. The direction to prevent these meetings was given in each case by the Executive Government.

IRISH CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARDS
MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, what is the total amount of money now at the disposal annually of the Congested Districts Board for the furtherance of the labours of that body; if he can state the sum which has been added this year, and for future annual outlay, to the previous yearly income of the Board; and, whether a portion of this total yearly revenue, and it so, how much, is specifically intended for the work of bettering or enlarging small holdings in congested areas.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The Board's ordinary income is £41,250 per annum, being interest on the Church Surplus Grant, exclusive of assistance out of valid moneys to the extent of about £6,000 towards the cost of administration. In addition to these amounts the Board administration (chiefly for loans) two fishery funds, the capital value of which at present is about £40,000. In reply to the second paragraph, I would refer the honourable Member to the statement already made by me in the debate on an Amendment to the Address at the beginning of this session. The future annual income of the Board will be increased by a sum of between £18,000 and £19,000 a year, but this provision will have to be made by Bill, and I Cannot state at present Whether any of the additional income will begin to accrue before the commencement of the next financial year. No portion of the yearly revenue of the Board is specifically allocated to the paragraph. In the speech already alluded to I explained the further facilities which the Board will in future enjoy by the placing of floating capital at its disposal. The money for the purchase of estates is obtained by advances of land stock from the Land Commission.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. PICKERSGILL: Does the First Lord intend by moving the suspension of the twelve o'clock Rule, to secure the passing of the London Government Bill through Committee before the House rises?
MR. THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I had not contemplated so horrible a prospect as that of an all-night sitting over the London Government Bill in Committee, nor do I see that there is any reasonable prospect of that Bill not being got over in very good time. It, is solely in that belief that I shall ask the House to suspend the twelve o'clock Rule, and I think everybody will join with me in seeing the great inconvenience of keeping half a page of the Bill over to be dealt with after the Holiday. I think We ought to finish it to-night.
MR. COURTNEY: In the event of the Committee stage of the Bill being finished to-night, can the right honourable Gentleman state the day when he proposes to take the Report stage, or a day before which the Report stage will not be taken?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall not take the Report stage of the Bill before the 5th June in the case.
MR. CALDWELL: What Supply will be taken to-morrow?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Objection has been taken to our dealing with the Customs Vote to-morrow, and therefore the Inland Revenue Vote will be the first Order. I have already intimated what other Votes will be taken, including Votes in Class 2.
MR. CALDWELL: Is the right honourable Getleman aware that Class 2 is very contentions its respect of some Votes, especially regarding Hansard?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We can discuss that question to-morrow, and I daresay we shall be to come to some arrangement.
MR. STEADMAN: Will the right honourable Gentleman postpone the Post Office Vote until after June 1st?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We propose to take it that day. I am afraid it would be very inconvenient to disturb that arrangement. It is a Vote we are very anxious to get, and I hope it will be regarded as a convenient arrangement.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether, with a view to meet the convenience of Irish Members, he will arrange that no Irish business shall be taken before Tuesday, 13th June.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No Irish business will be taken before the 13th June. Of course in that undertaking I do not include the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, which I understand some Irish Members desire to talk about.
MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether it is proposed to take any Scotch Votes tomorrow or on 1st or 2nd June; and, if so, would he state what Votes, and on what day.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; it is not my intention to take any Scotch Votes on either of the days mentioned.

SUPREME COURT (APPEALS) BILL [Lords].
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment made by the Lords to the Amendments made by the Commons, agreed to.
METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES BILL.
Amendments reported (according to order).
BOARD OF EDUCATION BILL [Lords]
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 1st June, and to be printed. [Bill 214.]
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
PUBLIC LIBRARIES (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  TENTERDEN RAILWAY BILL.
  Without Amendment.
METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES BILL.

  BRIGG URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL.
  With Amendments
  Amendments to—

SOLICITORS BILL. [LORDS]

  NORTHERN ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL. [LORDS].
  With Amendments
  That they have passed a Bill intituled "An Act to amend the law with respect to persons carrying on business as money-lenders." [Money-Lending Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill intituled, "An Act to remove the Disqualification of Justices in certain cases under the Licensing Acts, 1872–4."[Licensing (Disqualification of Justices Removal) Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill intituled, "An Act to enable the Port Talbot Railway and Docks Company to maintain certain deviations of their railways and works authorised by The Port Talbot Railway and Docks Act, 1894, The Port Talbot Railway and Docks (Ogmore Valleys Extension) Act, 1896, and The Port Talbot Railway and Docks (South Wales Mineral Railway Junction) Act, 1896; and for other purposes." [Port Talbot Railway and Docks Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill intituled, "An Act to enable the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of the borough of Salford to reconstruct their existing and to construct additional Tramways; to make street improvements, and to raise additional moneys by mortgage and by the creation and issue of stock; and to make further provisions for the good government of the borough."[Salford Corporation Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill intituled, "An Act to make further provision in regard to the water undertaking of the Corporation of Wake the field, and to health, local government, and improvement of the city; and for other purposes."[Wakefield Corporation Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill intituled, "An Act to empower the mayor, alderman, and burgesses of the borough of Loughborough to purchase the undertaking of the Loughborough Gas Company, and to supply gas

  943
  and electricity; to extend the water limits of the said Corporation; and for Other purposes." [Lougborough Corporation Dill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill intituled, "An Act to incorporate the Trustees of the Colonial and Foreign Banks Guarantee Fund, and to enlarge the powers vested in such Trustees; and for other purposes."[Colonial and Foreign Banks Guarantee Fund Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill intituled, "An Act to extend the period limited for the construction; and completion of the Brighton Marine Palace and Pier; and for other purposes."[Brighton Marine Palace and Pier Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill intituled, "An Act for conferring further powers on the Furness Railway Company for the construction of works, the raising of capital, and otherwise in relation to their undertaking; and for other purposes." [Furness Railway Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill intituled, "An Act for granting further powers to the Stretford Gas Company."[Stretford Gas Bill [Lords.]
  And also, a Bill intituled, "An Act to empower the Paisley and Barrhead District Railway Company to construct new railways; and for other purposes."[Paisley and Barrhead District Railway Bill [Lords].

  PORT TALBOT RAILWAY AND DOCKS BILL. [LORDS]
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  SALFORD CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  WAKEFIELD CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  LOUGHBOROUGH CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bill.
  COLONIAL AND FOREIGN BANKS GUARANTEE FUND BILL. [Lords]
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  BRIGHTON MARINE PALACE AND PIER BILL. [Lords]
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  FURNESS RALIWAY BILL. [Lords]
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  STRETFORD GAS BILL. [Lords]
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  PAISLEY AND BARRHEAD DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL. [Lords]
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  MONKEY LENDING BILL. [Lords]
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 1st June, and to be printed. [Bill 215.]

  IRELAND—PUBLIC MEETING COUNTRY OF MOYO
  Motion for Adjournment.
  MR. DAVITTrose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
  "The suppression of a public meeting in the county of Mayo, on Sunday last, by a force of armed police, and of an unwarranted interference thereby with the legal right of the people of that country to exercise the privileges of free speech and of public meeting for the purpose of discussing their grievances and of demanding constitutional remedies therefor."
  but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. Speaker called on those Members who supported the motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty Members having accordingly
  risen,
  MR. DAVITTassured the House that he would not have taken this unusual course if the action of which he complained was an isolated instance of police interference with the right of public

  945
  meeting and free speech in that county. As they had heard from the Chief Secretary that afternoon, this was the fifth instance of the kind in the same county during the last twelve months, and he was called upon, as one of the Members for Mayo, to register the strongest possible protest against a continuance of these most unwarranted proceedings. The explanation given by the Chief Secretary for this latest act of violence by authority was in no way a justification for so extreme a course as that pursued on Sunday. He could not imagine any such a course being taken on this side of the Irish Sea unless the Home Secretary became politically demented, and so long as the fiction of equal laws for both countries was proclaimed in England they must insist upon equal treatment in the matter of the commonest rights of citizenship being accorded to the Irish people. The meeting on Sunday at Breaffy was called for the purpose of furthering the objects of the United Irish League, and he need not go into details as to what those objects were. They were well and widely known to be the general betterment of the land workers in Ireland by means of the enlargement of holdings and of other reforms. Those objects were either legal or illegal. If legal it was a monstrous outrage upon the rights of the people to have their meetings proclaimed and suppressed. If those objects were illegal it was the duty of the right honourable Gentleman to prosecute and bring before the tribunal of the law those who promoted such meetings and who had identifled themselves with the purposes for which they were called. The Chief Secretary could not escape from this position. He must either observe the law himself through his underlings or take steps to put the law in motion in the usual way. To proclaim a meeting on the ground that it would lead to some breach of the law if it was held was virtually to hand over to the police the power of suppressing every meeting which might have a strong political complexion. This was coercion in its most objectionable form. It was simply making the resident magistrate, who was always strong political partisan in Ireland, the arbiter of the rights of the people. He desired to protest against this as an intolerable invasion of popular liberty. His own experience at one of these suppressed meetings would afford the
  946
  House some idea of the extremes to which the police authorities of the county of Mayo would resort to put down what he contended were legal and constitutional meetings. A few months ago he was going for the first time to a section of his constituency since being elected for the division. What happened? He would ask honourable Members whether a parallel to these proceedings could be found in the whole history of political reform movements in England. He was stopped on the public highway within his constituency, two miles from the place of meeting, by a force of police, some of them armed with batons, and some with rifles. He was not allowed to even proceed along the road within a mile-and-a-half of one of the chief towns in his own constituency. Women and girls were also stopped on the public highway, without a single breach of the peace having been committed by anyone except the police. He had not spoken a word nor done an act that could lend a shadow of justification for this despotic action of the magistrate and his constabulary force, and yet he was stopped on the public highway within the constituency which he represented, and denied the common right of proceeding along the road. He wondered what would be the language of the English Press if conduct of this outrageous kind was carried on by the Boer officials at Johannesburg, and Uitlanders were stopped on a public highway by armed police, and denied the privilege of using a roadway which led to a place where a public meeting was to be held? A feeling of speechless indignation would prevail in this country at such proceedings; and yet they had, on the admission of the Chief Secretary, five instances of this putting down of a public meeting and of interference with individual liberty by a reckless police authority during the past year, no nearer to the Transvaal than the Country of Mayo. The Chief Secretary, in calling for the suppression of these meetings, only succeeded in bringing the law and its administrators into contempt. These meetings were not prevented. Two or three gatherings took place as a rule around the locality where one had been forbidden, time result being that the whole costly proceeding of bringing fifty or a hundred police to one place became the laughing-stock of the whole country. But though it might be a matter for

  947
  popular amusement to witness these exhibitions of Executive folly, there was a great right involved and menaced in such action as that of Sunday, and he wished to warn the right honourable Gentleman that he would not be permitted to carry on those high-handed proceedings in future without a protest of this kind being made whenever he resorted to the course which had called this protest forth. The United Irish League was a well-known organization and it had held a large number of meetings. Either it was a legal combination or it was not. If it was, they had as much right to propagate their views and principles by the media of public meeting and free speech as the members of the Primrose League had to do the same in a similar manner. If the Irish League was not a legal movement the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland were neglecting their duty in not prosecuting himself and others who were at the head of that movement, and who had resolved to extend it wherever the people wished to join its ranks and further its aims and objects. He would not suggest that Sundays's burlesque proceedings were carried out by the police of Mayo with an eye to influencing a certain trial which was now going on in Dublin, although he thought that the police authorities of that country would be quite capable of acting in such a way. He did say, however, that this latest suppression of a public meeting by the Chief Secretary might have something to do with an important announcement which he made in the House a few days ago with reference to the Dillon estate. The right honourable Gentleman seems to be in a condition of morbid fear lest he should be suspected by his own party of being capable of carrying out good or useful work in Ireland on the suggestion of his political opponents or under the influence of a Nationalist movement. If he would permit him to say so, he was acting very unwisely, and it was childish in the extreme. The purchase of the Dillon estate by the Congested Districts Board was as much due to the existence of the propaganda and organization of the United Irish League in Connaught as the passing of the Land Act of 1881 and of subsequent Purchase Acts was due to the labours of the Land League. At any rate, he insisted, as one of the Members for the County of Mayo, that this policy of putting down public meetings by
  948
  the batons and rifles of the Royal Irish Constabulary was a violation of one of their most cherished civil rights, and a totally unprecedented proceeding on the part of the Chief Secretary, and in order to register his protest against this recurring resort to Executive violence against the privileges of public meeting and free speech, he begged to move that the House do now adjourn.
  DR. AMBROSE, in seconding the Motion, said that the object of the United Irish League had been to supplement the action of the Chief Secretary in his efforts to do away with the cause of the famine in Ireland. The Chief Secretary declared last Session that as long as he was Chairman of the Congested Districts Board he would use his influence against the purchase of any land where the United Irish League had influence. The Dillon estate of 90,000 acres was situated in the very centre of the locality where this United League was established, and from that it would be seen that this League was quite right in agitating for the purchase of those estates on fair terms. He protested against the suppression of last Sunday's meeting. On the evidence of Mr. Justice Johnson and the County Court Judge, there did not exist at the present time in the whole county of Mayo a single case of serious crime. Mr. Justice Johnson said there was only one case of agrarian outrage for the whole year, and that was of an incendiary character; and that there was ample ground for a sworn investigation as to the cause of that burning. The United Irish League had over and over again challenged the Government to hold a sworn inquiry as to the cause of certain outrages.
  MR. SPEAKER:Order, order. The honourable Member must confine himself in the question of the action of the administration in suppressing this meeting.
  DR. AMBROSEsaid he desired to protest in the strongest possible manner against the keeping in prison of a poor woman whose husband had gone over to work in the harvest field in England, and also against the action of the Government in attempting to suppress the United Irish League.
  Motion made and Question proposed—
  "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Davitt.)
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. G. W. BALFOUR,)said he had received no sort of notice that this question was going to be raised and he had not got with him the papers relating to this meeting. The honourable Member who moved this motion began by saying that he would not have taken this unusual method of calling attention to what had happened if it had not been that this was the fifth meeting that the Executive had stopped in County Mayo during the last twelve months. Considering the character of the language that had been used at many of the meetings which had taken place, he did not think the Government could be accused of having suppressed five meetings out of a number not much short of two hundred. That did not look as if the sacred right of public meetings in Ireland had been interfered with very largely. During the four years he had held the post of Chief Secretary he had suppressed probably less than half the number of meetings suppressed by his predecessor during the three years in which he was in office, and yet the right honourable Gentleman the member for Montrose—who suppressed no less than 29 meetings—was in the habit of boasting that his administration was one which had the hearty sympathy of the Irish people. The honourable Member appeared to think that he had taken an unusual course in directing an information to be sworn by a police officer. That was a practice that had been followed from time immemorial by the Irish Government. It was no novelty, for it was followed by his predecessor, and no complaints were made during the term of office of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Montrose. Not only this, but it was a reasonable practice. What happened was this. All the information that the Government could obtain from the police or otherwise respecting the effect which any meeting was likely to have was most carefully considered, and if it was deemed that in the interests of public peace or on the ground of the gathering being unlawful, the meeting ought to be proclaimed, instructions were given that the information supplied to the Executive Government should be sworn
  950
  in accordance with the information. No police officer was asked to swear that which he was not prepared to swear, and the sworn information did not affect the legality or illegality of the meeting. It was open to the Executive to suppress a meeting without any proclamation whatever, but it had always been held fitting and proper that notice should be given when a meeting was to be suppressed, and the usual course was to have a sworn information before a magistrate. In deciding whether this meeting ought to be suppressed or not, the Executive had to take into account all the circumstances of the locality. The honourable Member for South Mayo asked him if he could give any ground for thinking that this meeting would have had the effect of leading to a breach of the peace or intimidation. He would give him from memory one of the circumstances which they had to conclusion. Having regard to an announcement made in a paper that circulated in the district, they were justified in saying that one of the objects of this meeting was to call attention to the case of two particular individuals, and to incite the people attending that meeting to boycott and intimidate those two individuals. The honourable Member argued that if the objects of the United Irish League were legal these meetings to further those objects must he allowed; if they were not legal, under those circumstances he calls upon the Government to prosecute the members of the United Irish League. There was, however, one very obvious fact which he appeared to have lost sight of. Granted that the objects of the League were, in a wider sense, not illegal—and he might acknowledge that he should be glad to see an enlargement of the holdings in the West of Ireland, which was said to be one of the objects of the League, and which be thought was a very desirable object— the Government had to look not merely at the general objects of the League, but they had also to look at the means by which those objects were sought to be attained, and over and over again, in Order to promote the objects of the United Irish League, circumstances pointing to intimidation and boycotting were very frequent. The honourable Member said, "why don't you allow the meetings to be held, take notes of the speeches, and then prosecute the speakers?" No doubt that was a Course which

  951
  they might adopt, and which had been sometimes adopted in the past; but he was not quite sure that the honourable Member, in giving him that advice, was not really asking him to do what he knew would lead to an abortive prosecution. If he might give an illustration to the House of what the opinion was which was held by the leaders of the United Irish League as to the effect of such prosecutions he should like to quote from a speech made by Mr. William O'Brien in County Mayo, on the 31st of January, 1897, in which he pointed Out that the prosecutions would not take place as of old before two removable magistrates, but before a jury of twelve Mayo men, Whose verdict would be, "More power to you; God be with you."That was the opinion of one of the leaders of the League, and it was an excellent reason why the Government should not take the course which had been recommended that afternoon by the honourable Member for South Mayo. He thought that extract alone was sufficient to convince the House that the methods adopted by the United Irish League Were not always of a legal character, and it frequently happened that the Government might find it necessary to suppress meetings which were likely to lead to such results as he had indicated. The honourable memher went on to say that the suppression of this meeting might have something to do with the purchase of the Dillon estate by the Congested Districts Board, and he was good enough to suggest that he had been reluctant to take this course because it had been advocated by his political opponents, and that he took advantage of this meeting to make a sort of political manifesto. He did not think that that WaS a charge which he needed to take very seriously, because it was not this habit to proclaim meetings to gain political success. He would much rather that the meetings should be held, but it was his duty, under certain circumstances, to proclaim them. As to the Dillon Estate credit had been claimed for its purchase by the honourable mover and seconder of this motion for the United Irish League; but he should like to say in the most emphatic manner that the purchase of that estate halt nothing whatever to do with the action of the United Irish League, for they had merely thrown difficulties in the way, and the reason why they had been able to purchase that
  952
  estate had been because it was situated in a part of Mayo where this League agitation had not taken a hold. If there had been anything in the shape of agrarian agitation in connection with the Dillon estate, he had not the slightest hesitation in saying that the Congested Districts Board would have declined to purchase it.
  MR. DILLONsaid that if he were to follow the right honourable Gentleman upon the subject of the United Irish League he would no doubt be ruled out of order. He was afraid that they who had sat for years in that House were reminded by diatribes like that to which they had listened of what was always said against the Land League. They Were constantly told that the Land Acts had nothing to do with the agitation, but somehow or other the one always followed the other. This motion for the Adjournment of the House was made in consequence of the action of the Irish Executive in suppressing a meeting last Sunday in the county of Mayo. When the right honourable Gentleman was asked upon what ground the meeting was suppressed, he answered that it was likely to lead to a breach of the peace, and to the disturbance of the tranquility of the district, and to the intimidation of certain individuals. The Chief Secretary was asked who was his information, and who swore the information, and the usual answer was given that the individual who gave the information was a police officer. The House should remember that the police officer was the direct agent of the Chief Secretary, and they were informed that that police officer swore his information at the instance of Dublin Castle. There was a great principle involved in this matter. Was Dublin Castle to be at liberty to direct one of its officials to swear an information, and then upon that information to suppress a meeting which, in the judgment of the Castle, might interfere with the tranquillity of a district? Was the right of public meeting to be entirely at the mercy of the officials in Ireland, and was that right only existent so far as the right honourable Gentleman permitted it?
  MR. G. W. BALFOURreminded the honourable Member that the action taken

  953
  by the Irish Executive could be tested in a court of law.
  MR. DILLON: What an offer that was to make to the poor people of Mayo, for it would cost £300 to take the matter to a court of law. What happened? A meeting was proclaimed; people went to the place of meeting, and immediately found themselves face to face with an overwhelming force of police, armed with firearms and with batons, and the only way to test the action of the Executive in suppressing these meetings was to resist the police in the first instance. If resistance was offered to the police in England a few broken heads might probably follow, but in Ireland resistance to the police was met with a discharge of firearms. He himself saw instances where, upon the slightest hesitation being shown by the people to disperse, bayonets were immediately fixed and the people, when actually flying, were pursued and charged with fixed bayonets, and in some cases stabbed, and it was rather absurd for the Chief Secretary to inform the House that there was a legal remedy open to the people to test the action of the Government in these matters. That was a mockery, and it was no remedy whatever. There was a remedy if the people were willing to offer their bodies to the batons and bayonets ant bullets of the police. The Chief Secretary's remedy was no remedy whatever, and therefore, if such proclamations of meetings were to be allowed to pass without protest the right of public meeting in Ireland would be at the mercy and good will of the Executive Government in Ireland and the Chief Secretary himself. Whenever he thought it was desirable for "tranquillity and peace" that public meetings should not be held all he had to do was to ask the police to swear an information, and there was no remedy whatever. The Chief Secretary said that out of 200 meetings held during the past twelve months in connection with this movement, he had only proclaimed five. But did not that make their case stronger? There were 200 meetings held, and out of the whole of them no disturbance had taken place. What had been the effects of the agitation from the point of view of public order and tranquillity? Why, they had an admission from the right honourable Gentleman the other day in the debate upon the repeal of the Crimes Act that at
  954
  no period of Ireland's history was the country in possession of greater peace.
  MR. G. W. BALFOURsaid he was then alluding to the country as a whole. As a matter of fact crime had not decreased in South Mayo.
  MR. DILLONsaid he denied that statement absolutely. At the last Assizes in the County of Mayo the judge declared that the place was actually free from crime, and the only crimes reported of a serious character were crimes committed by one policeman and the relation of a policeman—one a crime of attempted murder and the other a crime of a very disgraceful character. The County of Mayo was wholly free from all serious agrarian crime. The only agrarian crime committed was the case of alleged shooting at Stoney, about which there seemed to be a great deal of mystery. In a district spreading over a considerable area, suffering from great grievances calculated to excite the feelings of the people, a popular organisation had existed for two years, and two hundred open-air meetings had been held, and in no instance had there been any disturbance or breach of the peace, nor any serious crime that could be laid at the people's doors as a result of those meetings; and he said the case against the action of the Government in suppressing the Breaffy meeting was thereby enormously strengthened. They were accustomed to hear a great deal about the grievances of the Uitlanders in the Transvaal, and one of those grievances, upon which that House and the newspapers were most frantic and angry, was that the Uitlanders were denied the right of public meeting. They knew that the Government, of the Transvaal had been denounced for denying what was described as an elementary right to the subjects of Her Majesty who lived in Johannesburg, but here they had an instance, only one of very many, where that self-same right, on infinitely less ground of justification, was denied to the poor peasantry of Mayo under the ægis and the protecting wing of this very Parliament. He said it was the height of hypocrisy to denounce the oppression of the Uitlanders of the Transvaal and claim for them the right of free meeting when they denied the same right to the peasantry of Mayo, who had greater grievances to complain of than the Uitlanders, and who had not been recently

  955
  engaged in attempts to upset the established authority. What was the condition of the country at the present moment? It could be learned from the speeches which were made at an indoor meeting which the people held after being prevented from holding it in public. One of the speakers said it was pitiful every day to witness the scenes which took place at railway stations where parents were bidding farewell to the children whose faces they would never see again. Emigration was very frequent, although the Chief Secretary had denied the fact, and it was to put an end to a terrible condition of things, a purely artificial state of things, which compelled the people to leave a country in which, if proper reforms were carried, they would he able to live and thrive, and increase the wealth of the nation. It was to put an end to such a deplorable state of things that the League existed and carried on its operations. And even if it were true that in the course of the 200 meetings strong language had been used by them the Chief Secretary should deal with the individuals who had used it. It would be the part of a wise and prudent statesman not to be too critical as to the character of the language used at public meetings so long as it was neither accompanied or followed by disorder. What he ought rather to look at was not the language from the platforms, but the consequences from it.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Hear, hear.
  MR. DILLONcontended that the consequences of this agitation had been peace, and the country was now at peace. There was nothing in the condition of the country to justify strong repressive measures on the part of the Government. As a matter of fact the right honourable Gentleman had not attempted to lay before the House, upon this or any other occasion when the subject had been discussed, any statement of crime or disorder such as had formerly been made by Chief Secretaries for Ireland when they were justifying or attempting to justify similar strong measures. There was another matter to which the honourable Member, attaching as he did great importance to it, desired to call the attention of the House. He always thought it was the first duty of the Executive—and particularly of an Execu-
  956
  tive Minister like the Chief Secretary, who practically exercised uncontrolled and irresponsible authority in Ireland—to be above even the suspicion of partiality in administering his great powers. One of the things which he most complained of in connection with this particular suppressed meeting was that he was forced to contrast the action with regard to that meeting with the course which had been adopted recently in Belfast by the right honourable Gentleman in dealing with the Orangemen. There was one way of dealing with the peasantry of Mayo and another for the Orangemen of Belfast. What did he say when his attention was called to recent proceedings of a disgraceful character in that city? A very different thing indeed to what he delivered himself of with regard to the Mayo meeting. In the latter case he said he had grounds for suspecting that the holding of the meeting might disturb the tranquillity of the district and intimidate individuals. But in Belfast meetings had been held for a period of six months, Sunday after Sunday, with the avowed object of disturbing the peace and tranquillity, and of denouncing one single person. That was not a case of mere suspicion, and when again and again honourable Members asked him to take steps for the protection in the exercise of his rights of a person who was there being persecuted, the Chief Secretary had a very different sort of answer to make. The result was that the mob triumphed, the church had been closed, and that clergyman, for all he knew to the contrary, had been driven out of the city of Belfast. That was the law as administered in Belfast; but in Connaught, where a few persons met to protest against iniquitous laws, whose operation kept them in poverty and left them a reproach to England before the whole of the civilised world, their meetings were suppressed on the ground of the suspicion of certain results. The Chief Secretary did not wait for the confirmation of the suspicions by facts. There was licence and leave in Belfast to trample law under foot, and hound down an individual, but in Mayo a legal right dared not be exercised by the people. The right honourable Gentleman did not like to put the law into force in Belfast for fear of bloodshed, but he never hesitated about that in the West of Ireland. What he (Mr. Dillon) denounced most of all in

  957
  connection with this matter was that this was a glaring instance of the fact that there was one law in Ireland for the peasantry of Connaught, and a totally different law for the Orangemen of Belfast.
  MR. WILLIAM MOOREsaid he rose to utter a few words of protest against the course which was invariably taken up by honourable Members on the Opposition side of the House whenever an Irish question was raised, of assuming that they had a right to speak for what they called "the Irish people." He begged leave to tell the Chief Secretary for Ireland that he had the entire support of more than one-third of the Irish people.
  MR. DILLON: Orangemen!
  WILLIAM MOOREsaid he himself was not an Orangeman, and he did not speak for Orangemen alone. The right honourable Gentleman had at his back all people who were interested in the prosperity of the country and the ordinary liberties of the subject, and who respected private rights to carry on business as they thought fit. He cordially agreed with honourable Members on the other side that there was a question of principle involved. He thought there was a very serious question of principle affecting the liberty of the subject involved, and it was this. Had a man in Mayo, who had lived there all his life and got a grass farm from his father, now at the instance of honourable Members opposite and their friends, to be driven "willy nilly" out of his farm? The honourable members and their friends seemed to go and say: "law or no law, you will have to give up possession of it." If that was not the case, then the meetings had failed in their objects. The objects of the meetings were to put down land-grabbing, and to make it impossible to hold those lands, and if those objects were not carried out the meetings were absolutely fruitless and pointless. One honourable Member had asked what happened in Belfast. He would tell him. The right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland took his own course, and he was bound to say that that course did not meet with universal approval in Belfast. So anxious was the right honourable Gentleman to preserve the right of free speech in Belfast, that
  958
  last year when the Member for South Mayo went down to speak the right honourable Gentleman refused to proclaim that meeting. The result was that the honourable Gentleman left Belfast within twenty-four hours, leaving behind him the seeds of discontent, riot and confusion, which plunged many homes into misery, and took three months to allay at the public expense, and that was what came of allowing free meetings in certain districts in Ireland, which everyone knew was like going to a powder magazine with a lighted match. Those in Ireland who were interested in trade and private rights, and in putting down disorder, and allowing the country to have a little time to recover from agitation, cordially supported the policy of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Members opposite had said there was to be one law for meetings in the United Kingdom and another for meetings in Ireland. The policy of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary had been in the interests of liberty of the subject and of the right of free speech, to put down intimidation and to check crime and prevent disorder, and where it had done so that policy had been absolutely justified by the circumstances.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he was very much surprised to hear the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary deny the statement of the honourable Member for South Mayo, with regard to emigration. His information was that the distressing scenes of young people separating for ever from their parents in many cases, were more frequent in Ireland than they had been for some considerable time. All those who had money to leave with were leaving Ireland, and the only reason why the exodus was not larger was that the people had not the money to pay their passages to America; those who left, the moment they had earned enough money, sent it over to Ireland in order that their relatives might join them. He wanted prosperity in Ireland just as much as the Chief Secretary desired it, but was that prosperity to be gained by driving people out of the country or by retaining the population in the country? He challenged the denial of the right honourable Gentleman. Emigration was rising at this moment, and within the memory of men

  959
  of middle age the population of Ireland had largely decreased and emigration was still increasing.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question of emigration is entirely outside the motion.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORadmitted that that was so, but said that he felt that that was the question which lay at the root of the motion they were discussing. He maintained that the whole vice of the present Government of Ireland as conducted by the right honouralde Gentleman the Chief Secretary and his pre-

  AYES

  Abraham, William (Rhonda)

  Hayne,Rt.Hon. Charles Seale-

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Allen,Wm.(Newc.under Lyme

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Holden, Sir Angus

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Austin, M (Limerick,W.)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Bainbridge, Emerson

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C.B.

  Johnson-Freguson,Jabez Edw.

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Blake, Edward

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swnsea.

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh)

  Burns, John

  Kitson, Sir James

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Bart, Thomas

  Labouchere, Henry

  Souttar, Robinson

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Lambert, George

  Spicer, Albert

  Caldwell, James

  Lawson,Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'lnd.

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Cameron, Sir Charles(Glasgow

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Steadman, William Charles

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lough, Thomas

  Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

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

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Colville,John

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Thomas,Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Crombie,John William

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

  Thomas,Alfred(Glamorgan,E.)

  Curran,Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  M'Ewan, William

  Thomas,DavidAlfred(Merthyr

  Dillon,John

  M'Leod, John

  Travelyan, Charles, Philips

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Mendl,Sigismmund Ferdinand

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Doogan,P.C.

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Morgan, W.Pritchard(Merthyr

  Walton,John Lawson(Leeds,S

  Edwards,Owen Morgan

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Walton, Joseph (Barusley)

  Farquharson, Dr Robert

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nussey, Thomas Williams

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Fox,Dr. Joseph Francis

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

  Weir, James Galloway

  Gladstone,Rt.Hn. Hrbrt.John

  O'Conner,James (Wicklow,. W.

  Williams, John Carvell Notts

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, T.P. (Liverpool)

  Wison, Henry J. York,W.R.

  Gold,Charles

  O'Kelly, James

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Gourley,SirEdward Temperley

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Woodhouse, SirJ.T.(Huddrsfd.

  Griffth, Ellis J.

  Palmer,Sir Chas.M.(Durham)

  Yoxall,James Henry

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Paulton, James Mellor

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES —Mr.Davill and Dr. Ambrose

  Harwood, George

  Pease,Alfred E, (Cleveland)

  NOES.

  Aird, John

  Barry, Rt.Hn.A.Smith-(Hunts

  Bowles, Capt.H.F.(Middlesex

  Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor

  Bowles, T. Gibson(Lynn Regis)

  Alsopp, Hon. George

  Bartley, George C.T.

  Brassey, Albert

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon.St. John

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

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

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Atkinson, Rt.Hon John

  Beach,W.W.Bramston (Hants

  Campbell,Rt.Hn J.A.(Glasgow

  Bagot,Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Bentinck,Lord Henry C.

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.

  Bailey,James (Walworth)

  Bethell, Commander

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Bhownaggree, Sir M.M.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

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

  Biddulph, Michael

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Balfour,RtHnGerald W (Leeds

  Blundell,Colonel Henry

  Chaloner, Captain R.G.W.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.J. (Birm.

  Barnes, Frederick Gorell

  Boulnois,Edmund

  Chamberlain, J.Austen (Worc'r

  decessors was that they were not able to obtain reforms until, after a long period of agitation, some strong movement arose. He congratulated Mr. William O'Brien and the United Irish League on the many victories they had already won over the right honourable Gentleman, and he prophesied a great many more victories before many months had elapsed.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—For the adjournment 107; Against 212.—(Division List No. 156.)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Charrington Spencer

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld George

  Morton, Arthur H.A.(Deptford

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Hanbury,Rt. Hon. Robert W.

  Mount, William George

  Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth

  Hanson. Sir Reginald

  Muntz, Philip A.

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

  Hardy, Laurence

  Murray, Rt. Hn A. G (Bute)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Heath, James

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Helder, Augustus

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hermon-Hodge, Robt.Trotter

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlngtn

  Colston, Chas. Edw.H. Athole

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Pender, Sir James

  Cook,Fred.Lucas (Lambeth)M

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

  Penn, John

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Hill, Arthur (Down, West)

  Percy, Earl

  Courtney, Rt.Hon. Leonard H.

  Hill, Sir Edward Stock (Bristol)

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Cox,Irwin Elward B. (Harrow)

  Hoare,Samuel (Norwich)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Carborne, Viscount

  Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cross, Herb.Shepard (Bolton)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Howell,William Tudor

  Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hrtlp'l)

  Currie, Sir Donald

  Hozier,Hon. James HenryCecil

  Ritchie,Rt. Hn.Chas Thomson

  Curzon, Viscount

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Robertson, Herbert(Hackney)

  Dalbiac,Colonel Philip Hugh

  Hughes, Colonel Edwin

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hutchinson,Capt.G W.Grice-

  Round, James

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Davies,Sir HoratioD (Chatham

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Russell, T.W. (Tyrone)

  Denny, Colonel

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Kemp, George

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Doughty, George

  Kimber, Henry

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lamie, Lieut.-General

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Lawrence, Wm.F. (Liverpool)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Shaw-Stewart,M.H.(Renfrew)

  Egerton, Hon.A.de Tatton

  Leighton, Stanley

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Elbott, Hon.A.Ralph Douglas

  Llewelyn,SirDillwyn-(Sw'nsea

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

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Spencer, Ernest

  Fellowes, Hn, Ailwyn Edward

  Long,Col.Chas. W.(Evesham)

  Stanley, Hn.Arthur(Ormskirk

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.

  Finch, George H.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stephens, Henry Charles

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lowles, John

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Sturt,Hon. Humphrey Napier

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Fitz Gerald,Sir Robert Penrose-

  Macartney, W.G. Ellison

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

  Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Thorburn, Walter

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

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

  Tomlinson,Wm.Edw. Murray

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  M'IverSirLewis(Edinburgh, W

  Valentia, Viscount

  Galloway, William Johnson

  M'Killop, James

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Garfit, William

  Malcolm, Ian

  Ward, Hon. Robert A. (Crewe)

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Manners, Lord Edward Wm.J.

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

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

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  whiteley, H.(Ashton-under-L.

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn.W.F.

  Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.)

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Wilson, Frederick W.(Norfolk)

  Goschen, RtHnG.J.(StGeorge's

  Meysey-Thomson, Sir H.M.

  Wilson-Todd, Wm.H.(Yorks)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Middlemore,Jhn. Throgmorton

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

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Milner,Sir Frederick George

  Wyndham, George

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W.H.

  Green, Walford D. (Wdnsbury.

  Monk, Charles James

  Young, Commander(Berks, E.)

  Gretton, John

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Hall, Rt Hon. Sir Charles

  More,Robt.Jasper (Shropshire

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION FROM THE STANTING ORDER).
  Motion made,and Question put—
  "That the proceeding on the London Government Bill, if under discussion at Twelve
  of the clock this night, be not interrupted under the standing order,sittings of the House."—(Mr.A.J.Balfour.)

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Garfit, William

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

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

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Beach, W. W. Bramston(Hants.

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Godson, Sir Augustus F.

  Monk, Charles James

  Bethell, Commander

  Goldsworthy, Major General

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Biddulph, Michael

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  More, Rbt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Goschen, Rt HnG.J.(StGeorge's

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Bond, Edward

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morton,ArthurH.A.(Deptford)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Mount, William George

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A.Grahm(Bute

  Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex

  Green, WalfordD(Wednesbury

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Bowles, T.Gibson (Lynn Regis)

  Gretton, John

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Brassey, Albert

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Pender, Sir James

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Penn, John

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

  Percy, Earl

  Burns, John

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Campbell, Rt. Hn J.A.(Glasgow

  Hardy, Laurence

  Powell, Sir Francis

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

  Heath, James

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Richardson, Sir Thos.(Hartlep'l

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.

  Helder, Augustus

  Ritchie,Rt.Hn.Chas

  Cecil,Lord Hugh(Greenwich)

  Hermon-Hodge,RobertTrotter

  Robertson,Herbert (Hackney)

  Chaloner,Captain R.G. W.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

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

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

  Round,James

  Chamberlain.J.Austen(Worc'r

  Hill,Arthur (Down,West)

  Royds,Clement Molyneux

  Chaplin,Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hill,Sir Edward Stock (Bris.)

  Russell. T.W. (Tyrone)

  Charringtion, Spencer

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Ryder, John Herbert

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

  Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos H.A.E.

  Howell, William Tudor

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hozier,Hon JamesHenryCecil

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hughes, Colonel Edwin

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hutchinson, Capt G. W. Grice-

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

  Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

  Spencer, Ernest

  Cox, Irwin Edward B. (Harrow)

  Jackson, Rt.Hon. Wm.Lawies

  Stanley, Hn.Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Steadman, William Charles

  Cross, Herb.Shepherd (Bolton)

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Stephens, Henry Charles

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Joliffe, Hon. H. George

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Curzon, Viscount

  Kemp, George

  Strauss, Arthur

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Kimber, Henry

  Sturtt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Labouchere, Henry

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Laurie, Lieut -General

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chath'm

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

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

  Denny, Colonel

  Leighton, Stanley

  Thorburn, Walter

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Llewelyn, SirDillwyn-(Swans.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Doughty, George

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Valentia, Viscount

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Lowe, Francis William

  Ward, Hn. Robert A. (Crewe)

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Lowles, John

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

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

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

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

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton-under-L.

  Finch, George H.

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

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh W.)

  Williams, Joseph Powell-(Brim

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  M'Killop, James

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Malcolm, Ian

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

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Manners, Lord Edward Wm. J.

  Wyndahm, George

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Young, Commander (BerksE.)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C.B.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Blake, Edward

  Ambrose, Robert

  Bainbridge, Emerson

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Caldwell, james

  964

  965

  Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land

  Scott, C. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lloyd-George, David

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

  Lough, Thomas

  Souttar, Robinson

  Colville, John

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Spicer, Albert

  Crombie, John WIlliam

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  M'Ewan, William

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Davitt, Michael

  M' Leod, John

  Thomas Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Dillon, John

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Montagu, SirS. (whitechapel)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Doogan, P. C.

  Morgan, W. Pritchard (Merthyr

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dunn, Sir William

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Edwards, Owen Morgan

  Moulton John Fletcher

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nussey, Thomas Williams

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley

  Gold, Charles

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

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Gourley, SirEdward Temperley

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W

  Weir, James Galloway

  Gurdon Sir William Brampton

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

  Harwood, George

  Palmer,SirCharlesM.(Durham

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk)

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  Paulton, James Mellor

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

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Holden, Sir Angus

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Woodall, William

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Woodhouse,SirJ T (Huddersf'd

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Price, Robert John

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Jones, William (Carnarvon)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Kitson, Sir James

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Mr. Goddard and Mr. Hedderwick.

  Lambert, George

  Schwann, Charles E.

  LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS' NAMES.
  Bill to appoint additional Commissioners for executing the Acts for granting a Land Tax and other Rates and Taxes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hanbury and Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. STEVENSONsaid in years gone by he had opposed the introduction of this Bill on the ground that it was an unnecessary measure, and also because there were very serious objections which stood in the way of the administration of the Land Tax. This year some of the objections which were urged in years gone by were no longer applicable, because some of the small Land Tax payers were not affected to the same extent as they were on previous occasions. At the same time, although the opposition from them was not so strong as it was before, he thought there were serious objections to the measure, and although they might not be such as ought to be pressed to the extent of a Division against the first reacting, it seemed to him that some protest ought to be made against the constant introduction of measures of this kind year after year. The whole of the existing system was one which required revision, and he earnestly trusted that the Government would take an early opportunity of not only doing away with the property qualification of the Land Tax Commis-
  966
  sioners, but also of handing over the Land Tax to the county councils, in order that the matter might be dealt with in a more equitable Manner.

  LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS' NAMES BILL.
  To appoint additional Commissioners for executing the Acts for granting a Land Tax and other Rates and Taxes; presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday 1st June, and to he printed. [Bill 216.]

  LONDON GOVERNMENT BELL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. H. J. ROBERTSON MR. H. J. ROBERTSON (Hackney) moved the insertion of the following new clause:—
  "With respect to a mayor of a borough being by virtue of his office a justice of the peace—(1) he shall become a justice of the peace for the County of London; (2) he shall not he disqualified by reason of being a solicitor practising or carrying on business in the County of London or City of London; (3) he shall not practise as a solicitor before any justices of the County of London."
  The object of the Amendment was place mayors of London boroughs in

  967
  the same position as those of provincial towns. Though London was, technically speaking, a county borough, it was nothing more than a large municipality, precisely on the same footing with, though rather larger than, Birmingham, Manchester, and Liverpool. It appeared to him, therefore, that there was no kind of reason why a solicitor, who was mayor, should he disqualified in London, He thought it was a great grievance that solicitors could not sit on the Bench in London. In some district councils there was great difficulty in getting a proper chairman at the present time. He knew one district where there were five solicitors on one of these bodies, four of whom had absolutely refused to accept the chairmanship because of the distinction made that they would not be justices of the peace, Under the circumstances he thought they acted very properly and rightly in refusing the office.
  New clause brought up and read the first and second time and added.
  MR. BRYCL: I beg to move, as a new clause, that:—
  "Nothing in this Act shall authorise any borough council to alienate any recreation ground or other open space dedicated to the use of the public, or any land held mi trusts which prohibit building thereon."
  This Amendment is intended to prevent the provision in Clause 7 from operating in a way which I do not think the Government intended. The Committee undoubtedly knows that there are a great many recreation grounds and open spaces in London vested sometimes in vestries and sometimes in district boards, and it is very desirable to preserve them. Clause 7 would make it doubtful whether they could be preserved, and a like doubt is created by Clause 15. I therefore suggest that a saving clause would be the best way of preventing any difficulty arising.
  New clause; brought up and read the first and second time, and added.
  THE SOLICLTOR-GENERAL (Sir R. B. FINLAY, Inverness Burghs), in the absence of Mr. H. D. GREENE (Shrewsbury), moved the following new clause:—
  "The places known as the Inner and Middle Temples shall for this; purposes of this Act. be deemed to be within the City of London."
  968
  Clause brought up and read the first and second time, and added.
  MR. PICKERSGILLsaid he wished to revert to a question which was held over at a previous portion of the proceedings, and which the learned Attorney-General promised to consider. The question was how to protect the tenant in the case of the sewers rate. The rate was a charge on the fee simple unless the tenant had contracted away his rights. The Bill abolished the sewers rate, and, unless some other provision were made, what was the equivalent of the sewers rate would fall as a charge on the tenant. He begged, therefore, to move the following new clause:—
  "As between landlord and tenant every tenant who, if this Act had not been passed, would have been entitled to deduct against or to be repaid by his landlord any sum paid by such tenant on account of the sewers rate shall in like manner be entitled to deduct against or to be repaid by his landlord such portion of the general rate as represents the sewers rate."
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER, Isle of Wight)expressed his agreement with the substance of the clause.
  MR. PICKERSGILLaccordingly asked the learned Attorney-General to allow it to be included in the Bill, subject to such alteration in drafting as he desired to make.
  New Clause brought up and read the first and second time, and added.
  Schedule 1:—
  MR. STUART (Shoroditch, Hoxton)MR. STUART (Shoroditch, Hoxton) moved to substitute for the list of areas in the Schedule:—
  "The parishes included in Schedule A and districts included in Schedule B of the Metropolis Management Act of 1855 and amending Acts which have a population exceeding 100,000."
  The districts which by his motion would be included in the Schedule were the following:—Bethnal Green, Hackney, Mile End, Newington, Shoreditch, and Greenwich. His object was that wherever a sufficient population existed and there was an old boundary well ascertained, and the district had long been a local government district, it would be better for the House to follow out the suggestion em-

  969
  bodied in Sub-section (b), Clause 1, and have regard to those ancient boundaries. The vestry area of Shoreditch had existed as a separate local government entity for over 100 years, and was managed under an Act which had existed for a similar period. It was one of the six great vestries under the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, which contributed two members instead of one to the Metropolitan Board of Works. Of the six vestries five were included already in the Schedule, and he earnestly urged that the sixth should he included. In this particular locality they had a large amount I local interest and honest local endeavour towards good government. The Bill was going to give greater local life to London, and they wished it to be so, and it would therefore be a pity to break up some of the historical single areas when their government was in many instances extremely satisfactory. He did not believe that the government of any of the new boroughs could be more satisfactory than that of some of the best vestries, and amongst these certainly he included the Vestry of the Parish of Shoreditch.
  Amendment proposed, in page 15, line 4, to leave out all the words after "parishes" in order to insert—
  "Included in Schedule A, and districts included in Schedule B, of the Metropolis Management Act of 1855 and amending Acts."—(Mr. Stuart.)
  Question proposed:
  "That the words proposed to he left out stand part of the Schedule."
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The honourable Gentleman who has just sat down has evidently moved his Amendment in order to obtain from Her Majesty's Government any statement that we are prepared to make on the general question embodied in this schedule, and, if quite convenient to the House, I propose at this stage to add something to what I ventured to state on the second reading. I have since had a large amount of information afforded me from localities not included in the Bill as it stands. I have had petitions and representations; I have had interviews with many persons closely connected with the districts; and I have done my best to collect information. The result is, that I think I am able to advise the House to include more
  970
  areas in the schedule than it was possible to do at the time when I could not consult the local areas, and had no means of obtaining the information which has since reached me through various channels. If the House will look at the non-scheduled part of London, they will see that it naturally divides itself into six districts. The first is that included in the old Tower Hamlets borough, which includes a large number of areas, the only one of which in the present schedule is the Poplar District. There remains outside the Poplar district a large number of areas as to which various questions arise, and I confess that I have not been able to find any plan which goes to meet the necessities of good government and the local wishes of the inhabitants. As at present advised, therefore, subject to discussion that may be raised, I see no possibility of settling the questions involved except after a local inquiry.
  MR. STUART: That is of the resident Borough of Tower Hamlets.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, of the resident Borough of Tower Hamlets. The area proposed is Bow, Bromley, Poplar, Mile End Old Town, St. George's in-the-East, Whitechapel.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Does that mean that Poplar is to be taken out?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; I see no method of dealing with this area except after local enquiry. The next area may be described as the Southwark and Newington area. Again, I see no method of dealing with this area which will satisfy the requirements of sound local Government and the wishes of the inhabitants, and so again I am driven with great reluctance to leave these districts to be decided upon after local inquiry. The third area is that of South Hackney and Stoke Newington. I do not pronounce an opinion upon it; I would like to hear what will be said upon it when we come to discuss it on the schedule. There remain what I may call the central and south-eastern areas. In regard to both of these, I am prepared to advise the Committee to add greatly to the schedule; in fact, to include the whole of these areas in the Schedule. I should suggest that in the central area we should form a

  971
  borough comprising the existing Parliamentary division of Holborn; another consisting of the existing Parliamentary divisions of East and Central Finsbury, these two together forming one area; an area consisting of the Parliamentary Borough of Bethnal Green, and an area comprising the Parliamentary Borough of Shoreditch. Although one or two of these areas are smaller than I would desire, there are special reasons connected with them for making them combined units of Local Government, and I believe it would be in accordance with the wishes of the local inhabitants that they should be grouped as I suggest. That disposes of the central area. There remains the great South-East of London to consider, an area not as yet very large in population, but considerable in extent, and probably with a great future before it. That area includes Deptford, Greenwich, Woolwich, and Lewisham. After carefully considering the matter, it appears to mo that we cannot do better than practically adopt as areas of the new boroughs the areas found to work well as Parliamentary districts. I believe that no serious objection will be raised to placing these Parliamentary areas in the schedule, and if that were done, the whole area of South-East London would be satisfactorily disposed of. True, this arrangement of boundaries makes greater the distinction between the Poor Law and administrative areas, but I do not think that that can be avoided, and I believe that on the whole the suggestion I have made would not be unfavourably regarded by the inhabitants of the district. I have adopted the Parliamentary areas because Parliamentary life is itself a natural bond of union, and brings together the various interests of all the people concerned, and if we can make the area of Imperial institutions coincide with municipal institutions, so far a great gain is effected. It will be seen that I propose to add eight new boroughs to the schedule, which I will again read out to the Committee in order that there may be no mistake:—First, the Parliamentary division of Holborn; the second borough is constituted by the Parliamentary divisions of East and Central Finsbury; third, the Parliamentary Borough of Bethnal Green; fourth, the Parliamentary Borough of Shoreditch; fifth, Deptford; sixth, Greenwich; seventh, Lewisham; and eighth,
  972
  Woolwich. It only remains for me to note that the Parish of Lewisham has to be omitted from the present schedule in order to substitute for it the Parliamentary division of Lewisham, because Lee was not in the parish, and will have to be added in order to make the new area coincide with the Parliamentary area. I hope I have made my general proposition clear, and although I cannot hope to have satisfied the various local aspirations that have found expression in amendments, I trust I have done something material towards improving the Bill.
  MR. CAUSTONhoped that the right honourable Gentleman's mind was still open to receive some information in regard to West Southwark. That district had everything that a municipal corporation could desire for successful work.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that the honourable Gentleman was entitled to discuss the general situation, but not at that stage the particular claims of a particular district.
  MR. CAUSTONhope that the right honourable Gentleman would not close the door to the claims of West Southwark.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that every member of the Committee must have been glad to hear what had fallen from the right honourable Gentleman. The only object they had in view with regard to this matter was that those areas still left to the Commissioners would be so few in number that it would be pretty obvious on what grounds they would be carried out. He was sorry that the right honourable Gentleman had not seen his way to include the Tower Hamlets.
  CAPTAIN NORTONhoped that if West Newington was not to be included in the schedule, the right honourable Gentleman would take it into his serious consideration. There were most cogent reasons why it should be. He took it that the basis of the Bill was that a borough area should have a population of over 100,000, and a rateable value of £500,000. West Newington fulfilled both these conditions.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURrose to a point

  973
  of order. It would be more convenient if honourable Gentleman waited until particular districts were reached before discussing the merits of each.
  MR. STUARTsaid that after the statement made by the right honourable Gentleman, which went a very considerable way to meet his views, and also greatly improved the operation of the schedule, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. L. R. HOLLANDsaid that after listening to the statement made by the Leader of the House, he could not help thinking that there was a certain amount of truth in the remark made at a meeting the previous night by the leader of the Progressive party, that this Bill had ceased to be a Bill for the reform of London Government, but had become a small though not unsatisfactory Bill for the reform of the existing vestries. Honourable Members opposite no doubt would welcome such a Bill in preference to a measure on large lines for the reform of London Government. If there was one feature in the Bill that afforded an element of comic relief it was the proposal to create the district of Chelsea as a scheduled borough. At present Chelsea consisted of Chelsea proper and of the district of Kensal Town. The Royal Commission presided over by the right honourable Member for Bodmin proposed to create a borough of Chelsea, but it was to include Chelsea and the district of Kensal Town. These form one Poor Law Union, one parliamentary area and local government area. This Bill, however, proposed to take away Kensal Town from Chelsea, although the latter had only a wretched population of something like 70,000 inhabitants, and would therefore not conform to one of the principles on which the Bill was founded. The result would be that part of Kensal Town would go to Kensington, and part to Paddington, and that in both Paddington and Kensington there would be two assessing authorities. He could not see why they should create such a confusion. There was another ominous feature in regard to the proposal. Kensal Town was to he taken from Chelsea, but Knightsbridge was to be added to it.
  974
  That was a very nice arrangement, because it would take away the poorest part of the district, and add a rich area from the neighbourhood. His idea was that they should make one borough of Chelsea and Kensington, by which all difficulties in regard to Poor Law areas and so on would be avoided, and there would be one homogeneous borough.
  Amendment proposed, in page 15, column 1, line 7, to leave out "Chelsea." -(Mr. L. R. Holland.)
  Question proposed, "That 'Chelsea' stand part of the Schedule."
  MR. WHITMOREwas afraid he must take exception to the arguments of his honourable friend. Apart from his natural prejudices, he thought there were solid reasons why the object of his honourable friend should not be entertained. What they wished to do by this Bill was to carve out a certain number of districts in London which had all the requisites for good municipal areas. The primary object should be that a district should have a real local life, should have a past with traditions, and have a population interested in its local life and government. Chelsea for many years had possessed all these attributes. The proposal of his honourable friend was part of a large scheme which he had embodied in many amendments on the Paper, a scheme for what was called the tenification of London. He thought that in London they ought to have in future some large and important districts such as Greater Westminster, and also such districts as Shoreditch and Bethnal Green, which had at present a vigorous local life; and also some which, if with a smaller population, yet were kept together by a living local feeling. His honourable friend proposed to tie Oil to Chelsea another district, such as Kensington, which had a history, traditions, and local life of its own. He asked the Committee not to embark on such a course, but to stand fast to the principles of the Bill; and, speaking for Chelsea, he hoped the Committee would scout with proper contempt the Amendment of his honourable friend.
  SIR T. G. FARDELLsaid he was in complete agreement with the general proposition of the hon-

  975
  ourahle Member for Bow. He had a right to ask that the borough with which he was interested should not he prejudiced by the change to he made. The effect would be that 21,000 persons would he handed over to the tender mercies of the Boundary, Commissioners and divided between Kensington and Paddington. The geographical position should have something to do with the scheme. If honourable Members would look at the map they would find that Chelsea was sandwiched between two parts of Kensington, and part of Kensington ran between two parts of Chelsea. If Chelsea and Kensington were combined for municipal purposes, a large and important borough could be created which would not interfere with any local interest whatever, and would work extremely well. Of course the objection might be urged that it would make too large a borough. They might look at it in another way. He found that Chelsea district, if it remained in the schedule as now proposed, would comprise 650 acres, whereas every one of the other 14 areas, Westminster excluded, possessed a larger acreage. Then, again, its population was 75,196, which was smaller than that of any of the other 14 areas. Again, the rateable value was £747,790. Of the other 14 areas which were scheduled ten had a larger rateable value and only four a lesser. Surely these facts afforded some ground for making au appeal to the First Lord to see whether he could not keep an open mind on this proposal. For ages past the two parishes of Chelsea and Kensington had been mixed up together, and before the Royal Commission in 1894, evidence was given in favour of the rejection of the proposal to interfere with Chelsea. He ventured to assert that if Kensington were joined to Paddington it would he a most inequitable and unfair arrangement.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My honourable friend lets made a special appeal to me to yield to the Amendment. But I think he must have recognised that the course recommended by the Amendment is one which the Government cannot he expected to take. Kensington and Chelsea have not only got local traditions and a local municipal life already, but that local municipal life is one of great vigour, and the manner in which they manage their affairs may well be a model for many of the new boroughs to be created under this
  976
  Act. To attempt to take two districts which themselves make natural units, and amalgamate them together in one unnatural whole, would he very inexpedient. My honourable friend the Member for Row and Bromley has declared that to put Chelsea in this Bill destroys it as a great measure of reform. He also quoted with approval the statement of the gentleman whom he described as the leader of the Progressive Party in the County Council, that the alterations made have entirely destroyed the innocuous character of the Bill. I fail to remember any change made during the Committee stage which has materially altered the character of the measure as I introduced it two months ago with the approval of my honourable friend. However that may be, Chelsea has been included in the first schedule front the beginning, and I utterly fail to understand why the retention of Chelsea should entirely alter the character of the Bill. I hope the Committee will not agree to the Amendment.
  MR. L. R. HOLLANDsaid he would withdraw the Amendment, but he would like to remind the right honourable Gentleman that in his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill he observed that the ridiculous feature of the measure was the inclusion of Chelsea.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR A. SCOBLEsaid he rose to move the Amendment which stood in the name of the Member for Shoreditch, the object being to insert "Hackney" after "Fulham." He said his constituents very much objected to any partition of the existing parish of Hackney, because that would do away with local traditions and dislocate local life. The present Parliamentary borough comprised three divisions—North, South, and Central. The poorer classes resided in the South and Central districts, while the wealthier classes were to be found in the North, and he did not think it would be desirable that there should be any separation which could only lead to much trouble, vexation, and inconvenience to all engaged in the local administration of the parish. He would have preferred that the Parliamentary borough should be identical with the municipal borough, but Stoke Newington objected to this. He could only say that if Stoke Newington liked to

  977
  rejoin Hackney they would he glad to receive it.
  Amendment proposed, in page 15, column 1, line 8—
  "After 'Fulham' to insert 'Hackney'"—(Sir A. Scoble.)
  Question proposed "That 'Hackney' be there inserted."
  MR. H. J. ROBERTSONsaid they had now come to the second district of which the First Lord spoke, and which he said was specially reserved for debate, as he wished to hear the arguments stated. This was not a complicated area like Tower Hamlets, and there were only three ways of settling the difficulty—first by throwing Hackney and Stoke Newington into one, secondly by keeping them apart, and thirdly by cutting off the North, or richest part of Hackney, and uniting it with Stoke Newington, which, in itself, was a rich district. The third plan would certainly not be approved of locally, and he was confident the House would not assent to it. The First Lord had always stated that he did not want ancient parishes divided, and if there was one form of division which was more objectionable than any other it was that which cut off the richest part of a parish. There could he no difficulty in making Hackney a borough in itself, and it was clear that but for the case of Stoke Newington, Hackney would have been a scheduled area. The only difficulty in fact arose from Stoke Newington. The latter was a small area, but it was one considerably increasing in population, and it would be augmented to an appreciable extent under this Bill. On its borders there was a very large town growing up, and he had no doubt that in process of time that neighbouring district would want to come into the county of London. Stoke Newington would be what might be called a first-class borough, other districts might like to join it, and it would be free to receive additions to it from the county of Middlesex. Stoke Newington was separated from hackney eight years ago, and local feeling was opposed to the two districts being joined together again. If they divided the parish of Hackney they would create a city of the rich in the northern part and city of the poor in the southern part. Though this was a difficult question, it
  978
  was not a complicated one, and these two districts ought not to be put to the expense of going before the Commissioners to decide it.
  MR. STUARTsaid he was, of course, aware that the borough of Hackney caused a good deal of difficulty to the Government, but he was inclined to think that the decision in regard to this question might as well be made by that House. The difficulty arose in regard to Stoke Newington, and there was only one way of solving it. Hackney was united to Stoke Newington for a great many years under the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, and the feuds between the two parts of the then district of Hackney and Stoke Newington were interminable and intolerable. The result was that, by mutual consent, they obtained a separation, each place came in consequence to be governed by its own vestry, and he did not see how they could be put together again. It was possible to take North Hackney and add it to Stoke Newington, but if they did that they would get into an extreme difficulty about rateable value. North Hackney had a rateable value of £8 per head of the population, and the remainder of the parish had only a rateable value of about £4 5s. That was a solution he did not like to face. The only other course would be to leave Hackney alone and to leave the Commissioners to deal with Stoke Newington in the one way that it could reasonably be dealt with, and that was by adding to it portions of the county of Middlesex, which together had a population representing nearly 20,000 people. By that means the borough of Stoke Newington would have a population of 50,000, and, though it would be the smallest borough in London, the anomaly would be a gradually diminishing one, because the population in this district was rapidly increasing. When dividing London up into boroughs they could not avoid creating some anomalies as to size.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This question of Hackney and Stoke Newington has caused about as much embarrassment to those who have had to consider the question of areas as any other question in the Bill. It is true that the question is simple, and is not complicated like the questions connected with Southwark and the Tower Hamlets. You have not before you a

  979
  series of possible alternatives. In this case no doubt you have very plain alternatives, with regard to which it is hard to see that a local inquiry would put the inquirers into a better position than the Committee are in at the present time. There are three and only three possible methods of dealing with this area. You might divide the whole area into north and south divisions, but the objections to that are almost insuperable, as it would not only cut up a district that is an historical entity, but would divide the rateable value in a most inconvenient manner. He rejects, therefore, that method. The second alternative is to make the whole area one borough and to require Hackney and Stoke Newington, much against their will, to live under one municipal organisation. The objection to that is that there appears to be great ill-feeling and mutual ill-will—it almost amounts to that—between the inhabitants of the two districts, and Parliament having considered this very case and gone carefully into it by the machinery of a Select Committee has actually decided that this ill-assorted couple shall no longer be required to live together. It would be a very serious thing to forcibly join together those who are thus put assunder, and I do not think it would be possible for the Committee to take the responsibility of such a course. The third method is to leave the historical parish of Hackney undivided and untouched, and allow Stoke Newington, with or without additions from the neighbouring county of Middlesex, to form a borough by itself. There is, as far as I know, but one objection to that, but it is, from my point of view, a serious objection. It is an objection founded upon the small size of the possible Stoke Newington municipality. Whether additions from Middlesex are made to it or not it must remain abnormally and exceptionally small, although not perhaps in area. We must, therefore, face the fact that if we adopt this third course we shall be creating a borough which is smaller than the rest of the boroughs and smaller than we desire to see. I am not aware that any local inquiry would elicit new facts or find out any arguments with which we are not thoroughly conversant. I conceive, therefore, that the Commissioners would be driven to make Hackney into a separate borough and Stoke Newington into a separate borough, and would have to justify that course by submitting
  980
  a special Report to Parliament. That would be a, heavy responsibility to throw upon them, and I should be glad to relieve them of it. Having heard what has fallen from honourable Gentlemen on both sides of the House, I have reluctantly, but decidedly, come to the conclusion that perhaps we had better face the responsibility ourselves and decide that Hackney shall be constituted a separate municipality, even if it involves the inevitable, inconveniences which I have endeavoured to describe. I am, therefore, prepared to accept the Amendment.
  MR. BOUSFIELDsaid he was in a position of great difficulty which disqualified him, unfortunately, from giving a vote on the Amendment. One section of his constituents, those residing at Stoke Newington, would be pleased with the decision winch the First Lord had announced, for it would relieve them of a nightmare, and they would no longer fear that their position would he disturbed by the Bill. But with regard to the other part of his constituency (North Hackney), he was in the greatest difficulty, because by scheduling Hackney they would be deprived of the chance of going before the Boundary Commissioners and urging that the North Division of Hackney should be joined to Stoke Newington. He was, therefore, compelled to move an Amendment excepting North Hackney from the area, as he did not see any other way in which he could lay the views of that portion of his constituents before the Committee. Now they complained that their wants had hitherto been practically unattended to. The roads in that important neighbourhood had been utterly neglected. Large sums were spent in Mare Street, the commercial portion of the parish, with which North Hackney had nothing in common, and money levied over the whole district was chiefly expended outside North Hackney. Indeed the representatives of that division of the parish found themselves unable to obtain a hearing at the Hackney Vestry, and when there were proposals to expend large sums, Very little of which would be devoted to North Hackney, they were actually closured if they raised any opposition. An endeavour had been made to obtain the views of the ratepayers of North Hackney upon this question. A poll had been taken, the result being that in that portion of Hackney which was in-

  981
  cluded in his constituency, 4,086 voted for
  the connection with Stoke Newington and only 448 for continuing the connection with Hackenry. Again as regarded rateable value he would like to point out that the rateable value of that portion of Hackey which he represented, bore almost identically the same propration to population as did the rest of Hackney. Under these circumstances he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed to the Amendment—
  "After 'Hackney' to insert 'except the portion thereof included in the Parliamentary division of North Hackney'"—(Mr. Bousfield.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  MR. COHENsaid that having a personal acquaintance with the grievances of the inhabitants of Stoke Newington, he felt their case would be a difficult one to fight before the Boundary Commissioners, because of its comparatively small rateable value. It was true that Stoke Newington, with Hornsey, would be the smallest area, but it would not long occupy that unique position. As regarded good management and everything which went to constitute those conditions which the right honourable Gentleman laid down as necessary to form an exemplary area, he was quite sure that Stoke Newington would prove itself as good as any other part.
  MR.LOWLESsaid his honourable friend had made the best of a very bad case. Stoke Newington formerly formed part of the Parliamentary borough of Hackney, and he, having resided for many years in North Hackney, would like to see them rejoined, as he held that the Parliamentary borough was the best unit for municipal purposes. There was, however, a strong local feeling against reunion, and he thought the First Lord had taken the best possible course on the matter. He hoped that the opportunity would be taken to cut off those outlying parts of Middlesex which were of no use to Middlesex, but which would he useful in making Stoke Newington a more compact borough. On the whole,
  982
  however, he congratulated the Government on having settled a dispute which would have been interminable had it been left to local decision.
  Question put and negatived.
  Original Amendment again proposed.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 15, column 2, line 7, to leave out 'Lewisham'"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Question, "That Lewisham stand part of the Schedule," put and negatived.
  MR. STEADMANsaid he was anxious, as one of the Members for Tower Hamlets, that the Committee should decide upon the area of the remaining portion, apart from Hackney, without its being referred to the Boundary Commission. The Government had decided that Bethnal Green should be a borough by itself, and that had removed the chief obstacle to the Amendment he was about to propose. He saw no difficulty in the way of settling the areas for the rest of Tower Hamlets. His proposal was, that Mile End Old Town should be scheduled as a borough. Mile End had a population of 111,060 and a rateable value of £400,000. That brought it within the scope of the Bill, because the limit of population was 100,000 and the minimum of rateable value £400,000. In the year 1809 it had a population of 9,488 and a rateable value of £18,225, so that in ninety-eight years its population had increased by over 100,000 and its rateable value by £381,000 odd. He compared, therefore, both its population and its rateable value with three parishes already scheduled in the Bill, namely, Hammersmith, Chelsea, and Hampstead. In all those three cases they found that the population was lower than that of Mile End, while the acreage and rateable value was slightly larger. But after all, taking into consideration its population and its rateable value, he considered that Mile End had just claims on the First Lord of the Treasury to be made a borough in itself. On the second reading of the Bill, they listened to a very interesting historical lecture by the honourable Member for Westminster, in reference to the past history of that

  983
  place. Well, he claimed that Mile End had an historical record equal to that of Westminster. In the past many judges and bishops had resided there, and their residences are still in existence in close proximity to Stepney Green. It also has a number of almshouses belonging to the Skinners Company and twelve almshouses founded by Judge Elliot in 1592, for poor men past labour. One historian said Stepney was known as a city 1,100 years before the birth of Christ. In 1299, in the time of King Edward I., a Parliament assembled at Stepney in the house which was then occupied by the Lord Mayor of London, and that Parliament confirmed the charter of their liberty. He thought he had now given sufficient history to convince the First Lord of the Treasury that Stepney had some good local traditions and had a fair claim to be included in the schedule as a borough council.
  Amendment proposed, in page 15, column 2, line 7—
  "After 'Fulham,' to insert 'Mile End Old Town.'"—(Mr. Steadman.)
  Question proposed, "That 'Mile End Old Town' be there inserted."
  MR. CHARRINGTONsaid he could not agree with the proposal which had been made by his honourable friend. He was in favour of the proposal of the Government, because he believed that better local government would be secured by having large municipalities.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONdid not think he could support the proposal Of his honourable friend behind him, but he should like to know if the Government could consider the Tower Hamlets as a whole. There were nine areas left out of the schedule, and surely they could arrive at a sufficient agreement to dispense with the Commissioners dealing with it. He was inclined to think that there might be two divisions in the Tower Hamlets, namely, Limehouse and Mile End, and Whitechapel and St. George's, for they had that evening included a considerable number of very small areas. He did appeal to the Government to put them out of their misery and allow the Tower Hamlets to be scheduled in some way or other, and not leave the question to be decided by the Commissioners.
  MR. H. S. SAMUELsaid he desired to register a very strong protest against any such idea as that of scheduling Bow and Bromley and leaving the rest as one borough. When they considered that the population would be 300,000, and the rateable value £1,400,000, it seemed much larger than some of the areas with which they had been dealing. There was a proposition to make the whole of the Tower Hamlets one municipality, but that would make a population of half a million and a rateable value of over £2,000,000, which he thought was much too large for one municipality. As the representative of Lime-house he desired to say that the feeling of his constituents was strongly in favour of joining with the poor law union of Mile End Old Town, and they suggested that having regard to history they wished to be called the Corporation of Stepney, because that was the division which had the largest historical interest. Stepney had a claim in many other ways, and he protested most strongly against dealing with the rest of the Tower Hamlets in the way that had been suggested.
  MR. L. R. HOLLANDsaid he should like to consider what was the alternative before the Committee. It had been proposed, in the first place, that there should be two municipalities in the Tower Hamlets. Another proposal was that the borough of Poplar should be scheduled, and that then the rest of the Tower Hamlets should be left to the Commissioners. When, however, they came to consider how this was to be done they found disagreement existing. The honourable member for Stepney proposed that Mile End should stand by itself, but the honourable Member for Limehouse said that would not do. Then the honourable Member for Whitechapel said they must have Whitechapel alone and leave out Mile End. One thing they all appeared to be agreed upon, and that was that they had all determined not to amalgamate with the poorest part of the Tower Hamlets, which was St. George's, and surely that was entirely wrong. It was impossible to make any division which would respect and conserve any of the historical boundaries there. There was only one ancient area and historical boundary in East London around which a good many associations clustered, and that was the historical boundary and area

  985
  of the Tower Hamlets, which, if constituted as one area, would make a borough of considerable importance, which would carry out the principle and view which this Bill was introduced for, and which would contain in itself all the different Poor Law districts, and which would not involve the constant cutting-up of areas which any other distribution must of necessity involve, for the Tower Hamlets as a whole was a homogeneous area. He did not for a moment contend that this proposal would be received with rapture in many parts of East London, and the only communications he had received upon the subject had been violent protests from the vestries against this proposal. In this matter, however, they should not consider what was popular, but what would be most beneficial, and he supported this idea because he believed that it would add to the efficiency and economy of local government in those districts, and would also add to the dignity and importance of the local authority for that district. Of course every argument which supported the constitution of Westminster as a city also went to support the constitution of a large borough in a poor district like the Tower Hamlets. It must necessarily be advantageous and more economical to administer a large district rather than have a number of small districts, and they should remember that even under this Bill they had transferred powers to the local authorities which would afford an immense opportunity for
  jobbery and for people getting on to the council to exercise their power without regard to the interests of the people. This kind of thing was far too prevalent in London, and the only way to prevent jobbery was to make the areas so large and important that it was difficult and almost impossible for men to combine on the council to push their own interests. It was better to have a large area, because then the system of equalisation would operate more fairly. He knew that in the view he was placing before the Committee he had not the support of the local vestries in his own constituency, but he maintained that it was unjust to divide and make a separate borough of an area which was so poor and which had so little opportunity of development as the proposed borough of Poplar. Therefore, for the sake of efficiency and economy, and of getting rid of many undesirable influences, he thought
  986
  the whole of the Tower Hamlets was the right borough to create.
  Sir SAMUEL MONTAGUsaid he was perfectly certain that the City, some time or other, would absorb Whitechapel, and therefore for the present he would much rather that it should remain as it was. Having regard to the fact that the adjoining borough of Bethnal Green was to be a separate borough under the new Act, he saw no reason why Whitechapel should not also be a separate borough. There was no reason for its being merged in the proposed large borough. It had a population of nearly 80,000, and he was certainly opposed to the proposal of the honourable Member for Bow that the Tower Hamlets should be constituted one borough, but if it was not possible for the right honourable Gentleman to accept his Amendment and to make it a separate borough, he would prefer to take all the remaining Tower Hamlets together—Mile End, Limehouse, Whitechapel, and St. George's-in-the-East—and although then it would be a very large borough, it would be smaller in area, though larger in rating and population, than Poplar.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have listened with great interest and attention, but with some perplexity of mind, to this discussion; but I am perfectly clear about one thing: I am prepared, of course, and I daresay we shall all he driven to leave this matter to the Commissioners. It is not the best course, I admit. There are two courses which I could adopt. One is to make the whole of the Tower Hamlets one borough, but that is a course which, I believe, will not meet with general support, and which will not be accepted by the House; the other course is to leave one part of the area as it is scheduled in the Bill and to schedule the other part as one area. That is opposed by the honourable Member for Limehouse and the honourable Member for St. George's-in-the-East. I have no ground for thinking that they would differ from the view that the area I now suggest would be acceptable, but if that is the general view of the House on both sides I should be prepared to accept it. But if there is any general opposition from any quarter, then I think the matter must be referred to local enquiry.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that he

  987
  thought the proposals which had been made by the right honourable Gentleman would be met with approval and support, although the honourable Member for Bow and Bromley would naturally prefer the larger borough. There was no doubt that he would agree to the suggestions which had been thrown out. There was only one suggestion which he wished to make, which was that the right honourable Gentleman's proposals should be embodied in the Bill subject to the matter being considered on Report. If there was found to be a very strong feeling in the Tower Hamlets against the proposal, then of course that would have to be considered. He thought that the right honourable Gentleman should be entitled to reserve his opinion with regard to the matter, but at the same time he thought the proposals should be introduced into the Bill at this stage.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not object to that proposal. It must be distinctly understood that I reserve my liberty to judge of the facts that come to my knowledge between this and the Report stage. I am sorry that the honourable Member for Limehouse does not agree, but as the preponderence of opinion appears to be in favour of this we must accept it.
  MR. STUARTexpressed the opinion that the proposal was a wise one, inasmuch as it enabled the Committee to put before the constituencies a distinct scheme which they could decide upon far better than if it were in any other form, and he thought the postponing the matter to the Report, stage, if necessary, was a very wise plan.
  MR. L. R. HOLLANDwas of opinion that the plan which had been proposed was the plan least calculated of all that they could have fixed upon to improve matters. The proposal was to take the two poorest districts and form them into one borough; to take away their opportunities of sharing the expense of their government with that of a better circumstanced and better placed district, and leave, them to bear and exercise the powers which are to be transferred under the Bill, but which hitherto have been centralised and classed upon a common basis. They would have now to pay all the expense themselves. With regard to the powers to be transferred the honour-
  988
  able member pointed out that there were many important powers which it would be impossible to transfer to poor districts of this kind, and which even were it possible to transfer them, could not be exercised with advantage or economy by a working-class district of London. The position, therefore, was that whenever in future it was proposed to transfer further powers to the different districts of London the objection would be raised that the powers were not suitable to the locality, and the poverty of the locality would stand as an absolute bar against that future development and municipal knowledge of the people which this Bill was brought in to promote. He objected to a small area in Chelsea, but a small area in a rich district was not half so bad in his opinion as a small area in a poor one. The area in question was wholly unsuited to be scheduled in the Bill. All the Bill did so far as he could see in the district of Poplar was to take the area of the District Board of Works, call it a borough, and give it a council with a mayor and aldermen. It did nothing to improve the government of the district or the condition of the people or ease them of any part of the burden which they now had to bear. He condemned the whole proposal. He agreed with Dr. Collins' statement that it was a mere vestry reform bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This, I assume, is the last time which my honourable friend desires to put before the Committee the views upon this question which he has placed before it on other occasions with so much persistency. I can only say that I think his criticisms are wholly unfounded. My honourable friend apparently would regard this Bill as a very good Bill if we introduced into it his particular scheme, which would constitute a borough in the East End of London larger than almost any other borough, and which would reach the highest limit of a borough in any part of the kingdom. That is the plan he wants us to adopt. The proposal we actually make leaves him in Poplar—in that part of the old Tower Hamlets with a population of 170,000, and will leave the population of the remaining part at 300,000. In other words there are not more then four or five boroughs in England larger than those which we propose to constitute in this district. Yet this is the measure which

  989
  is regarded by my honourable friend as so petty and contemptible that he searches the speeches of political opponents to find language which is scathing enough for its condemnation. The proposal we have accepted divides this enormous population into two districts with distinct councils, and that appears to be more acceptable than the proposal of my honourable friend, who must have observed that he has no support in any quarter of the House.
  MR. H. S. SAMUELexpressed the opinion that the plan of the honourable Member for Bow and Bromley was infinitely better than the scheme of the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. He did not see any reason for cutting off one corner of this district, which was also the poorest portion, and leaving the other part, which was of large rateable value, to form a large corporation. He protested most earnestly against the proposal of the right honourable Gentleman; he objected to their being taken out of the hands of the Commissioners and divided as was suggested by the proposal, and was of opinion that if the Tower Hamlets was divided into two corporations it would be very much against the wishes of the great proportion of the inhabitants of that district. As the lesser evil he begged the right honourable Gentleman to leave it to the Commissioners to settle the districts.
  MR. STEADMANsaid that in his opinion the honourable Member for Bow and Bromley was acting very inconsistently, because having spoken and voted in favour of the Bill, he was now doing his best to belittle it. The honourable Member complained that the Tower Hamlets was not made into one municipality, and he complained that Poplar was very poor, and under this Bill would get no relief. But every one of the other Tower Hamlets were equally poor—Mile End for instance. In Poplar and Bow and Bromley the population were better off than in any of the other Tower Hamlets. It appeared to him (Mr. Steadman) that nobody was going to get his own way as to the schedule of the Bill, and that being so there must be some compromise. As he was unable to persuade the Government to form Mile End into a separate municipality, he was prepared to support the proposal of the
  990
  First Lord of the Treasury, who he sincerely hoped would carry out the idea which he had foreshadowed. Having come to that conclusion he begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Seeing the importance of the Amendment standing in my name——
  MR. A. J. JOHN BURNS: Is the First Lord of the Treasury going to move the Schedule?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should much prefer that course. It certainly would be most convenient.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is impossible to move the Schedule now, because as it now stands that cannot be done, I think, until we reach the conclusion of the parishes.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that no doubt technically that was so, but at the same time it would give great satisfaction to the East End to have a definite announcement from the First Lord of the Treasury.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think, perhaps, we might break into the lot of parishes here, although it may not be quite in order. I suggest that we should first put in the parishes, and then put in districts, and then take up the parishes again.
  Amendment proposed, in page 15, column 2, line 7—
  "To insert after the word 'Lambeth' the words 'the areas of Mile End Old Town and St. George's-in-the-East and the districts of Limehouse and Whitechapel.'"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR R. B. FINLAYsuggested that the method that should be adopted was to take the parishes down to "Lambeth," and then insert the areas, and then go back to parishes. It would read perfectly grammatically, and he thought it could he easily done.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed amendment—
  "After the word 'Whitechapel' to insert the words 'and Poplar.'"(Mr. H. S. Samuel.)
  Question proposed, "That the words and Poplar' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONcalled attention to the fact that by this method of dealing with these particular areas two of the poorest parishes were joined together and two of the more rich, and one was left between.
  MR. L. R. HOLLANDsaid it occurred to him that while this matter was before the Committee it would be, perhaps, as well to get the areas right. To do that the Government would have to leave out part of St. Mary's, Whitechapel, which was included in the City.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  CAPTAIN NORTON CAPTAIN NORTON moved to include Newington among the boroughs, and said, having regard to the importance of the district he had strong grounds for his Amendment. The very titles "Newington Butts" and "Newington Causeway" showed how ancient the borough was. Its present population is 123,000, and its rateable value £517,000. In 1885, it sent two members to Parliament, and in 1888 four members to the County Council. It was a district which had been admirably governed in the past, and in fact, it was the pioneer of local self-government. If it was joined under this Bill to another parish the effect would be to nullify the state of perfection which they had attained, because it would be impossible for the other parish to at once come up to the level of Newington in the excellence, of its drainage system and other matters upon which it had spent many thousands of pounds in the past.
  Amendment proposed —
  "In page 15, column 2, line 7, after Fulham' to insert 'Newington.'—(Captain Norton.)
  Question proposed, "That 'Newington' stand part of Schedule."
  MR. JAMES BAILEYsaid he desired to draw the attention of the
  992
  Committee to the suitability of Newington as a municipality. The right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House had made many concessions during the debate, and he had that day learned that the Government had granted a municipality for Shoreditch and Bethnal Green. If they were suitable for municipalities he thought Newington was eminently suitable. There was one thing he was more than surprised at, and that was that Chelsea was made a separate municipality. Chelsea was smaller in area than Newington, and if Chelsea was granted a municipality he thought Newington, having regard alike to its historical associations, its population, and its rateable value, should be granted one too.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid he had listened with very great interest to the speech of the honourable and gallant Member opposite (Captain Norton), who had recounted to the Committee the good deeds and merits of Newington. He only hoped that it would not be necessary for the honourable Gentlemen who represented other divisions of London to give them similar accounts. He quite recognised that the district had certain features and elements which made it suitable to be a separate municipality, but surely the honourable and gallant Member opposite and his honourable friend behind him (Mr. Bailey) must recognise that the question could not be considered in an isolated way. It was absolutely necessary to consider the geographical area and relation of the surrounding districts to it, and whether they were so interlaced that they could all be worked together.
  MR. STUARTsaid the Attorney-General seemed to be ill a Rip Van Winkle state about the Bill. He forgot that, with the exception of four districts, the whole of London had now been scheduled. Those districts involved altogether a population of about 300,000, and formed a rateable value of about £1,500,000. He must say he did not think there was any area in London that could make out a better case to be treated as a separate area than Newington. He did not wish to deal with the merits of Newington, which had been so admirably placed before the Committee by the Member for Newington. But was it worth while making two bites at a cherry? They had now got the whole

  993
  of London scheduled, and he ventured to think that they should deal with Newington in a similar way to Whitechapel. In the case of this particular district he did not see why a definite arrangement might not be come to now. They could then leave the people who belonged to those districts to criticise the definite proposal, and they would be able to make their representations to their Members and others before the Report stage, and those representations could he considered. If at that stage there was such a conflict of local opinion that they did not see their way as a House of Commons to settle the matter, Newington might be withdrawn from the schedule, and the contending parties referred to the Commissioners. The same arguments as to ancient boundaries applied to Newington as to other London districts. The Committee's instructions to the Commissioners were that they were to have regard to those boundaries, and if that were done he thought they would feel it very necessary to take the view that Newington should be left by itself.
  MR. CAUSTONsaid that as Member for West Southwark he would like to support the suggestion of his honourable friend the Member for Shoreditch. Personally he would be delighted to see West Newington made into a separate borough, but not unless the present division of West Southwark were also constituted a separate borough. As a Parliamentary area it had a rateable value of £554,000, although the population was only 64,447. He wanted the Committee to remember when looking at population that the West Southwark division was very similar to the City of London. Business was transacted warehouses and manufactories, and the day population was very much larger than that given in the Census returns. The division itself was admirably fitted to become a municipal area, and work would be found which would command the services of men who would be willing to serve in the incorporation. There were large and important charities, a grammar school, free public library, baths, washhouses, public markets, polytechnics, and two workhouses. In fact, there was no Parliamentary area in London more fitted for a municipal corporation than West Southwark. Without any disrespect to the honourable Members for Rother-
  994
  hithe or Bermondsey, there was one thing they desired more than anything, and that was that they should not be tacked on to Rotherhithe or Bermondsey. They would work more harmoniously, if necessity arose, with West Newington. He would, in the interest of peace and good government, earnestly solicit the First Lord of the Treasury to end the proceedings that evening as peacefully as they had begun, and to make West Southwark a separate borough.
  MR. LOWLESsaid that having got all they wanted in North London, he would support what honourable Members wanted for South London. Personally, he would like to see Southwark included in the City, for it had practically a City population, but he really did not see why it should not be treated as a separate entity. He also did not see how the Government could resist the demand of West Newington to be constituted a separate borough, since it fulfilled all the conditions as to population and rateable value.
  COLONEL HUGHESsaid he had noticed that the representatives of those districts which had high rates desired to annex themselves to the districts where the rates were low, and that the low-rated districts resisted incorporation with the high-rated districts. Amalgamation, however, should not be governed by a question of rates. Districts ought to assist one another. Perhaps it would be well to group the whole of the boroughs in the district under the head of Southwark, and upon that definite proposition objections could be discussed at a later stage.
  SYDNEY BUXTONthought that the argument in the case of West Newington was stronger than in the case of Tower Hamlets. They ought to schedule the remaining five districts. They had now scheduled 4½ millions of the population of London, and left only 350,000 to be dealt with. They would be stultifying themselves if they were unable to agree to schedule these five remaining districts, subject to alteration on report after proper argument. The question of rating did not in his opinion enter into the matter at all.
  SIR EDWARD CLARKE
  995
  greed that it was very desirable to put some definite propositions in the Bill; but he hoped his right honourable friend would not be too easily tempted to make proposals of separation in the Bill. If proposals were to be considered between that stage and Report they should be for union rather than separation. The proceedings that evening had shown one thing, and that was with what extraordinary skill this scheme had been brought before the House. It the Government had started by proposing the arrangement which, by general consent, had found its place in the schedule of the Bill, they would have aroused antagonism all over London, whereas they had now succeeded in bringing a great deal of harmony into the proceedings. In regard to Rother-hithe and Bermondsey, which he at one time represented, he thought they ought to be united in one constituency. Their boundaries and their size seemed to mark them out naturally as being adapted to form a very important municipality. But he could not see any reason for separating Southwark and Newington. United, they would make a more useful and important corporation than either Southwark or Newington would alone. He would have liked to see, indeed, an important part of Southwark united to the City, which in fact he had attempted to deal with some time ago. It was suggested that inasmuch as they had set up one anomaly in the North of London in the case of Stoke Newington, there was no objection to setting up another in the South of London in the case of Southwark. But the cases were not at all parallel. There would be very soon a considerable influx of population into Stoke Newington, but in all probability the residential population of Southwark would become smaller and smaller. He trusted that the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House would decide to divide this district into two areas, and not three; one consisting of Rotherhithe and Bermondsey, and the other Southwark and West Newington.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid that nothing whatever had been urged in any speech which had been delivered on either side of the House against West Newington being made a borough by itself. All that had been said was that West Newington was to be penalised on account of its peculiar position. What was the
  996
  difficulty about West Southwark? It was not that it was unimportant, or that its rateable value was too low, but that it happened to have only a population of from 64,000 to 70,000. But that was the night population; it had a very much larger day population. They could settle this question speedily and amicably. What he suggested was that they should put in the schedule West Newington as one borough, then Bermondsey and Rotherhithe as another, and then, as a somewhat smaller but not less important borough, West Southwark.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think this is the most difficult problem we have had to deal with in connection with the division of London into boroughs, and I do not pretend that any of the solutions offered have been thoroughly satisfactory. But this, at all events, appears to be clear—namely, that there are only two courses which I can recommend the Committee to consider. One is the course of leaving the whole consideration of the problem raised by this area to the decision of the Commissioners at a local inquiry, the other is to divide the area into two boroughs—one borough to consist of Rotherhithe and Bermondsey, the other of Newington and West Southwark. I thoroughly sympathise with the view of the honourable Gentleman who has just sat down. The honourable Gentleman represents a portion of a borough which is honourably distinguished as a sanitary authority and for the excellence of its work, but at the same time, to make a stereotyped arrangement now, without regard to the necessities of the adjoining area of Southwark, would be impossible, without an amount and kind of local inquiry which this Committee can hardly be expected to engage in. If we are to separate Newington from the rest of the area it must be done after local inquiry and in consequence of local inquiry. If we are to determine here and now what is to be the division of the area, then I cannot consent to its being subdivided into three fractions, and I shall ask the Committee to divide it into the two portions I have suggested as a provisional arrangement. In dealing with the western portion of the old constituency of Tower Hamlets the honourable Gentleman spoke of the decision come to as a provisional one, and I shall have to repeat, with almost double emphasis, that if we

  997
  come to a provisional decision now, it must be on the lines I have indicated. I am, therefore, forced to resist the Amendment of my honourable friend.
  MR. LOUGHasked his honourable friend to accept the compromise offered by the First Lord of the Treasury, and which was suggested by the honourable and learned Member for Plymouth. He took it that really the suggestion was that that St. Olave's Union should constitute one area and St. Saviour's the other.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he thought that under the circumstances, although he was naturally bound in some measure to support the views of those he was there to represent, he had better accept the suggestion of the First Lord of the Treasury, which, he frankly admitted, was one of the best provisional arrangements that could be made. He took it that under no circumstances would the right honourable Gentleman divide the existing area of West Southwark, and that if they were to be joined to another district they would be joined to West Southwark as a whole. West Southwark was divided into three wards, and the one nearest to West Newington was, perhaps, the poorest ward in the whole of London, namely, the parish of St. George-the-Martyr. It was, consequently, important that West Newington, if joined to West Southwark, should be joined to that parish as a whole, and not merely to one part of it.
  MR. CAUSTONsaid he took it that the suggestion of the right honourable Gentleman was to take the Parliamentary divisions of Bermondsey and Rotherhithe, and that he cordially approved of.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Other Amendments made.
  Amendment proposed—
  "After the words last inserted to insert `the area of the Parliamentary division of Holborn.'"—(The Solicitor-General.)
  MR. RICHARDSsaid he rose to oppose this Amendment. The Parliamentary division of Holborn represented a population of 66,000 persons and a large aggregation of learned Members'
  998
  Inns, and practically it could not increase in population. It would be somewhat extraordinary to make a borough with a population of 66,000, and he would suggest the fusion of Holborn with the East and Central divisions of Finsbury, which had a population of considerably over 100,000. These two divisions of Finsbury were poor and highly rated, and their rich neighbour, Holborn, really formed a portion of the old Parliamentary borough. If they accepted this suggestion they would be merely doing what would have been done if West Southwark had been made a borough. It was a place of declining population and increasing value, and he did suggest that it would be most unfair to leave these two divisions of Finsbury to form a borough by themselves.
  SIR EDWA IW CLARKEsaid his honourable and learned friend was mistaken in saying that the population of Holborn was diminishing. The character of the buildings that were now arising in Holborn to house people would probably materially increase the number of the population. Strong representations had been made to his right honourable friend by Members on both sides of the House connected with this division, and the Government considered—he hoped the Committee would think rightly—that this Holborn division would be capable of making an excellent municipality. St. Luke's would be associated with Clerkenwell. There were no local jealousies that he was aware of that would prevent that union, which would be a natural solution of the difficulty which arose in this case.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, to insert, "the area of the Parliamentary divisions of East and Central Finsbury."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further amendment proposed, to insert, "The areas of the Parliamentary boroughs of Bethnal Green, Shoreditch, Deptford, Greenwich, Lewisham, and Woolwich."
  Amendment greed.
  MR. ROBERT WALLACEsaid he had to move the omission of the word "Wandsworth" from the schedule. He

  999
  need not say that he did not propose this with the idea of depriving Wandsworth of municipal institutions, but he did it for the purpose of moving an Amendment subsequently which would practically mean that Wandsworth should be divided into two areas. In moving the Amendment he was carrying out the wishes of the districts concerned, as both the parishes of Wandsworth proper and of Streatham had passed resolutions practically unanimously in favour of the division. His Amendment had relation to what was called the Wandsworth district, and not to the parish as such. The Wandsworth district consisted of a union of parishes which had no interests in common, and it extended from Putney Bridge on the one side to Herne Hill on the other. It was double the area of any proposed borough, and it was divided into two almost equal portions by the commons of Streatham and Wandsworth. His idea in moving the omission now was that he proposed to move here after that it should he formed into two separate boroughs. The population of Wandsworth district was 300,000, of which 100,000 was in the half known as Streatham and the adjacent neighbourhood, and 100,000 was in Streatham parish. He pointed out that within 15 years the population had more than doubled, and at the present time was increasing in the same ratio. This increase was not confined to one portion, but to both halves. There was still a large building area which was being gradually covered and in a few years, in his opinion, these two boroughs, if the Amendment which he proposed to move was carried, would be among the largest boroughs of London. The rateable value of the Wandsworth district was £1,400,000, of which £580,000 was contributed by Wandsworth parish, whilst the Streatham half represented £800,000. The rateable value also within the last 13 years had doubled. The District Board of Works governed the whole of Wandsworth at the present time, but it had been found exceedingly difficult to do it by one board, and the result had been that the Streatham members and the Wandsworth members had been turned into separate committees for the purpose of governing each part of the district. Both parts of the district earnestly desired the change which he suggested, but the difficulty he felt was that the Wandsworth in the Bill was not the Wandsworth that he
  1000
  proposed. His proposition really was to omit the word Wandsworth in order afterwards to insert other words. He apprehended that at the present time he would be out of order in moving the division of the districts into two parts.
  THE CHAIRMAN:Perhaps at the present time it will he sufficient to omit the words "and Wandsworth."
  MR. ROBERT WALLACEagreed. He stated his desire was to make Wandsworth and Putney one division, and Streatham, Tooting, and Clapham another.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 15, line 12 of the Schedule, to leave out the words 'and Wandsworth.'"—(Mr. Robert Wallace.)
  Question proposed—
  "That the words 'and Wandsworth' stand part of the Schedule."
  MR. KIMBERwas struck by the fact that this particular Amendment should be moved by an honourable Member who represented a constituency North of the Tweed. That gentleman, however, was a most noble opponent at an election for Wandsworth fifteen years previously. He accepted cordially his co-operation in this matter. The Wandsworth described in the Bill was certainly not the one which he desired to reconstruct. It was not the Parliamentary constituency which he himself represented. It included that and Clapham, Balham, Streatham, and other places. It was scheduled in the shape in which it was because it was put under the local government of the local Board of Works of Wandsworth, and under that Board it had been governed; but the government under that Board and under this Bill differed in one important respect, and though everybody agreed that under the old scheme it was well governed, it was not known whether there was a preponderance of opinion in favour of the new régime. The parishes under the old régime made and bore their own rates, because, as it had been pointed out, men in the different parishes were formed into different, committees for each parish, and each parish bore its own burden. Under the new era the general burden of the rates was spread over whole, and it was for that reason that

  1001
  many who were content with the present state of things were not content to adopt the new. The honourable Member himself felt that he was in an unfortunate position, because his own constituents were divided upon the question, and he had been unable to ascertain on which side the preponderance of opinion lay. He had sought highly respected opinions on both sides, with no satisfactory result. It was under these circumstances that he had brought certain representative gentlemen to the First Lord of the Treasury to discuss the subject. It was only fair that both opinions should be heard, and the suggestion which he made to the right honourable Gentleman was that this matter should be referred to the Boundary Commissioners, who had, after having held a local enquiry, determined whether it should be divided into two or not.
  MR. THORNTONopposed the Amendment. Clapham was against any division at all. It would not accept any compromise. It had been stated in the course of the Debate that there had never been any homogeneity between the parishes which compose the Wandsworth district; but his information was diametrically opposite to any such suggestion. With regard to area, there was a very much larger area in this municipality than any other of the proposed areas; but a great deal of that consisted of commons which could never be built upon. Clapham, which had a population of fifty thousand, and a rateable value of £300,000, was absolutely against separation.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My two honourable friends have an unequal fate; because, while one of them who has just sat down thinks he represents the whole constituency, the one who immediately preceded him represented that he had the difficult task of representing the diametrically opposite side of the same problem. I do not think, unless I have reason to believe that local opinion is very much more against it than it appears to be at present, that I should take the responsibility of excluding Wandsworth from the schedule. We have to-night added to the schedule of the Bill several areas closely approaching the area of Wandsworth, and under the circumstances I think we ought to retain that in the schedule.
  MR. KIMBERsaid he did not concur with what had been said, and suggested that perhaps the First Lord of the Treasury would say a few words on his suggestion that it might be left, keeping the word in the schedule, to the decision of the Commissioners.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:My honourable friend will see that there is no reason to put in any particulars if Wandsworth is out of the schedule. That is the only question which the Commissioners would have to deal with; therefore I see no difference between leaving Wandsworth out of the schedule, and the alternative policy of retaining it in the schedule and leaving it to the Commissioners to deal with. If it is shown that there is a preponderating body of feeling in favour of leaving the matter to the Commissioners, that matter shall be considered.
  MR. ROBERT WALLACEsaid that had the matter been left in such a way that it could be dealt with by the Commissioners he would have withdrawn his Amendment; but as he did not feel that he was in that position he should have to press it to a Division.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that Wandsworth was not a district that was entitled to much respect. It did not appear to know its own mind, and if anything happened to it it was that it should be disfranchised for not knowing its mind. He pointed out that it was the largest area in the schedule, and in spite of the 1,200 acres which had to be deducted for commons and open spaces there was still a large amount of land which would be developed and built upon. In a year or two the population would be at least half a million, and that was too large a number for any area under the Bill. He thought Balham and Tooting would make one good municipal area, and that if Wandsworth was divided into two parts municipal administration would be greatly improved.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 118; Noes 58—(Division List, No. 158.)

  AYES.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Forster, Henry William

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingtn

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Penn, John

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

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

  Pierpoint, Robert

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

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Blalfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Richardson, Henry Charles

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlepool

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

  Gorst, Rt Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Green, Walford D. (Weds'burry

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Bethell, Commander

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Robinson, Brooke

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Helder, Augusus

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hughes, Colonel Edwin

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

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

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore.

  Keswick, William

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Laurie, Lieut-General

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Stephens, Henry Charles

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Llewelyn, SirDillwyn (Swans.

  Strauss, Arthur

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Lowles, John

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Cox, Irwin Edw. B. (Harrow)

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Denny, Colonel

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

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Manners, Lord Edw. Wm. J.

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

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.

  Doughty, George

  Monk, Charles James

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Douglas. Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.)

  Doxford, William Theodore

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Finch, George H.

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Morton, A. H. A. (Depford)

  Wyndham, George

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Mount, William George

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Nicholson, William Graham

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Steadman, William Charles

  Allen, Wm. (Newe. under Lyme

  Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Holden, Sir Angus

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

  Burt, Thomas

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Walton, Jn. Lawson (Leeds,S.

  Caldwell, James

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lough, Thomas

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Chaning, Francis Allston

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Wedderburn, Sir William

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

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Colville. John

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk

  Dillon, John

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.

  Roberts, John Byrn (Eifion)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Robson, William Snowdon

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Courley, Sir Edward Temperley)

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Mr. Robert Wallance (Perth) and Mr. John Burns.

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.

  MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid the object of the Amendment he rose to move was to divide the proposed new borough of Greater Westminster into two boroughs. He contended that the new area proposed for municipal government
  1004
  by the Bill—consisting of the parishes of St. Margaret and St. John, Westminster, the parish of St. George, Hanover Square, the parish of St. James, Westminster, the parish of St. Martin-in-the-Fields, and the district of the Strand Board of Works—

  1005
  included parishes which could not historically be shown to have ever formed part certainly of the ecclesiastical City of Westminster. With one exception the constituent parts concerned had expressed an opinion against the scheme. It was difficult to find any argument in favour of the proposal, whilst the arguments against it were manifold. The parish of St. George, Hanover Square, the Strand Board of Works, and the parishes of St. James and St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, had all expressed their opinion against the proposal, and the only one of the constituent parties which supported this very large scheme was the parish of St. Margaret and St. John, who, until this schedule was framed, were in favour of a very much more modest scheme. There had not been merely an official opposition to the proposal, but the opposition had been declared in resolutions carried almost unanimously at various public meetings. The proposed area was too large to constitute a unit of local government, and he would impress upon the First Lord of the Treasury the fact that he was proposing to group areas which did not wish to be grouped. This fact must have great weight in estimating the probable success of the scheme. The proposal was too large, both from the point of view of area and the point of view of rateable value. The rateable value of the area was said to be £5,000,000 sterling, or twice that of the City of London, and much larger than that of any other municipal area. Similarly with regard to size, some degree of supervision on the part of the governing body was desirable, and no adequate degree of local knowledge could be acquired by the members of that body. These were practical arguments against the proposal, and he submitted to the Committee that they were arguments which had very considerable weight. Moreover, if this Greater Westminster was set up side by side with the City of London it would tend very greatly to disturb, if he might use the expression, the centre of gravity of London. That state of things would lead to a great competition in hospitality, and would involve very considerable incidental extravagance and waste of the resources of London in such directions, which would be more husbanded if dispensed under one authority. He suggested in his amendment that the area should be divided into
  1006
  two, and he had taken a line which, geographically, cut the area almost into equal portions.
  Amendment proposed, in page 15, line 13—
  "To leave out from the words 'area of the,' to the end of the Schedule, and insert the words 'parishes of St. Margaret and St. John, Westminster, and the parish of St. George, Hanover Square. The area of the parish of St. James, Westminster, the parish of St. Martin-in-the-Fields, and the district of the Strand Board of Works."—(Mr. Lawson Walton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  MR. BU1ZDETT-COUTTSsaid he had made a great demand upon the time of the House on a former occasion, and he did not intend to repeat that demand now. The honourable member who had just sat down referred to the local feeling and opposition to this proposal in parts of Greater Westminster. Upon that point he should like to say that the Vestry of Westminster passed a resolution in favour of this Bill almost unanimously, and a similar resolution was lost by the narrowest majority in St. George's, Hanover Square. The Bill was opposed in a third area by the Strand Board of Works. As to popular feeling, there had been no expression of it in St. George's, Hanover Square, against this proposal. There had been attempts in the Strand District to excite popular feeling against the proposal in the Bill, but the utmost proportions that those efforts attained were a meeting in St. Martin's Town Hall, at which there were 130 persons present, and that was the sum total of the popular opposition of the Strand District to this Bill. With regard to Westminster, the only popular expression of opinion was at a meeting at which 1,500 persons were present, and they passed a resolution unanimously in favour of this measure. The next objection raised by the honourable Member was that it was too large an area. He could only say that he was very much surprised to hear the honourable Member adduce that argument, because there were at least seven areas to be incorporated in London which had a very much larger area than that of Greater Westminster. With regard to the

  1007
  population of Greater Westminster, it would stand fifth on the scheduled areas, and it was only with regard to rateable value that Westminster was very much ahead of the other municipalities, and he did not think that a mere matter of rateable value should be allowed to interfere with a proposal which had so many practical reasons to support it. With regard to the specific proposal of the honourable Member in his Amendment, it proposed to divide Greater Westminster into two portions, and he had appealed to local feeling. The provision which he proposed was opposed in Westminster and in St. George's, Hanover Square, which were two of the principal districts involved. Therefore he did not see how it could be argued that local feeling was in favour of this proposal. What would be the result of the Amendment? It would produce two areas where the rateable value would be in the one case £2,800,000 and in the other £2,000,000. In one case the area would be 1,930 acres, and in the other 615 acres only. In the first case the population would be 133,000 and in the other 59,000. Therefore there did not seem to be any reason, on the ground of attempting to obtain uniformity, for the adoption of the proposal contained in the Amendment. He trusted that the Government would not be shaken from their resolve to reconstitute, for the purposes of this Act—which was to bring a new era of local government into London—an area the boundaries of which were deeply marked in history and familiar to the whole country and to the population of Greater Westminster.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that no adequate reason had been given by the First Lord of the Treasury or by the Solicitor General for dealing with Westminster in a totally different way to the other boroughs to be created under the Act. There did not appear to be any adequate reason at all except the historical one which, he thought, in these matters, ought not to come in at all. As a parochial borough Westminster never had any history, and he did not quite see why it should be treated in this way, for the only historic part was its Parliamentary part. This borough was going to have only the authority and power of the other municipal boroughs, and if Westminster was content with the same authority and powers as the other
  1008
  boroughs in proportion to rateable value, then the City of London ought to be content with the same area and the same powers. He thought it was a little discourteous that no reply had been given to the arguments used.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can assure the honourable Gentleman that I do not mean any discourtesy to this Amendment, but I notice that even the mover of its has not remained in his place. It is hardly necessary for me to use again the arguments which I used before. The area we propose at the end is not excessive in point of size, being less than a good many of the areas we have already created. If it be true, as it certainly is, that the rateable value is very much greater, I do not see that is any objection to any scheme which took away from the poor areas already created some rich districts, but there is no probability of that kind before us, and we have no alternative of that description to discuss, because in the view of the honourable Member who has left the House this area should not, in any case, be added to other areas, but it should be merely bisected, and then we should have two areas instead of one. I cannot see that that is a material consideration, and if not, the honourable Gentleman, I am sure, will recognise with me that I am only consistent in doing my best in this case in endeavouring to make these areas in the new London as large as public opinion will permit. I am aware that the honourable Member for South Leeds said that the public opinion of Westminster was against the new arrangement, but I beg leave to doubt that statement, and I think there will be few municipalities more popular than the Greater Westminster which we propose to create.
  MR. STUARTpointed out that the Government had not taken this step in respect of any other portion of London. They had left a certain area in White-chapel about which there might be some doubt. Of this particular area of Greater Westminster all except one had shown their strong desire not to be combined together, and yet they were going to combine them. He had not heard of any proposal to make such a combination from the districts concerned, and he did not think the idea ever presented itself to

  1009
  the minds of those interested in the reform of London Government. This proposal was not in the Bill as it was originally moulded and introduced by the Westminster Conference. It was never heard of until it was expounded by the First Lord of the Treasury. He did not see how they could except to have a piece of good local government under such

  AYES.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Gedge, Sydney

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

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

  Penn, John

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

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

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Rasch, Major Frederick

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Richardson, Henry Charles

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Greene, Walford D. (Wdnsbury

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

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

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

  Robinson, Brooke

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Helder, Augustus

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Bigwood, James

  Holland, Hn. Lionel R. (Bow)

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Scoble, Sir Adrew Richard

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Hughes, Colonel Edwin

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Keswick, William

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

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Stephens, Henry Charles

  Charrington, Spencer

  Llewelyn Sir Dillwyn-(Swans'a

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Strauss, Arthur

  Cox, Irwin Edward B. (Harrow

  Lorne, Marquees of

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Lowles, John

  Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Denny, Colonel

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

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

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.

  Doughty, George

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Monk, Charles James

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Finch, George H.

  Moore, William (Antirm, N.)

  Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm

  Finlay, Sir Robert. Bannatyne

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Wyndham, George

  Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Mount, William George

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Allen, Wm. (Newe. under Lyme

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Hedderwick, Thomas Charles H

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Burns, John

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Caldwell, James

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Channing, Francis Allston

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

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

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)

  Colville, John

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Dillon, John

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Doogan, P. C.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Dunn, Sir William

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Mr. Lough and Mr. James Stuart.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Steadman, William Charles

  circumstances. The area was very large and complicated, and he thought under these circumstances they were taking a step with respect to this portion of London which they were not proposing to take in any other part of the Metropolis.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 120; Noes, 49.—(Division List, No. 159.)
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 2:—
  CAPTAIN NORTONexplained that the Amendment he now proposed to move was intended to prevent the transference to the new boroughs of the powers at present possessed by the London County Council with regard to wooden structures under the Building Act of 1894. The proposal referred not only to ordinary wooden structures, but also to stands such as those that were put up at the time of the Jubilee, and these were buildings that required a considerable knowledge on the part of the official superintending their erection in order that they should be made safe. Under the present law, if an accident occurred the District Surveyor would be held liable by the Coroner's Jury, but if the powers were transferred to the new boroughs the latter would be compelled to engage a number of officers to do this work at great expense, or employ comparatively inexperienced men with the result that accidents might happen. There was no definition of either a building or a structure, and there would be conflict between the district surveyors and the borough council constantly going on. By the proposal in this Bill they would have dual authority, and would not get uniformity, and in the poorer districts personal influence would no doubt be brought to bear through the borough councils in order to obtain permission to put up buildings.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 16, to leave out lines 6 to 11"—( Captain Norton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the Schedule."
  SIR. R. B. FINLAYsaid this was a matter of no very great importance, as it related to the licences to be granted for the setting up of wooden structures. It had been agreed between the County Council and the local authorities that this transfer should take place.
  Amendment agreed to.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIRsaid his next Amendment dealt with the inspection of dairies throughout London, and
  1012
  provided that the bye-laws and regulations governing them should be made by the County Council. Under the Public Health Act the London County Council appointed Inspectors and they had the power to visit dairies. If this power was taken away From them, as the schedule proposed, it was impossible, unless the County Council had the power of entry, for them to ascertain whether the local authorities were doing their duty or not.
  Amendment proposed, in page 16, column 2, line 20:—
  "Before 'subject' insert 'subject to bye-laws and regulations to be made by the County Council, and."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR R. B. FINLAYsaid that if the honourable Member would look at the seventh section of the Bill, Sub-section 4, he would see that it was provided that it should be the duty of each borough council to enforce within their borough the bye-laws and regulations for the time being in force with respect to dairies and milk. Therefore the Amendment was Unnecessary.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIRsaid that this was not the point. Under Section 28 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, which referred to the registration of dairies, the County Council had the right of entry. It was the right that he wished to preserve to the London County Council, because without that power they could not ascertain whether the local authorities had done their duty or not.
  SIR R. B. FINLAYsaid he did not see how it could be suggested that they should again provide that the powers given with regard to the registration of dairies should be subject to these bye-laws and regulations, but he would consider before the Report stage whether it was necessary.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  SIR JOHN DICKSON - POYNDERsaid his object in moving this Amendment was to delete from the schedule the transfer of the power and duty of executing the Acts relating to common lodging-houses, except

  1013
  the power of making regulations under Section 9 of the Common Lodging-House Act, 1851, subject to the power of the County Council to act in default of the borough council.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 16, to leave out lines 24 to 27."—(Sir John, Dickson Poynder.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This is an Amendment I am prepared to accept. The only powers to be transferred are agreed powers, but I find from the conference of the county councils and the vestries that, though they agree in general terms, they are not prepared at the present time to accept this transfer. They require some further modification in the law.
  Amendment negatived.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR CAPTAIN SINCLAIR moved to omit lines 28 to 32, on page 17, on the ground that as the words stood there would be different bye-laws on one side of a street to those in force on the other side.
  Amendment proposed —
  "In page 17, to leave out lines 28 to 32."—(Captain Sinclair.)
  Question proposed —"That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the schedule."
  SIR R. B. FINLAYexpressed the hope
  1014
  that the honourable Member would not press his Amendment. It was desirable that the Borough Councils should have power to make bye-laws with reference to matters specified in that portion of the schedule to which the Amendment referred.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday 5th June, and to be printed. [Bill 217.]

  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS AMENDMENT AND CONSOLIDATION.
  Bill to amend and consolidate the law relating to factories and workshops, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Caldwell, Sir Charles Cameron, Mr. Pirie, Mr. Souttar, and Mr. Colville.

  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS AMENDMENT AND CONSOLIDATION BILL.
  "To amend and consolidate the law relating to factories and workshops," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday 1st June, and to be printed. [Bill 218.]
  Adjourned at half after Twelve of the clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk, of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—
KENSINGTON AND NOTTING HILL ELECTRIC LIGHTING.
  MIDLAND AND SOUTH-WESTERN JUNCTION RAILWAY.
    AYR BURGH.
    And also the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) [Lords].
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) [Lords].
    WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION [Lords].
    The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
    YORKE ESTATE BILL [Lords].
    The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 163A, relating to Private Bills, he had, on the requisition of the Chairman of Committees, appointed William Howard Winterbotham, Official Solicitor to the Supreme Court of Judicature, as guardian or protector of the infant James Hamilton Langdon Yorke, named in the Bill, to represent such infant before the Committee on the Bill.
    STRETFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS) BILL [Lords].
    Reported with Amendments.
    MOSS SIDE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS) BILL [Lords].
    Reported with Amendments.
    LOWESTOFT WATER AND GAS BILL [Lords].
    Reported with Amendments.
    WITHINGTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS) BILL [Lords].
    Reported with Amendments.
    GROSVENOR CHAPEL (LONDON) BILL [Lords].
    Reported with Amendments.
    WHITEHAVEN CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
    EDINBURGH CORPORATION BILL.
    Read 2a, and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
    GATESHEAD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL.
    Read 2a, and committed.
    GOOLE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
    Read 2a, and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
    TENTERDEN RAILWAY BILL.
    Read 3a, and passed.
    LOUGHBOROUGH CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
    COLONIAL AND FOREIGN BANKS GUARANTEE FUND BILL [Lords].
    Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
    BRIGHTON MARINE PALACE AND PIER BILL [Lords].
    Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
    FURNESS RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
    STRETFORD GAS BILL [Lords].
    Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
    PAISLEY AND BARRHEAD DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
    BRIGG URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
    AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION BILL
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a and referred to the Examiners.
    BAKER STREET AND WATERLOO RAILWAY BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a and referred to the Examiners.
    BELFAST WATER BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a and referred to the Examiners.
    BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
    Brought from, the Commons; read 1a and referred to the Examiners.
    CORK CORPORATION (FINANCE) BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
    DUBLIN CORPORATION (MARKETS) BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
    EAST LONDON WATER BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
    GREAT WESTERN AND GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
    LINCOLN AND EAST COAST RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiner's.
    LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
    LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
    LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
    MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
    MILTON CREEK CONSERVANCY BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
    NORTH PEMBROKESHIRE AND FISHGUARD RAILWAY BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
    UXBRIDGE AND RICKMANSWORTH RAILWAY BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
    SURREY COMMERCIAL DOCKS BILL [Lords].
    Returned from the Commons agreed to.
    HORSFORTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (WATER) BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
    COALVILLE URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL [Lords].
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
    WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
    WESTON - SUPER - MARE, CLEVEDON, AND PORTISHEAD TRAMWAYS COMPANY (LIGHT RAILWAY EXTENSIONS) BILL [Lords].
    Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
    Committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
    JONES'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords].
    House in Committee (according to order): An Amendment made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendment to be received on Thursday the 1st of June next.
    GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [Lords].
    Read 2a (according to order).
    GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [Lords].
    Read 2a (according to order).
    WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
    Read 2a (according to order).
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. [No. 96.]
PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  MARYPORT HARBOUR BILL [Lords].

    WATERMEN'S AND LIGHTERMEN'S ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].
    WORKINGTON CORPORATION WATER BILL [Lords].
    GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords].
    SOUTHPORT AND LYTHAM TRAM-ROAD BILL [Lords].
    SOUTHPORT TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
    NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, viz.:—

    M. Hertford,

    V. Powerscourt,

    L. Farnham,

    L. Monck (V. Monck),

    L. Herries (chairman);

    agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday, 6th of June next, at Eleven of the clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

    METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES BILL.
    Amendment considered.
    EARL CARRINGTON: Lord Tweed-mouth has explained the Amendment which stands on the Paper in my name so thoroughly that I will content myself on this occasion by formally moving it:—
    Amendment moved, "At end of Clause 2 to add, `and provided that the total amount of such stock shall not exceed five hundred thousand pounds.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
    LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I promised Lord Tweedmouth that I would communicate with the President of the Local Government Board to find out whether he could see his way to agree to the insertion of these words, and I have done so. I am sorry that the right honourable Gentleman cannot agree to the Amendment. When it was introduced in the House of Commons he fought it tooth and nail, and he says he cannot now eat his words.
    EARL CARRINGTON: If the President of the Local Government Board is unable to eat his words, I have not another word to say, except to express my regret that the noble Lord is unable to accept the Amendment. The majority of the electors of London must bow to the inevitable. All that we have been able to do is to make a gallant but somewhat unsuccessful attempt to save the money of the ratepayers in days to come.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I regret that the noble Marquess at the head of the Government is not here to-night. I had cherished the hope, after hearing the speech of the Prime Minister the other evening, that this Amendment would be accepted. The argument of the noble Marquess tended in the direction of showing that the Bill would not do much harm, and that in all probability there would be no further water famine. If this is the case, then I regret that the Amendment has not been accepted, for I am not so sanguine as to expect that there may not be a considerable expenditure entailed.
    LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: The expenditure can only take place in cases of great emergency. There is a second protection—that until seven years have elapsed, if any purchase of the undertakings of these companies takes place, no credit can be given to the companies for any expenditure under this Bill.
    EARL CARRINGTON: The Bill leaves a loophole for a great expenditure which the ratepayers of London wish to avoid, and which they will have to pay for in the future.
    Amendment negatived.
    An Amendment made: Then Standing Order No. 39 considered (according to order), and dispensed with: Bill read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

OYSTERS BILL [Lords].

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, which I may, perhaps, describe as another step in the legislative process which endeavours to make more sanitary the surroundings of creatures which supply food for man, and I may point out that there are precedents for legislation of this character in the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act of 1878. There are also several Acts of Parliament which apply to oysters, in particular the Fisheries Act of 1877, which empowered the Board of Trade to prohibit the dredging of oysters on certain banks. The county council or the Local Government Board were empowered to have the water examined in which oysters were laid in order to see whether there were any insanitary conditions affecting them. The causes which rendered it necessary in the opinion of the Government to bring forward this Bill were primarily the grave suspicions that have attached to the oyster of late years. As long ago as 1880 Sir Charles Cameron, the Medical Officer of Health for Dublin, read a paper on the possible relations of typhoid fever to the consumption of polluted oysters, and the risk of sewage contamination to oysters laid down in Dublin Bay. In 1889 cases of enteric in Dublin were regarded as possibly due to oysters. In 1893 an outbreak of cholera in this country raised a very strong suspicion that it was due to oysters, and official representations were made to the Local Government Board in 1894 respecting the condition of storing oysters
  898
  in readiness for market. In 1894 also an outburst of enteric fever at the Wesleyan University, Connecticut, was traced undoubtedly to oysters fattened in an estuary near the outfall of a specifically infected drain. In 1896 the Acadéemie de Médicine in Paris received a paper from Dr. Chantemesse dealing with the cause of the outbreak of typhoid in a town in France, and passed a resolution to the effect that the consumption of oysters kept in polluted layings might cause typhoid fever, and demanded that oysters derived from localities known to be contaminated should be deposited for a period of eight days before their sale at some point on the coast washed by pure sea water. In 1898 an outbreak in Essex induced the Local Government Board to cause an inquiry to be made by Dr. Buchanan, who was satisfied that the outbreak was due to oysters which had been taken up from certain layers at a noted town on the Essex coast. In consequence of these suspicions and some representations made by medical men, as well as from the pressure brought to bear by local authorities and dealers in oysters whose trade was seriously affected by these suspicions, the Local Government Board determined in 1895 that its medical department should undertake a comprehensive inquiry into the circumstances in which the oyster was cultivated, and stored around our coast. Dr. Bulstrode examined every one of the oyster beds on the coast of England and Wales. In the course of his investigations he found that in many cases oysters are laid in dangerous proximity to the mouths of drains, where it is possible for the sewage effluent to flow over the oyster bed. In order to prove my case, I will read to your Lordships the description he gives of the conditions under which he found oysters being removed for human consumption. I think it would be only fair that I should not give the names of these places, because this report was made in 1896, and it is possible that in the interval the condition of things may have been improved. The Local Government Board have no information on that point, but we hope it may be so. Writing of one place, Dr. Bulstrode said:
  "Several of the merchants possess floating boxes, in which oysters not required for immediate sale are from time to time deposited. These boxes are moored a short distance south of the pier pavilion, one of them at the time of

  899
  my visit being 36 yards from the nearest lavatory closet drain pipe, at the foot of which pipe I discovered solid fœcal matter."
  Of another place Dr. Bulstrode said:
  "The storage pits belong to divers owners. The position of each pit is such as to court contamination by sewage of the oysters contained therein. In each instance there is, within a few yards, a drain serving a considerable number of houses."
  After describing the discharge of the sewage on the foreshore of the creek, at another place, he says:
  "Under these circumstances it is difficult to understand how the oysters near can fail to be polluted thereby. There can be little doubt that the oyster layings near the outfalls are in especial danger of sewage pollution."
  Of another place Dr. Bulstrode said:
  "These layings for oysters form a close pool of water containing numerous fishing craft; in other words, it is often a pond 23 acres in extent, containing moveable habitations, each with its own drain."
  In describing the arrangements at other places, Dr. Bulstrode said:
  "A considerable part of the water passing down the bed of the stream when the tide is out must be composed of sewage, and this cannot fail to pass over some of the oyster layings."
  "These drains receive, in some instances, the overflows from cesspools, and they cannot fail to afford substantial risk of contamination to the oysters contained."
  "Having regard to the relation of the several outlets in question to the oyster ponds, oysters stored here must be liable, in a high degree, to the danger of sewage pollution. The oyster ponds are in a most improper and unsafe position."
  There are three kinds of oysters to be considered—oysters bred in England, oysters imported for the purpose of laying down for fattening, and oysters imported for immediate consumption. Oysters are imported in very large quantities even from America, and consumed without being laid down in English waters. They are imported from France, Portugal and Holland. As regards oysters born and bred in this country, and foreign, oysters, the chief risk is in the case of the layings used as fattening pits and storage ponds, and the same grounds are used for both breeding purposes and for fattening. An investigation was made by Dr. Klein, partly in the ordinary course of a systematic inquiry instituted by the Local Government Board, and especially in furtherance of this oyster inquiry, and he summed up the series of experiments thus:
  900
  "It follows therefore from these experiments that oysters from various localities and of divers origin, which are kept for a while in sea water previously infected with culture of the typhoid bacillus, and which remain living and fresh, may and do harbour in their interior the living typhoid bacillus at intervals of four, nine, sixteen, and even 18 days from commencement of experiment, and that the oysters on being opened show no abnormal condition, but appear fresh and quite unaltered. Further, it appears that the typhoid bacillus which was recovered from these oysters, as also from the tank water, retains unimpaired all the characters of the typical typhoid bacillus that was used for the experiment."
  Sir William Broadbent, in 1895, announced through one of the principal medical journals of England that
  "the evidence of communication of typhoid by means of oysters had come to be of such a character as to produce conviction in his mind."
  Professor Conn, in summarising a case of typhoid in Connecticut, says—
  "These facts taken together form a chain of evidence practically complete at every point and leaving no room for doubt. Whatever may be said in regard to oysters in general, the Wesleyan outbreak of typhoid was caused by a special lot of contaminated oysters."
  And also:
  "One thing is sure—the public health is placed in jeopardy when oyster dealers, for the sake of producing plumpness, place oysters in the mouths of fresh water creeks in close proximity to sewers."
  Dr: News Holms, Medical Officer of Health for Brighton, has, in his official capacity, reported that cases of enteric in Brighton have, in more than one case, been due to the consumption of oysters. He says:
  "The following is the chain of evidence which has enabled the Medical Officer of Health to establish the connection between cases of enteric fever and the consumption of oysters and other shell fish:—(a) Most of the oysters and mussels consumed in Brighton are derived from a particular source, concerning which it is only necessary to quote Dr. Bulstrode's remark—`Sufficient has come to light for the purpose of demonstrating that these particular oyster ponds are in a most improper and unsafe position.'
  "(b) Enteric fever is endemic in the population whose drains and cesspools discharge near the oyster ponds and mussel beds in question.
  "(c) Sewage-derived organisms were found in the mud of the oyster ponds, and in the interior of oysters obtained from them by Dr. Klein, F.R.S., and by Professor Boyce, of University College, Liverpool.
  "(d) In a large proportion of the cases the one person taking oysters or mussels from the above source within three weeks preceding the date of onset of illness is the one person subsequently taken ill with enteric fever.

  901
  "(e) When other persons in the same house had eaten shell-fish they had diarrhœa or other evidence of illness, although this did not develop into typical enteric fever."
  These are the inquiries and the export opinions which justify the Local Government Board in introducing this Measure, and they have boon urged by an extremely powerful deputation representative of twenty-eight of the largest towns in the kingdom, to introduce some legislation on the subject. The evidence in favour of legislation is overwhelming, and many of those engaged in the oyster trade will welcome it as tending to remove suspicion from their beds. The Bill empowers the county councils to test the water in which oysters are laid, and to prohibit the removal of oysters for ten days if they discover contamination. The owner has an appeal to the Local Government Board, and the Local Government Board has power to act if the County Council fail to do so. There is a very important clause with regard to the importation of oysters, which provides that
  "If it is made to appear to Her Majesty in Council that any oyster laying situate in any foreign country or British possession is so situate with reference to an outfall of sewage that there is serious risk of disease being communicated by the consumption of oysters taken from that oyster laying, it shall he lawful for Her Majesty in Council, by order, to prohibit the importation into the United Kingdom of oysters brought from that oyster laying, or from any specified part of that country or possession which includes that laying, except on such terms with respect to the temporary deposit of the oysters or otherwise as may appear to Her Majesty in Council expedient for the purpose of removing the risk of communicating disease."
  The Bill applies to Scotland and Ireland with certain modifications. There is, in my opinion, sufficient evidence to show that there is a demand for legislation of this kind, and I trust that the Bill will be accepted. I do not wish to hurry it through, but the President of the Local Government Board desires that it should be read a second time so that there may be an opportunity of considering it before the Committee stage.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MONEY LENDING BILL [Lords].

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to order).
  LORD LUDLOW: My Lords, I Move to Insert After "Provided that nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Bill shall affect the rights of any bonâ fule assignee or holder for value," the words "without notice." I think my noble friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy, approves of this Amendment.
  Amendment moved, in Clause 2, Subsection 4, to add at end of clause "without notice."—(Lord Ludlow.)
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I accept the Amendment, which strengthens the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: Since the clause defining "money-lenders" has been revised and very much improved, a case has been brought to my notice, and, I think, to the notice of the noble and learned Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy, of a society which has power given to it by a private Act of Parliament to lend money; and it is thought, and I believe, rightly thought, that a society which is incorporated for one purpose and subsequently has its powers enlarged by the Act of Parliament, and power given to it to lend money, ought not to come within the definition. I therefore move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment moved, in Clause 7, page 4, after line 3, insert—
  (c) "Any body corporate, incorporated or empowered (before the passing of this Act), by a Special Act of Parliament to lend money in accordance with such Special Act; or"—(Viscount Knutsford.)
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I believe the society referred to is the only one existing under the same conditions. It has power by Act of Parliament to lend money under certain conditions and ought to be protected. I accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  LINCOLNSHIRE CORONERS BILL [Lords].
  Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a on Friday the 9th of June next.
  PARISH COUNCILLORS (TENURE OF OFFICE) BILL.
  Amendment reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a on Friday the 2nd of June next.
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  LICENSING (DISQUALIFICATION OF JUSTICES REMOVAL) BILL [Lords].
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
  First Report from the Select Committee considered (according to order), and agreed to.
  MARINE INSURANCE BILL [Lords].
  A Bill for codifying the law relating to Marine Insurance—was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 97.)

  COMPANIES BILL [Lords].
  Report from the Select Committee (with Proceedings of the Committee) made, and to be printed. No. 98; Bill reported with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the whole House; and to be printed as amended. (No. 99.)
  House adjourned at ten minutes past five of the clock, to Thursday the 1st of June next, a quarter past four of the clock.