Sitting of 29 March 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, namely—
  London and India Docks Joint Committee Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely—
  Portland Urban District Gas.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  LAND REGISTRY (NEW BUILDINGS) BILL.
  Ordered, that the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Land Registry (New Buildings) Bill, with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bill. (Dr. Farquharson.)

  AIRDRIE, COATBRIDGE, AND DISTRICT WATER TRUST BILL.
  MORECAMBE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL GAS BILL.
  OSSET CORPORATION GAS BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.

  GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
  NORTH WARWICKSHIRE WATER BILL.
  SPALDING URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (WATER) BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

  UNIVERSAL LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL [Lords] [STAMP DUTIES].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the imposition of the following Stamp Duties upon certain Memorials under any Act of the present Session relating to the Universal Life Assurance Society, namely—For and upon the First Memorial enrolled of the names of persons who shall be deemed, held, and taken to be Trustees of the Society, the sum of Five pounds; and upon every other such Memorial in which the name of any person shall for the first time be inserted as a Trustee of the Society, the sum of Five pounds.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  LOWESTOFT RAILWAY BILL.
  Order [19th February] that the Lowestoft Railway Bill be committed, read, and discharged.
  Ordered, That the Bill be withdrawn. (Dr. Farquharson.)

  LONDON WATER (PURCHASE) BILL (BY ORDER).
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [22nd March], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
  MR. STUART: When, on a previous occasion, I had to move the Second Reading of a Bill similar to this, the main object of my remarks was to establish the points that purchase was a good thing, that it was desirable, in the interests of the public, that there should be purchase by some public authority, and that the exigencies of the future supply of water to London would be best met by placing the various water undertakings in the hands of some public authority. But these points no longer need to be argued. A Royal Commission was established especially for the purpose of deciding, among other things, whether control or purchase was the right method of procedure in this matter, and it has undoubtedly reported With unanimity in favour of the purchase of the London water companies' undertakings by some public authority. I cannot but be glad that that contest, which lasted so many years, has been decided by so great an authority in the direction in which, on behalf of the London County Council, I urged in this House five years ago that it should be decided. I see it is stated by the opponents of the Bill that the measure which I have before the House now has been repeatedly brought forward. But, although in the year 1897 I did bring in a measure on somewhat similar lines, I would beg the House to remember that it differed in one or two important details from the Act Of 1895, and that the first act of the present House was to reverse the decision taken in the previous session. I would also point out to hon. Gentlemen that the basis of the rejection of the Bill was that there had not been a sufficiently authoritative pronouncement upon the point
  630
  whether the proper method of dealing with the London water companies was by control or purchase. That was the statement made by the President of the Local Government Board, who, speaking at the time on behalf of the Government, further indicated that his personal predilection was in the direction of control. The right hon. Gentleman said that a Commission ought to be appointed to set at rest that question. The Commission was accordingly appointed, and it has decided the point, and I think that the body which has hitherto promoted these Bills is only doing its duty in calling upon this House to supplement to the best of its ability the decision of that Royal Commission. It may be asked, Why not wait until next year? But I would remind the House that in 1895 I urged that the solution of the water question by purchase was urgent and pressing. Everything that has happened since, that date has, I believe, shown the propriety of that statement, and that has occurred which I then suggested was likely to take place. Enormous extra concessions have been given to the various water companies. They have conferred upon those companies valuable assets which, if purchase had been carried out at the date I first brought it before the House, would have accrued in the hands of the public, and would not have had to be re-purchased from the companies to whom they had been given. I believe these concessions represent an amount not very short of one-third of the whole existing capital of the companies, and additions are still being made in that direction. Even in the present session of Parliament we have passed the Second Reading of two Bills, which add very considerable additional amounts to the capital of the companies promoting them, and at a litter stage of to-day's proceedings we shall be called upon to consider a Bill which proposes to give a very great asset to the companies in the shape of power to draw an almost unlimited supply of water from the river Thames. We have had, in the case of almost every Bill, to contend for the maintenance of what is called a sinking fund. At great expense to the ratepayers of London, we have had to secure the insertion of such a provision in the various Bills. We have also had to get inserted in several of the Bills a clause stating that the concession granted would not in the

  631
  event of purchase be liable to be treated as a valuable asset of the company. But both these provisions have been omitted from, the Bills we have before us this session, and we stand in jeopardy also of losing the power we already possess to prevent a valuable asset being a charge against us in the event of purchase. The clause providing that a concession granted to a company should not be reckoned as an asset which we were to purchase, was practically first introduced in the Staines Reservoir Bill of 1896, being copied from an older Bill of little importance. How did that clause come to be introduced? In 1896, when our Purchase Bills were rejected, we complained that Bills were being passed giving the companies large concessions, and the President of the Local Government Board met us very fairly, and secured the adoption of an Instruction to the Committee, to the effect that they should not make a greater amount of concession than was necessary for the immediate requirements of the case. When we came to discuss the Staines Reservoir scheme, which gave large additional powers over the Thames to the companies, it was perfectly obvious to the Committee that a portion of a reservoir could not be constructed, and that it would be necessary, if the scheme were passed at all, to pass it as a whole. We adopted this plan to meet the spirit, if not the letter of the right hon. Gentleman's Instruction. We passed the scheme, but we also inserted a clause to the effect that in the event of purchase the concession should not be reckoned as an asset of the companies for which we were to pay. The clause has since been adopted in other Bills. At that time, we anticipated that the question of purchase would be settled in a short time, and, accordingly, we anticipated that the clause would remain in operation for seven years. It will, therefore, cease to exist in 1903, and unless the purchase of the companies' undertakings is carried out before that year, the object and intention of the clause, as well as of the Instruction of the House upon which it was framed, will be frustrated. I wish to point out the extreme importance of this. If the Bill is passed this year it cannot become law till towards the end of the year, and a whole series of arbitrations will have to be completed before the period I have indicated. If you defer it until next year—and in this connection we must not forget the
  632
  imminence of a General Election—there is great danger that the purchase scheme will be so delayed that humanly speaking it will be impossible to complete the arbitrations in time. This clause would then cease to be operative, and the concessions would become a valuable asset of the companies. Is it not, therefore, our duty to urge the House to pass these Purchase Bills immediately? We are aware of the great loss which must be caused to the ratepayers of London if we do not pass the Purchase Bills in the present session. I am prepared to make concessions under those circumstances. The Government are already in possession of what practically these points amount to. In the Bill, apart from the great governing question of purchase, there have been certain differences of opinion on particular clauses. In the first place there is the clause which suggests that we should be free to separate the water supply in its sources as well as in the bulk to supply the outside areas. That separation was not part of our policy, and it is an endeavour on our part to meet the outside areas. If that is not successful in meeting their views, and if it is the desire of the House that that clause should be modified, we are perfectly prepared to do so. The second is the arbitration clause. We submit that under the circumstances in which we brought in our Bill a few years ago it was necessary to instruct the arbitrator on different points, but much has happened since then. These points have been brought before the Royal Commission and the public, and I am free to say that if we can get our Bill this session, and if purchase can be secured this session, we will be willing to accept an arbitration clause which is not in our opinion as good as we could wish. That is to say, we shall be prepared to accept the arbitration clause shadowed by the Royal Commission on the lines of the Land Clauses Act, with a special arbitration tribunal, and the omission of a solatium for compulsory purchase. That is a distinct endeavour on our part to meet the situation in order to secure purchase this year, but if the Bill is not passed this session then the quid pro quo under which we offer these concessions would not be obtainable by and by. Now I come to the question of the authority. I admit at once that the Royal Commission has said that it did not approve of

  633
  the London County Council as the authority for management. [Cheers.] That meets with the response which is naturally to be expected from hon. Members on the other side of the House, because it is in accordance with the views which they have quite consistently held. I do not object to their position in the matter at all, but I say that we are perfectly prepared to meet the wishes of the House generally, and of all concerned. So anxious are we to secure purchase this year by some public authority and set the question at rest, that we are prepared to purchase in trust for any authority that may be created, and we will reserve to ourselves no more right in connection with that authority than the right every hon. Member has of dealing with any measure coming before the House. The House will at any rate see that I am dealing frankly with the points at issue. I go further. This Bill was drafted in view of what the Royal Commission might possibly report. We were not aware what it would report, but we had to bear the Report in mind. Let me call the attention of the House to Clause 24, because I do not think that much attention has been paid to it. It states that the Council shall appoint for the management of the water supply a committee which may comprise as members persons not being members of the Council, and that the Council shall delegate absolutely to such committee any power with reference to the management and administration of the water supply. If that managing body be not capable of giving satisfaction to all concerned, then any persons concerned or the Government will be free to introduce a measure to substitute another authority; and as regards such a measure we reserve only the power which every hon. Member possesses in respect of any measure for which the approval of the House is asked. Under Clause 25 of this Bill we actually empower urban councils and urban and rural district councils which may he concerned to introduce a Bill for altering or amending this Act in so far as it relates to the constitution of the authority to manage the water supply of the metropolis, and we also empower these bodies to act if they choose as petitioners against any such Bill, the clause stating, "it I being the intention of this Act not to prejudice any such question." It is very difficult, after what I have now said, for
  634
  any hon. Member to state, as has been stated in the circulars which have been issued, that this Bill is absolutely opposed to every recommendation of the Royal Commission. It is not so. I have shown our willingness and desire to amend the measure, provided we can secure its passage this session. I have shown that, although the County Council would be the purchasing body, another body would afterwards be the managing body. There is nothing in the Report of the Royal Commission against that position of affairs. It was not as a purchasing body that the Royal Commission made any objection to the County Council; it was to it as the body to control the supply after purchase was effected. There is a great point in that, because I am strongly of opinion that whatever body you choose ultimately to create to control and manage the water supply it will have to have recourse in the first instance to the London County Council to effect the purchase. [An HON. MEMBER: Why?] The reason is that, in order to effectually carry through a purchase arbitration and the long negotiations connected with it, you must have some body which thoroughly understands the case. If you create a new body, it will have to spend years in securing for itself the necessary information, and also in securing officers acquainted with the subject to carry through the purchase. We have these officers in the London County Council, and therefore you will delay purchase indefinitely if you create an authority to purchase as well as to manage. There have been great difficulties in the way of creating an authority for managing the water supply of London, but a large portion of these difficulties arose from the water companies themselves, and if these companies were out of the way and satisfied, I believe, although it would be difficult, it would, at any rate, at least be possible to construct an authority capable of managing the London water supply. I have given reasons for the immediate passing of this Bill, and I have indicated the concessions which under these circumstances we should be prepared to make. I hope I have not detained the House too long. The measure is intricate, but is yet framed on such large lines that if they be steadily adhered to it will not be difficult for the House to arrive at a decision. I thank hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House for their patient and

  635
  kindly attention. Even the hon. Members who differ from me respect, I hope, my views as I respect their views. In conclusion, I move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  MR. WHITMORE: My hon. friend has made an ingenious and interesting speech, but I think the bulk of his arguments has been directed to support a Bill which is not yet drafted. He has not said much about the London Water Purchase Bill which is now before us, but he said a great deal in favour of a purely hypothetical Bill. What is the real principle of the Bill now before the House? It is that the London County Council should be the purchaser of the water undertakings of the eight London water companies, and that after purchase the Council should remain the owner and work the business within its own area, but that with regard to outside areas the Council should transfer the property and working of the undertakings to different local authorities. That is an inseparable part of the policy which the London County Council has always adopted in connection with these Bills. May I ask the House to recall how during this Parliament the House of Commons has treated Bills dealing with the London water question on these lines? In 1896 the first Bill based on these lines was brought in and was rejected on Second Beading by a majority of 162. In 1897 a similar Bill was introduced and its Second Reading was defeated by a majority of 135. In that year the Government promised that they would appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole question, and in May of that year the Commission was appointed. The London County Council recognised the futility of proceeding with these Bills pending the Report of the Royal Commission, and in 1898 no Bill was introduced. In the summer of 1898 there unfortunately occurred a scarcity of water in the East End of London, and impelled by that fact—I do not complain of its action—the County Council very naturally introduced two Bills dealing with this question—the London Water Purchase Bill and the Welsh Supply Bill. What happened? When the Welsh Supply Bill came on for Second Reading it was met by an Amendment,
  636
  that the House thought it was undesirable to deal with it until the Royal Commission had reported, and that Amendment was carried by a considerable majority. The London Water Purchase Bill was postponed from time to time, and ultimately withdrawn. The House of Commons, then, has always treated the policy of the London County Council in this way. It has absolutely refused to sanction their main policy of purchase of the water companies' undertakings, and at the same time it has attached great weight to the appointment of a Royal Commission, and had practically declared, that when the Report of the Royal Commission was presented to the House it would attach very commanding weight to its recommendations. Well, the Royal Commission was appointed in 1897. It was composed of men of all views, men of great distinction in many walks of life. Its proceedings were protracted, some said too protracted. The Commission certainly made a very exhaustive inquiry, and ultimately reported at the beginning, of this year. Their report was a unanimous report; and I think everybody who has studied it will agree—I know that the leaders of the Progressive party in the London County Council admit it—that the Report is a singularly clear and able document. How does that Report deal with what is, after all, the main principles of the Bill we have got to consider to-day as regards purchase by the London County Council, and subsequent severance? It says—
  "Inasmuch, therefore, as all the metropolitan counties except Hertfordshire, are bent on demanding what the London County Council are pledged to concede, we think that a purchase by the London County Council of the water undertakings must necessarily be followed by that severance and division of the works of supply and distribution into five distinct portions, which appears to us open to so much objection as to be practically inadmissible. On this ground, among others, we have come to the conclusion that the London County Council shall not be the purchaser."
  On the first and main point of this Bill, therefore, the Royal Commission has clearly and decisively reported against it, as also on the second point in regard to severance. And then the Commission went on to report in favour of the constitution of a definite new authority which should be the purchasing authority, and afterwards the distributing authority.

  637
  I think I ought to quote the exact words—
  "We think the Water Board shall be a permanent, and not a fluctuating body—consisting of not more than thirty members, selected on account of their business capacity, and, if possible, their knowledge of matters connected with water supply; and so constituted as not to give a preponderance to any of the conflicting interests concerned. We think that the size and importance of the area to be dealt with takes the duties out of the category of purely municipal or local functions, and makes them a matter as much of national as of local concern."
  That conclusion of the Royal Commission seems to be absolutely adverse to the contention of the promoters of this Bill—that the London County Council should be in any way the purchasing or the distributing authority outside the area of the London County Council; and therefore it is absolutely conclusive against the Second Reading of this Bill. I gathered from the speech of my hon. friend the Member for Hoxton, that he wishes to come to the House in a spirit of sweet reasonableness and ask the House to give a Second Reading to the Bill, and let it be completely transformed by a Select Committee upstairs. In effect he says, Let the Select Committee eviscerate the Bill, and then reviscerate it; in fact, turn it into a totally different Bill. I do not know whether that is in accordance with the practice of this House. I doubt very much whether a second reading has ever been given to any Bill on the express ground that it is to be essentially and entirely altered in Committee. What security have we that the Select Committee will transform the Bill in the way which my hon. friend desires, or we desire? At any rate, I put it to the House that this is a matter of too great importance to be referred wholly to a Select Committee. The future supply of water to London and the surrounding districts is a matter that ought to be dealt with at the outset by the House itself, and I do not think that in a matter of this kind, so fraught with difficulties, that we ought to trust a Select Committee to transform the Bill in every particular. My hon. friend asks the House to refer this Bill to a Select Committee owing to the extreme urgency of the question. I demur to that. I put it to the House that there can be no question that a year's delay will make no practical difference. As to the sufficiency
  638
  of water, it will be remembered that last year was the most stringent test of the capacity of the water companies to provide an adequate water supply. Last summer and autumn were the driest we have almost ever had, following, as they did, a succession of dry seasons, and yet happily not a district of London suffered in any degree at all. We must remember that the companies have added largely to their capacity for giving a full supply by means of the communication of one system with another. Therefore, I do not think there is the least danger that next year or the year after there will be a scarcity at all, even if we had a drought. As regards the money question, this is how it occurs to me. Supposing that in the interval, before a settlement is reached, the water companies add to their capital, and that the quinquennial valuation increased their assessment, the purchasing authority would obtain an increased value for the increased price, as the charges on the water rates would also be raised in future. And if the companies increase their storage reservoirs, that increase will be available for the future water authority, and there is therefore no urgent necessity for purchasing this year. Hon. friends here and elsewhere who oppose this Bill have been rather bitterly assailed on the ground that we are delaying the ultimate settlement of this question, that we are more or less interested in the water companies, and are trying to prevent the water consumers from getting that kind of settlement which they ought to have. For myself, I absolutely repudiate the desire to interpose any unnecessary delay in the settlement of this question. The London water question has been too long a matter for politicians, too long has it inflamed the passions of the London County Council; too long has it led to the embarrassment of the water companies; too long has it prevented the water companies from getting the facilities which they ought to have got; and all of us have come to the conclusion that we should have a final settlement. I certainly would have preferred that there should have been an amalgamation of the companies, rather than the creation of a new public authority; but I accept the Report of the Commission. I admit the force of the argument which the Commission bring forward when they say that amalgamation is impossible, and that it is indispensable

  639
  in the public interest that there should be only one authority in the future. I waive my private view of the matter, and so do many others; and I am perfectly certain that there is a general inclination in men's minds in London to accept the Report of the Commission. It only remains for the Progressives in the London County Council to imitate us, and to abandon their preconceived views, and join with us all in making the Report of the Royal Commission the basis of a final settlement. The Government appointed that Commission, whose Report has met with an almost unanimity of approval, and I cannot doubt but that the Government will, as soon as practical, give effect to the main recommendations of the Commission. It is with that firm and strong hope that I now beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
  MR. COHEN: In seconding the Amendment of my hon. friend, I need only say a few words, as he has practically exhausted all the arguments that can be advanced, My hon. friend opposite—whose moderation in stating his views contrasts very materially with the tone of some of those who agree with him—has not done us the favour of recognising that though we had consistently always opposed the policy of the London County Council, and disagreed with some of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, yet we now feel it to be the duty of all interested in this question to accept the weighty judgment contained in the unanimous Report of the Royal Commission. In the interests of speedy and final settlement of this question, which has been kept open for too great a period, this House would not be justified in sanctioning a Bill which flies in the teeth of every one of the recommendations of one of the strongest Royal Commissions ever appointed.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Whitmore.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I desire to recognise fully the very conciliatory tone of hon.
  640
  Members opposite in the speeches which have just been delivered. I quite agree that this question should be taken altogether out of the domain of party politics, which has been far too long an element in it. In the very few observations which I shall trouble the House with, I shall endeavour, as far as I can, to see how far we are agreed, and to see if, even at this hour, we cannot come to some conclusion which will really help us to arrive at a solution of this difficult question. My hon. friend based his opposition to this Bill not so much upon a question of principle, and my hon. friend behind me has suggested that we should regard the objections made as matters which a Committee upstairs might meet by making alterations. As regards private Bills that is very often done, and in regard to this Bill the Royal Commission did not report until the end of December, and it was essential for the County Council to draft and print the Bills and to give notice of them long before that date. It was, therefore, impossible for the County Council to alter the Bill in the direction indicated by my hon. friend behind me before it came to this House for consideration. Speaking for myself and for my hon. friends behind me, I agree that the County Council are practically prepared generally to accept the view of the Royal Commission, to which allusion has been made, and also to accept the conclusions in general terms to which they have come. They desire that the principle of the Bill—which is purchase—should go upstairs to the Committee, which would then be able to alter it in the direction indicated. May I point out that in this matter, apart from questions of detail, there are really only three matters of primary importance involved in this question. One is the principle of purchase; the second is the basis upon which that purchase can be carried out; and the third is what authority shall be constituted in order to carry out the administration of the water companies of London after purchase. I do not think I need detain the House upon the principle of purchase, for that is a principle to which not only Members on this side of the House, but also many hon. Members on the opposite side, have given their assent, and the principle of purchase is practically accepted on both sides of the House. Therefore, I need not detain the House

  641
  by discussing the principle of purchase. It simply means that some public authority should purchase the water companies' undertakings at a fair price. That was the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman in 1897 when I introduced a Water Bill on behalf of the County Council. The chief reason why that measure was thrown out was that the principle of purchase was not altogether agreed to, and the right hon. Gentleman said he wished to have a Royal Commission to consider it. That Commission have now finally decided that question. There was a further question which I think had some effect upon the fortunes of the Bill of 1897—I allude to the difference of opinion as to how the arbitrator should arrive at a fair price. With regard to this matter there was a considerable difference between the proposals of the County Council and those proposed by the water companies. Naturally the companies wanted the best price they could get, and the County Council wanted them at the lowest price. That was only natural, but the real difference of opinion was whether the Lands Clauses Act should be applied in its entirety to the purchase, or whether there should be some Amendment or alteration in regard to the matter. As I understand the Report of the Royal Commission, they have, in terms, accepted the principle of the Lands Clauses Act, but they admit, practically, that the Lands Clauses Act, as commonly carried out, would not enable the arbitrator to give a fair price for these concerns. The Commission decided that the requirements of London ought to be taken into account, and also the fact that the undertakings would be less profitable in the future than in the past. The right hon. Gentleman accepted the clause proposed by the County Council in regard to this matter, in which they suggested that everything should be taken into account either to the advantage or the disadvantage of either party. The Commission have come to the conclusion that some special tribunal will have to be created in order to deal with this large question, and that the Lands Clauses Act will have to be applied under special conditions and limitations. I think that question, which divided us so very much a year or two ago, has now been practically settled. The third point to which the Member for Chelsea took exception is the question as to who should be the pur-
  642
  chasing authority. He said the Commission had distinctly recommended that the London County Council should not be the purchasing authority. That is not the conclusion which I have come to in reading the Report of the Commission. It is true that the Commission say that they do not think the County Council ought to be the purchasing body, but they mean the administrative authority where they mention the County Council. Practically the argument is that the County Council ought not to be the purchasing authority, because they are in favour of severance and of going to Wales for a water supply for London. Those are the two principal reasons they give against the County Council being the purchasing authority. Their objections, therefore, are not really in connection with the actual matter of purchase itself, but as to the authority after purchase is completed, and I do not find any where in the Report any disposition on the part of the Commissioners objecting to the County Council merely as the purchasing authority. I think my hon. friend satisfied the House that the County Council were not at all unreasonable in this matter. Anticipating to a certain extent the Report of the Royal Commission, the County Council inserted clauses which would enable not only the Committee upstairs so to alter the Bill as to create a fresh authority, but also to enable the Committee so to limit the authority of the County Council as to prevent them becoming the administering body apart from the purchasing body, and while enabling them to purchase, to prevent the County Council actually administering the concerns. This would practically leave in the hands of the Government and the House the fullest and freest possible liberty to deal with this question of authority at some future time if they so desired. The County Council for the time being would be merely the agent for any authority which might be subsequently introduced. It is because of this limitation, and because they do not commit the House to the County Council as the authority in the future, that I for one supported the Bill on the first occasion. I support the Bill, because I think the facts alluded to in regard to the matter of urgency are of very extreme importance indeed. My hon. friend the Member for Chelsea said he did not wish to delay the Bill or the settling of this

  643
  matter, but a year's delay at the present moment in regard to purchase may involve several years delay in bringing the matter to a definite conclusion. The Royal Commission themselves say that these large questions of future expenditure which must be undertaken ought not to be undertaken by these companies as private bodies, and this means that they should be undertaken by some authority after purchase has been completed. In regard to this expenditure the Report of the Commission says there ought not to be any undue delay in undertaking the great works contemplated. My hon. friend alluded to the Sterilisation Clause, which is a matter of very considerable importance. He pointed out that in the Staines Reservoir Act and other Acts there are clauses which provide that the expenditure authorised by this House shall not go to the pecuniary advantage in case of purchase of the existing company, and when that proviso comes to an end in 1903, it is quite clear that that clause will disappear and the ratepayers will have to pay an enhanced price for the undertaking. The Bill ought to come into force at an early date, more especially because the quinquennial valuation next year will add very largely to the capital value of the companies' undertakings. It is perfectly true that the purchasing authority will get the increased income, and that increase in the value of the water companies will increase the capital sum which will have to be paid for them. I can only say, in conclusion, that the very conciliatory speeches of hon. Members opposite will, I think, assist the County Council in arriving at a fair basis of purchase, and the speech of the hon. Member for Chelsea has given me some hope that the Government may see their way to accept this Bill. I am very interested to know what the attitude of the Government will be with regard to this matter. They have now been in office for five years, and the right hon. Gentleman and the Government have given repeated pledges, both at the last election and since, that they would deal with this matter, but they have done absolutely nothing towards arriving at a solution of this question. They introduced a Bill in 1896 which was withdrawn, and in 1897 they introduced and passed a Bill which the Commission themselves say was perfectly futile either to the consumers or anybody else. Last year they introduced
  644
  a Bill to enable a slight amount of water to be acquired by one company from another, and that is a Bill which has been shown to be practically futile, because the companies interested have been compelled this year to come down to the House for further powers to deal with this matter. Certainly, when the right hon. Gentleman appointed the Commission, over three years ago, his argument was that in the condition of affairs then he could not do anything. Now he is in possession of a Report in favour of purchase, in favour of a public authority, and in favour of a fair price being given, subject to the general principles of the Land Clauses Act. These are matters on which, in the past, we have had disputes, but there is now no real matter of dispute between us in principle. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman may, even at the eleventh hour, deal with this grave and most difficult question, and do something to redeem the pledges given to us.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN,): I wish to acknowledge the extremely conciliatory spirit in which the hon. Member for Hoxton addressed himself to this question, and the way in which it was reciprocated by my hon. friend behind me. In fact, I think, the only discordant note has been in the closing observations of the hon. Member who has just sat down. The hon. Member taunted the Government that they had been in office now four years—[An HON. MEMBER: Five years.]—and had done literally nothing in regard to this question. The hon. Member is apparently entirely ignorant of the fact that, owing to the Bill which was passed by the Government last year, and the operations which were rendered possible under that Bill—a Bill, moreover, which was recommended—I may say, brought in at the request of the Local Government Board—we were successful at all events in dealing with this question, and in preventing what unquestionably would have been over a portion of London the worst of all the water famines that has up to the present time been experienced. I must say that the House is placed in a somewhat peculiar position, because, as I think I shall be able to show, in spite of the speech of the hon. Member for Hoxton, we are asked to read a second time to night a Bill which un-

  645
  doubtedly is directly in conflict with the recommendations of the Royal Commission which was expressly appointed to inquire into all the subjects to which it relates. I cannot help thinking that the House of Commons will require more cogent and more convincing reasons than any which have been submitted to it at the present time before they adopt a course which, to say the least of it, would be extremely unusual. Now what are the grounds on which we are asked to-night to take this very unusual course? They are mainly two—the merits of the Bill which is now before us, or, rather, I should say of the Bills, for there is another Bill on the Paper, and which embrace the whole policy of the London County Council with regard to the London water question, and the second ground is this—and the hon. Gentleman laid great stress upon this—the necessity for immediate legislation—a necessity which he said was so urgent that it could not be postponed without injury to the consumers and the ratepayers of London. In regard to the first ground, I do not think we are called upon to argue that question at any length to-night, and it will probably be sufficient to say that this Bill which we are asked to read a second time is directly at variance with the main recommendations of the Royal Commission which I have referred to. That Commission, as the House is well aware, sat for, I think, two years and a half, took an immense amount of evidence, and it has quite recently reported. I am glad to hear from all the comments that have been made with regard to the Report of that Commission that everybody seems to recognise that it is a most complete and exhaustive Report on the whole London water question, and all the questions connected with it. I can only say for my own part that I think the public are much indebted to both Lord Llandaff and his colleagues for the great attention they gave to this matter. I would say in regard to this Commission that in some of their most important conclusions they confirm the findings of another Commission which sat upon this question some years ago, and which was presided over by Lord Balfour, and notably in respect to the sufficiency of the present sources of supply, both as regards quantity and quality, provided that adequate storage is provided. I think that is a very significant circumstance, and it adds to
  646
  the value and to the weight of this Report when everybody seems to agree. Moreover, and this is not always the case with Royal Commissions, it makes some very definite and some very precise recommendations. Some of them have been alluded to already by my hon. friend behind me. Perhaps the House will allow me as briefly as I can to summarise what are the chief recommendations of this Report. They recommend, first, that the undertakings of the London water companies should be acquired by a Government authority. It is quite true that the County Council of London are in concurrence, and I think there will be general agreement with regard to this part of the question; but, secondly, when they come to the question of who should be the purchaser, they say very explicitly that it ought not to be the County Council for a variety of reasons, on one or two of which I shall have a word to say directly. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down pointed out that although they made the recommendation that the County Council was not to be the purchaser, there was no reason why it should not ultimately be the authority, I think he said.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: It was the other way. I simply said that I understood the Commission to object to the County Council being the future administering authority, but I said that there was nothing in the Report to show that the County Council should not be the purchasing authority and afterwards hand over the control to another.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Upon that point the hon. Member will find that the Royal Commission drew no distinction between the purchaser and the authority that was to administer the water supply. On the question of the authority they say most distinctly, "We think the Water Board should be a permanent and not a fluctuating body." Not only is it to be a non-fluctuating body, but it is to be selected on the grounds of capacity for business, and general knowledge of the subject, and they also recommend that the County Council should be very largely represented upon it. Thirdly, they maintain that the present sources of supply in the valleys of the Thames and the Lee are sufficient in quantity and quality, and with adequate storage will

  647
  continue to be so until the year 1941, even supposing the population continues to grow at the present rate of increase Fourthly, they say that to embark at the present moment on bringing water from Wales would be to throw an unnecessary burden on the present and next generation of water-rate payers and their immediate successors, their reason for saying so being that the cost of providing a supply from Wales would be immeasurably greater than the cost of providing an adequate water supply in other ways. There are many other recommendations, but these are among the chief of them, and they are quite sufficient, I think, for our discussion to-night. There are two Bills before us to-night. One is a Bill for the purchase of the undertakings by the London County Council. The other is a Bill to enable the County Council to bring water to London from Wales, and it appears to me perfectly obvious that to accept these Bills we should be flying directly in the teeth of the recommendations of the Commission. On the other hand, the purchase of the undertakings by the London County Council would seem to everyone, at first sight, to be so natural and so reasonable a course that I desire, with the permission of the House, to say one word with regard to the chief reasons given against that proposition. The fact is that the difficulty in this case, and I believe it has always been so, is with what are known as the outside areas. I desire to press this upon the House as having an important bearing on this part of the Bill. It is in these outside areas that the great increase of population is to be looked forward to in the future. It is of enormous importance that there should be a greatly increased water supply in those outside areas, seeing that the population is growing, and will continue to grow until, according to the estimates which have been made, it will be as large as the population of London itself within the period named by this Commission, namely, the next forty years. It is from these outside areas that the most irreconcilable opposition comes to allowing the control of their water supply to be in the hands of the London County Council. No one has recognised this more than the County Council itself, so much so that they have pledged themselves to make arrangements to hand over to those outside areas the control of
  648
  their own water supply. If this proposition were permissible there would have been no possible objection, in my opinion, to the London County Council being the water authority for London, but unfortunately the pledges given by the London County Council turned out to be altogether impracticable. Many authorities on this subject always maintained that that would be the case, and therefore for this precise reason the question of severance was submitted to the judgment of the Royal Commission. They reported in words which I should like to read to the House. They are in paragraph 137. It is only a short statement, and I wish to draw public attention to it—
  "The conclusion we arrive at on this subject is that although severance of the works and sources of supply of the several companies, and the division thereof between the councils of the six counties within the limits of supply, are not actually impracticable, they would be very difficult and highly undesirable. They will involve needless waste and expense, and can only be carried out with constant friction in working details, and at a greatly increased cost of management. All the advantages and economies of concentration and amalgamation will be sacrificed; it will become increasingly difficult to deal with future wants; and no compensating advantage will be secured."
  That being so, the County Council, recognising that that is the situation, now come forward with another proposal, which has been mentioned by the hon. Member to-night, and which, from the speech of the hon. Member, from a deputation which did me the honour to wait upon me, and from circulars which have been sent to Members of the House, I understand to be this: Their Bill for purchase is now to be allowed to go forward. That Bill is to contain a clause enabling—according to the circular or according to the deputation—a Bill to be introduced for legislation, either during next session or the session after, to constitute the authority; or, as the hon. Member said, the County Council is prepared to purchase on trust. With regard to that proposal, I have to say that it is one thing to bring in a Bill, and it is another thing to be able to pass it. Suppose, anything occurred to prevent the passing of that Bill in the next or the succeeding session of Parliament, what would be the position? A great many things may happen before then. Suppose the constitution of the new authority proposed by the Bill should be strongly opposed in this House, what would be the position then?

  649
  The County Council would be in possession; they would be de facto the water authority; and we in effect to-night should have agreed to the very thing to which the Royal Commission have so strongly objected. We should have made the County Council the authority not only for London itself, but also for all the outside areas, to which course, as I have already pointed out, those outside authorities are irreconcilably opposed. I cannot believe that this is an arrangement to which the House of Commons either will or ought to consent. Nor can I say that there is anything in the plea of urgency, which the hon. Member has put forward. What did the hon. Member say upon that point? That any further delay would be injurious, especially on financial grounds. He spoke of certain clauses, the insertion of which he and his friends had promoted in recent Bills which had been submitted to Parliament, by which concessions were not to have the effect of giving further assets to the company. But there is nothing to prevent similar clauses being inserted in any Bill which may come before Parliament before this question is finally settled.
  MR. STUART: To extend the operation of the present clauses would require a Government measure.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I do not think a Government measure would be necessary. The hon. Gentleman asked me a question across the floor of the House the other day* when he advocated this matter, as to what were my views upon that subject, and he advocated at the same time the insertion of clauses relating to the Sinking Fund. I told him in reply that I thought there was a great deal in the proposition which he had made. Since then, I may tell him, in making a report to the Committee—which is part of the duty of the Local Government Board—with regard to one of the Bills which are now before the Committee upstairs, we have suggested that the Sinking Fund Clauses should be introduced.
  MR. STUART: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for putting that right, but the point of my argument was
  * See discussion on Second Reading of the East London Water Bill, 13th March, 1900. (The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], vol. lxxx., page 719.)
  650
  that the existing clause in the Staines Reservoir Act ran out in 1903.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I will deal with that in a moment; I cannot deal with all the questions at once. I will take that next. The hon. Gentleman is greatly afraid that the clauses in some of the existing Acts of Parliament will expire before the necessary measures are passed. I am aware of only three such measures. There is the Staines Reservoir Act, which expires, it is true, in 1903, but not until the month of August, 1903, or nearly four years from the present time; and if this question cannot be settled within the next four years, in my humble opinion it is not likely to be settled at all. There are two other Acts, one of which expires in 1908, and the other of which expires in 1906, that being the Act passed by the Government in 1899. Surely these are limits of time within which we should be perfectly safe, even if we postponed dealing with this question until after the present session. On the other hand, there is one other question to which I wish to refer—though it was not mentioned by the hon. Member, but it was referred to in various publications—namely, the effect of the next quinquennial valuation. It was contended before the Royal Commission that the effect of the next quinquennial valuation would be to raise the value of the undertakings of the water companies by no less a sum than £218,000 a year. In, reply to that, I have to say that, although no doubt there is an increase in some cases, there is a decrease in others. That is the first thing to recollect. The second point is that in the case of railway and other large companies, which form a very large element indeed in the rateable value, the water is taken by meter; these companies do not pay according to rateable value, and therefore in those cases the water companies gain absolutely nothing. In fact, it was shown at the Royal Commission that six of the eight existing water companies would, on the balance, lose rather than gain by the next quinquennial valuation. That is the verdict of the Commission with regard to six of the companies. With regard to the remaining two companies, I have myself made inquiries since the Report of the Commission was published, and my information shows the same result certainly in one case, and, as far as my memory goes, in both. This fact is

  651
  summed up in two short paragraphs of the Report with which I will not trouble the House. There is, I admit, one question of great urgency, but it was not referred to by the hon. Gentleman or any of the speakers on that side of the House, and that is the necessity for further storage in the valley of the Thames. That, I consider, having given great attention to this subject, is, at the present moment, beyond all others the most important and most urgent question in connection with the water supply of London. But that question is not necessarily affected by the postponement of these Bills. There are two Bills at this moment before Parliament for greatly increasing the necessary storage for London; one is the Bill of the East London Water Company, providing for additional storage to the extent of 5,500,000,000 gallons, and the other is the Bill of the Lambeth Company providing for 1,000,000,000 gallons. A similar Bill was introduced last year on behalf of the East London Company, which safely passed the Committee upstairs and went through this House. To my great regret, owing to the exertions of the London County Council, that Bill was rejected by the House of Lords. It is not my business to criticise the proceedings of any Committee of either House of Parliament. I would only say that I personally, having some knowledge of the subject, should have been very very sorry to take upon myself the great responsibility of rejecting that measure. There was another question raised by the supporters of the policy of the London County Council, with which also I have very great sympathy, namely, the desirability of being early in the field in Wales in order to secure the reversion of a water-shed for all and any possible requirements of London in a more or less distant future. That I think is a proposal well deserving of most careful consideration. But provision may easily be made for that in any legislation which is thought to be necessary or desirable on this subject, and it certainly is not one of any immediate urgency for the present session. It really seems to me that there is very little to be urged on the ground of urgency, or on those grounds which the hon. Member has put before us to-night. As to the changes foreshadowed by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, to which he would agree in the passage of this Bill
  652
  through Committee, I must say that they would so greatly transform the present measure that it is too big a question to be dealt with and settled in that way. I have come to the conclusion, in spite of the appeal made to me by the hon. Member, that under the circumstances there is nothing to warrant us in taking a course which would be so extremely unusual. I venture to think it would be contrary to all precedent and very ill-advised on our part to sanction the progress of these Bills now. I desire fully to acknowledge the very conciliatory spirit shown on behalf of the London County Council by the hon. Member to-night. We recognise thoroughly the importance of this question, and when the time comes for it to be the duty of the Government again to consider this matter I can assure the hon. Member we shall most gladly reciprocate the conciliatory spirit which he has shown.
  MR. STEADMAN: Why not now?
  MR. CHAPLIN: The conditions under which purchase should be effected, the tribunal to which the question should be referred, the constitution of the new authority, and many other questions of importance of that kind, will always have to be considered. I hope that the objections which have been raised to-night will not be considered insuperable, and for my part I am sanguine that it will be possible to devise a scheme to meet difficulties, and which will permit this question of the water supply of London to be finally and satisfactorily settled. If I may make a suggestion towards this end it is that hon. Members should now allow this discussion to conclude without taking a division.
  MR. MELLOR: Before this discussion closes I wish to refer to the two Commissioners who, unhappily, died between the time when the evidence closed and the signing of the Report. Both were great authorities on the water question. One of them was my learned friend Mr. Cripps, a gentleman well acquainted with water legislation and Bills of this kind; and the other gentleman was General de Courcy Scott, the water examiner for London, an accomplished and able man, who was a very great assistance in all the discussions.

  653
  After the repeated discussions I have had with both these gentlemen I am in the position to say that had they lived to the time when it became our duty to sign the Report, I have no doubt that they would have agreed with us, and their signatures would have added considerable weight to it.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Representing as I do a riparian constituency, and being a member of the London County Council, I venture, for the first time since I have been a Member of this House, to intervene in a water companies debate; and in so doing I have to remind the House that to-day, not for the first nor the twentieth, and certainly not for the last time the House has a London Water Bill before it for consideration. I am sincerely sorry that the President of the Local Government Board, who ought to have grasped this subject in a more statesmanlike way, has not risen to the height of his duty and the level of his responsibility to the water consumers of London. It is necessary in affirming my opinion for that statement that I should traverse one or two of the remarks made by the President of the Local Government Board. In his attempts to answer the hon. Member for Poplar, he seems to have given away the whole case for the water companies. What did he say? When the hon. Member for Poplar justly twitted him with doing nothing to solve the water question, the right hon. Gentleman replied that but for what the Government had done London would have been face to face with a water famine in the East of London. What does that mean? It means that the only thing you have done has been to compel the eight water companies to link up their mains, and you had to bring great public pressure to bear upon them to do it. But you have not compelled them to increase the supply of water flowing through those mains. You have improved the method of distribution, but the total volume of water distributed has not been increased by a single gallon, and if that is the only thing you can do for the water consumers of London, then all I can say is that they have very little indeed to thank the Government for. The right hon. Gentleman says this Bill is opposed to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I want to know how much this Bill is opposed to those recommenda-
  654
  tions, and to find that out I have only to quote the list of recommendations which the right hon. Gentleman himself read out; and what are they? He said that this Commission which sat for such a great length of time, and took so much evidence with so much ability, made certain recommendations. I never had much opinion of Commissions on anything, and I am glad to say that I hold that view in company with Lord Salisbury, for whose opinion on this point I have a sincere respect. But what does this Commission recommend? They recommend that the régime of the water companies should disappear, and that there should be a public authority. That is what this Royal Commission recommended, but the London County Council has been demanding that for the last ten or eleven years, and will continue to demand it until Parliament, in the interests of the people of London and against the narrow interests of water directors and water companies, complies with that request. Then this blessed Royal Commission—and it has been blessed by the President of the Local Government Board, and I wish he had done the other thing—not only recommended that a public authority should manage the water supply of London, but also that purchase should be resorted to. The London County Council has presented Bills for eight or nine years past in favour of purchase, but the right hon. Gentleman says the London County Council is not the proper body. He argues that it is not a permanent body, and I may add neither is Parliament, and neither are the 800 town and county councils in Great Britain and Ireland, which already own their own water supply, and who invariably exercise their duties with economy, efficiency, and with purity of administration. What the London Members ask for is that the public authority recommended by the Royal Commission should be the London County Council; that it should purchase the water companies, and that being agreed upon the undertaking should then be managed by the elected representative body of London. We only ask to be allowed to carry out and administer what these 800 local authorities are now doing. We are told that we want a water board. If the right hon. Gentleman requires any experience of water boards, let him go to the water trust in New York.

  655
  If he wants to know how water boards work, let him go through the States of America, and he will find that where trusts manage the water supply, there jobbery is prevalent, there the water is dearest, and there the supply gives the least satisfaction to the people for whom it is administered. If he comes to Great Britain and Ireland he will find that in such places as Liverpool, Glasgow, Manchester and Birmingham, where the water authority is the elected representative body and is therefore a fluctuating and not a permanent body, there he will find that they manage and administer their water supply with great ability and efficiency. I come now to another point of the right hon. Gentleman's contention. He said that the Commission reported that the Thames and the Lea were sufficient for all future purposes. He will pardon me if I differ from him and the Commission in that respect. I see a New River Company shareholder smiling. Who would not smile with an "Adventurers" share? I will remind the House what the New River Company did in 1892. In that year they came to the House of Commons and told us that they had within their catchment area sufficient water for all purposes for forty years ahead. But in 1896 they told this House that they had made a mistake, and only four years after that came to the House of Commons asking for Bills to enable them to undo the misstatement they made in 1892, and they asked for power to provided for the deficiency which they said would never arise within forty years. The right hon. Gentleman says that storage ought to be undertaken and that it was a vital matter. On this point I am glad to say the House of Lords and the London County Council agree, and that is most satisfactory. First of all, it proves the moderation of the London County Council's demand. You never find the House of Lords in favour of confiscation, and the fact that they agree with the London County Council indicates the extreme moderation of the Council's terms, and above all it represents and indicates that the House of Lords sometimes does its duty to the public, when free from the high pressure of water company directors, and can do its duty without that pressure which has been too frequently exercised on public opinion inside and outside of this House by those interested in water com-
  656
  panies. With regard to the outside areas it is a most significant fact that the only hon. Members who cheered the right hon. Gentleman's remarks are either water company directors or those who have always opposed the idea of the London County Council having the water supply. I have not heard any hon. Members from Bedford, Hertford, Middlesex, or Wales get up and oppose the County Council's terms of purchase, and I do not believe they will oppose seriously the Welsh scheme. But if they do oppose, it will be opposition of a Committee stage character, and it will not be directed against the vital principles of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman goes on to say that this Bill, in its details is impracticable. Does he mean to say that English engineers are incapable of grappling with physical difficulties and with natural obstacles to a Metropolitan water supply? We can irrigate India by Government officials, and we can ensure the prosperity and success of the Egyptian people by great engineering plans; we can send engineers to overcome great difficulties in foreign countries, and we are asked to believe that, although these difficulties can be overcome everywhere else, they cannot be got over in the River Thames or the water-shed of the outside area. All these suggestions of impracticability would disappear if we were to give the water companies the Lands Clauses terms, which means £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 more than that which they are fairly entitled to receive. When the right hon. Gentleman says that the existing water companies can provide for the future by large storage reservoirs, let me point out that even this Royal Commission said that the provision of storage was not a matter that one company could do, or even that eight companies effectually combined could do, but it was a matter to be undertaken by a public authority which would alone be able to grapple effectively with the storage question. The right hon. Gentleman would also find such a public authority confronted with the question as to whether the people would allow those ugly Staines reservoirs to be repeated mile after mile down the beautiful Thames valley. If that public authority were confronted with the task of having to make fourteen or fifteen miles of thirty feet high reservoirs in the

  657
  Thames and Lea valley, I think the expense would be very heavy, and would be nearly as much as the cost of going to Wales for a fresh supply. Such a public authority would be driven in the last resource, on the ground of economy, to absorb land from the outside areas which is wanted for building purposes, and upon which the people do not want ugly reservoirs erected, which would be not only a danger to the immediate locality, but would be a positive source of harm to the residents who live in the neighbourhood of those reservoirs. I have ventured to deal with one or two points raised by the right hon. Gentleman, but I claim this opportunity to say a few words upon the broad and the general question of municipal purchase, and upon this point I do earnestly appeal to provincial Members on both sides of the House. I would appeal to hon. Members representing the large cities of the Kingdom, which in the main have Conservative representation. Why should you deny to London that which you grant to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool, and Birmingham? Beyond prejudice against the London County Council there is no defence for opposing this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that you must wait until this Trust or Board, composed of capable men, is appointed. On the point of capability the right hon. Gentleman will not insist, because it would be contradictory to his previous statements if he were to say that the London County Council for this purpose is not as efficient, capable, and honest as any other county council in Great Britain. He has frequently admired their system of accounts and their finance; yea, he has said at the Table of this House that the system of accounts of the London County Council is probably the best of any municipal authority in the kingdom. So much for efficiency. From the point of view of technical capability, I venture to say there are not a dozen water company directors in this House who are equal in ability, capacity, and disinterestedness to the first five County Councillors you would meet in Spring Gardens. So much for honesty. What is more—are these gentlemen elected fortheir knowledge of boring, or of stratification, or of bacteriological analyses of water? Not a bit of it. They are elected for other and higher virtues than are found in a chemical laboratory. When
  658
  we are told that a Board will be more capable, permit me to say that I do not believe it. Until the County Council has been proved—as it cannot be proved—to be either incapable, dishonest, or to have a desire to be unjust to the outlying authorities, there is no reason why it should not exercise the functions which every corporate council in the kingdom has hitherto exercised. But let me refer for a moment to the way in which evidence is accumulating in favour of the County Council having this control. In 1880 Lord Cross introduced a Bill which I regret was not accepted at that time. [Hear, hear.] Ah! but that was not the fault of the London County Council; it was because Parliament, not for the first time, showed its lack of knowledge of what only a local authority is able to do better. Since 1880 we have had Commission and Committee, the one after the other, and we end up by purchase by an authority—a body to be not the County Council, but a Water Board, to take over the affairs of the company. I venture to say that this delay cannot last much longer. It is not only the potable water of which we desire to get hold. Look at the water supply of London from any point of view. Take the river Thames. The river will not much longer stand the depletion of its stream by the increased quantities which the water companies are yearly taking from it.
  SIR FREDERICK DIXON-HARTLANDwas understood to dissent.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Does the hon. Member the Chairman of the Thames Conservancy doubt that? If so, I shall quote paragraph 100, which is a flat contradiction by the Engineer of the Thames Conservancy of the hon. Member's interruption.
  SIR FREDERICK DIXON-HARTLAND: I certainly deny it. I say that except at a certain period of the year, in the autumn, when the flow is apt to be smaller, there is an enormous quantity of water, something like 1,200,000,000 gallons, passing over Teddington Weir—an amount sufficient for storage and for every other purpose necessary.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Does not the hon. Member see how he has confirmed

  659
  my statement? What does he tell the House? That except in July and August, when we ought to have more water than at any other time of the year—that except in the summer time, when droughts prevail—the river Thames has quite enough water for the people of London. That is about as good as telling a London street-boy to go to St. Petersburg in the winter time to eat ice-cream.
  SIR FREDERICK DIXON-HARTLAND: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not desire to misrepresent me. What I said was that there was sufficient for storage, and it naturally follows that the storage with which the hon. Member finds so much fault is the very system which will allow an ample supply during those months when the river is low without any detriment to the Thames or to its navigation.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: That was said in 1893, 1894, 1895, and 1896, but recurring water famines have proved that the statement was unfounded, and if the hon. Member will take a plébiscite of the pleasure-going traffic from Molesley Lock to Teddington Weir he will find that both the lock-keepers and the pleasure-passenger public share the view which I hold—that on the grounds of trade, pleasure, health, and sanitation the settlement of this question can no longer be delayed. We are told that storage will settle it. When are you going to get your water? You can get it only at flood time. What is the experience of the chemist at flood time? That at the particular moment the water is charged with more micro-organisms than at any other time. You are going to get the water to store from a district the residential population of which is increasing—a district which has sewage farms upon it, the effluent from which and the water from manured lands has to go into the river Thames. This is the water, part of which you are to store for weeks and months, and part of which you are to filter at Hampton and Molesey. But let me deal with another point. I appeal to commercial men. Go to the wharfingers and the lightermen, to the something like 10,000 men employed in the barges and lighters on the river Thames, and they will tell you that in consequence of the increased width,
  660
  depth, and tonnage of barges, they are frequently compelled, owing to the lack of water, to do on two tides what formerly they did on one. No suggestion of a lock at Wandsworth or Richmond or lower down will solve this difficulty. I think the hon. Member will admit that one of the greatest mistakes ever made on the river Thames was the building of the Kew and Richmond Lock. Why was it done? Because the pleasure traffic above Richmond could not get water enough even for their rowing boats. Is this big waterway to depend for its trade and its pleasure upon such trumpery and useless expedients as a lock at Richmond and another at Battersea or Wandsworth? All these temporary expedients prove how heavy is the drain of the water companies from the river Thames. There are one or two other points upon which I will touch only briefly. Why do the water companies' directors oppose the Council? It is only on the terms of purchase. That is a matter for neither the water companies' directors nor the County Council. It is a matter for a Committee of this House. It is a matter for a tribunal which should go into the details of finance and repayment, and all the circumstances of the case, and do justice to the outside authorities in a way which is in keeping with the traditions of our Parliamentary Committees. I believe that this House of Commons will go on dabbling with this water question until we have an epidemic not only in the East, but in the West End of London. I believe that as the House passed a garrotting Bill only when one of its Members was garrotted at the bottom of the Duke of York's steps, so it will be driven to pass a Bill to municipalise London water only when continued droughts have been succeeded by several epidemics. I do not believe the House will move even then until the epidemic happens to be in the West End of London, and the West End people with their influence and ability are able to exercise that pressure upon Parliament and the water companies which they know so well how to exert. My view is that prevention is better than cure. I want to prevent an epidemic by going to a Welsh lake, by getting water from cloudland instead of from a sewage-polluted area. I want to be fair and just to the water companies, and I am prepared to trust a House of Commons Committee to be the

  661
  arbiter as between the County Council and the water companies shareholders. I want to protect the diminishing trade of the river Thames, where tidal water alone is responsible for carrying on that trade. I want to make the river Thames more and more the silent highway of this great city, on which pleasure will be more frequent and profitable than it now is. In asking for these things I am asking only for that, the carrying out of which London ratepayers at four successive elections have demanded. Who is the authority to determine this? With all respect to this assembly, Parliament is not the authority to determine whether this should be company or municipal enterprise. The authority to decide that are the five millions of water consumers outside. What have they done? At Chelsea, and elsewhere, which in this House is represented by a Conservative who opposes these water Bills, two Progressives were returned at the last County Council election in favour of the municipal water policy. All over London councillors have been elected to support those or similar Bills. For four successive elections the London ratepayers by overwhelming majorities have decided in favour of municipal water—water from Wales, and the purchase of the undertakings of the companies. I appeal to Members of Parliament from provincial districts to respect the mandate of the municipal electors of London. I ask the House to brush aside the paltry and fatuous arguments which have been adduced against this Bill, and to release the city of London once and for all from the toils of the water company directors, who too long have extracted a million of money per annum out of the water consumers of this city, and who in doing so have imposed upon the poor of the East End of London endless misery and inconvenience, have brought this big city several times within easy distance of a water famine, and by their policy of living from hand to mouth, as Parliament may decree, they have caused the future water supply of London to be fraught with great danger to the health and trade and pleasure of this vast city. It is for these reasons I ask the House of Commons to reject both the speech and the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, and to place this city side by side with Glasgow and other places by putting a municipal water supply in the hands of London's elected representatives.
  MR. HALDANE: Before we go to a division I should like to remind the House of what is the real question we have to decide. The question is not whether the London County Council is to administer the water supply of London, but whether we are to-day to make a beginning with the execution of the policy of purchase recommended by the Royal Commission. I do not apologise for rising for a moment to take part in this discussion. It has been left too much in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, and the happy—or shall I call it the unhappy—family of London representatives. There are those of us who by the exigencies of public business are brought from very remote parts of the country, and compelled to live for a longer period of the year in London than we should otherwise desire, and I am never able to take the view that the question of the London water supply is a question to be discussed on the footing of being a mere private Bill question. How do we stand to-day? A Royal Commission of great ability sat for sixteen months, presided over by Lord Llandaff, who, by his traditions, is certainly not a person who would be likely to lean too much in favour of the views of the London County Council. What that Commission had to decide was between two policies: one was that of the London County Council becoming the purchasers and administrators of the water supply of London, and the other was the question of whether the contention of the water companies should be accepted and nothing done except on minor matters. What did that Commission decide? It decided, and decided most emphatically, in favour of purchase, and that nothing short of purchase would be of any use. It is quite i true that the Commission went on to say that they did not recommend that the London County Council should be the purchasing authority, but why did they do that? If you look at paragraph 146 and the other paragraphs in which they discuss the matter, it is perfectly plain that they said that because they contemplated that if the London County Council became the purchasing authority it would also become the administrative authority. That is a much larger question, and one which is not raised by my hon. friend who moved the Second Reading of this Bill. My hon. friend was able to point to this, and it was recognised by the

  663
  right hon. Gentleman opposite, that what the London County Council are now asking for—not only through the mouth of my hon. friend, or through the deputation which waited upon the Government, but also through what they propose in the 25th Clause of this Bill—is that the Government should to-day make a beginning with the carrying out of the policy of purchase, leaving for the future the settlement of the question of who is to be the administrative authority. That is quite clear if you read the 25th Clause of the Bill, and it is put beyond doubt by the undertakings which have been given. What reasons are there why they should proceed? To my mind there is one very cogent reason. Whenever this policy of purchase is initiated it must take some years to carry out. Of all the undertakings on which Parliament has allowed private promoters to embark there is nothing at all comparable in magnitude with the proposal for which this Bill asks sanction. The policy of purchasing the undertakings of the Water Companies must necessarily take a very long time, by the very necessities of the situation, as proper inquiry will have to be made to see that people are paid what is justly due to them, and there will be a multitude of complicated interests to unravel. If that be so, surely the attitude of the Government is most unsatisfactory. They brought in, it is true, two or three years ago a Bill for constituting a central authority, but without any purchasing powers, if I recollect rightly. They did not, however, press that Bill; they did not appear to be in earnest about it. I listened most attentively to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon, and I confess that if I were a London representative I should not be at all inclined to adopt that conciliatory spirit which the right hon. Gentleman commended. I found nothing in that speech which gave any promise that the Government were in earnest about giving effect to the policy of the very Royal Commission which the right hon. Gentleman so plentifully praised. Not one word appeared in the Queen's Speech, and not one word appeared in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman which would lead us to believe that the Government itself intends to take the initiative in this policy of purchase. I will not detain the House by giving reasons why that policy should be adopted; sufficient
  664
  reasons have already been brought forward. But I do press upon the House the view that by assenting to the Second Reading of this Bill we may begin the carrying out of the policy of purchase which the Royal Commission have recommended, of which the Government itself is in favour, and which, although hon. Members opposite do not expressly commit themselves to, they have carefully abstained from opposing. This step will not have for its necessary consequence administration by this or that or some other authority, but will simply be this and nothing more—a beginning in earnest of the carrying out of the policy of purchase on which we all profess to be agreed.
  SIR SAMUEL MONTAGU: I do not intend to delay the House by going into the details of the Bill, but as a Member for an East London constituency I feel bound to say a word on behalf of my constituents in support of this measure. East London contains about one-fourth of the inhabitants of this great city, and, therefore, about one-fourth of the water consumers of London, and no class in London have suffered more by the management or the mismanagement of the water companies than the working people and the very poor in Whitechapel. It is immaterial whether the deficiency in the water supply which occurred a year or two ago arose from the heat of summer or the frost of winter, or whether in all seasons it arose from defective pipes or the absence of cisterns. The poor always suffer. I rose especially to point out the urgency of purchasing these undertakings, or of altering the present condition of things, for the reason that in my constituency and the adjoining constituencies the house rents have been raised to double and treble their former amount, and, therefore, on the new assessment next year the water rate will be of necessity increased at the same rate. The companies will have no mercy, because, as they are looking forward to their interest being purchased, they will naturally drive the rating power they possess to its fullest extent.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODpointed out that the quinquennial assessment did not raise the water rates.
  SIR SAMUEL MONTAGU: If the house-rent has been raised, the assessment, of course, will also be raised.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: But the companies do not raise the price of the water.
  SIR. SAMUEL MONTAGU: They charge a percentage on the rent, and naturally, therefore, if the rent is raised the assessment for water rate is also raised in proportion. I beg the hon. Member's pardon, but I am quite certain I am correct in regard to this point. In the West End, however much we may find fault with the water companies in other respects, we always have a full supply of water. The deficiency of supply is reserved for the people of East London, who cannot protect themselves and who are absolutely defenceless. Since a similar Bill to this was brought in two or three years ago, we have had a general election of the London County Council. In that election I took an active part, and I therefore know something about the feelings of the electors in regard to this matter. The people of London are of one mind that this control should be confided to the London County Council or to some similar body directly representative of the electors, and over which the ratepayers can exercise a certain amount of popular control. I am glad to see that all parties are of opinion that such a necessity of life as water should not be in private hands for any long period, and I would urge the Government, in consideration of the poor and working classes, to bring about some change for the better as speedily as possible.
  MR. STEADMAN: I desire to support the remarks of the hon. Member for Whitechapel in reference to the increase of the water rate. It is quite true, as the hon. and gallant Member for the Epping Division states, that they do not propose to increase the water charge in this sense; they do not charge so much per gallon for every gallon of water consumed, but under the existing law the companies are allowed to charge one shilling in the pound on the rateable value of the house. Let me give my own case as an example. When I first became the tenant of the house I now occupy my family was young, and the house was rated on an assessment
  666
  of £25 per annum. Therefore I had to pay twenty-five shillings as water rate. When the next quinquennial valuation came round my assessment was increased by £2. Although my family had grown up and some of them left home, with the result that we were consuming less water, I had to pay two shillings more as water rate. When the assessment takes place next year my rate may be still further increased, although I am consuming still less water. That is the position of the whole of the people in the East End of London. There are a million working men in East London, and those who do not pay the water rate direct to the company, as I do, have to pay it indirectly through the rent.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: Throughout the debate this question has been argued with comparatively little reference to the most important underlying consideration in the whole matter, namely, the question of public health. It has been argued from the point of view of purchase of the property of the water companies; it has been argued from the point of view of control by a public body; but underlying these considerations there is the still greater and more urgent question of the public health of the community, and in dealing with one of the prime necessities of life that consideration more than any other ought certainly to influence votes in this House. I hope that any Members who have doubts in their minds on this question will vote in the direction of sanctioning both of these Bills rather than against them, on the ground that by; so doing they will be doing something for the health of the community. This question has been described as being not an urgent question. The question was urgent nearly thirty years ago, and it has been getting more urgent every year; but yet the representative of the Local Government Board tells us to-day that it is not an urgent question, and that it can be put off still longer. We have been over and over again within measurable distance of a national disaster through the action of the London water companies during the last few years. If those water famines had happened to coincide with an epidemic of cholera or any similar disease we should have had the population decimated in consequence of the deficiency of the water supply. Because

  667
  we have escaped those dangers we are to ignore them, and the Government is ignoring them by the attitude it is adopting towards these Bills. The merit of the proposal before us is that not only will it place the water supply of London under popular control, under the control of persons responsible to the inhabitants of the metropolis, but it will also seek for a water supply from new and fresh sources. In any case, it will put the matter under the control of a public authority. Now, a public authority is a body better than any other for such a purpose, because it has only one object in view, the public health; it has nothing to do but to be honest and straight forward in dealing with the money of the community, and is untouched by any considerations of dividends. I believe this is a Bill which will do for London what was found necessary in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester, and all large provincial cities. Because we have not the same government in London as in these localities that is no reason why we
  should not avail ourselves of the opportunity of putting under the control of a public authority the management and administration of one of the prime necessaries of life, and one essential to the public health of the community.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): No one will question the right of my hon. friend the Member for Ilkeston to speak with authority on matters of public health; and I only rise to say that if he had read the Report of the Balfour and Llandaff Commissions he would have found strong testimony not only as to the quality of London water, but also as to the sufficiency of the quantity, with adequate storage, for the next forty years.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 151; Noes, 234. (Division List No. 90.)

  AYES.

  Abraham William (Cork, N.E.)

  Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Duckworth, James

  MacDonnell, Dr. M A (Queen'.C

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Ellis, John Edward

  Maclean, James Mackenzie

  Ambrose, Robert

  Evans, Sir Fran. H. (South'ton

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Asher, Alexander

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  M'Ewan, William

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Maddison, Fred.

  Bainbridge, Emerson

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Billson, Alfred

  Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Birrell, Augustine

  Gibney, James

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Blake, Edward

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Gold, Charles

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

  Brigg, John

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Kelly, James

  Burns, John

  Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton

  O'Malley, William

  Burt, Thomas

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon Sir W.

  Palmer, G. W. (Reading)

  Caldwell, James

  Harwood, George

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Cameron, SirCharles (Glasgow

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pease, J. A. (Northumberl'nd)

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Perks, Robert William

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Colville, John

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

  Pinkerton, John

  Courtney, Rt. Hon.Leonard H.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Crean, Eugene

  Holland, William Henry

  Price, Robert John

  Crilly, Daniel

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

  Crombie, John William

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvon.)

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Daly, James

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Redmond, W. (Clare)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. H. Sir U

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

  Dewar, Arthur

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Dillon, John

  Lambert, George

  Roberts, J. B. (Eifion)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'lnd

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Doogan, P. C.

  Leng, Sir John

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Doughty, George

  Lough, Thomas

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan)

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Thomas, David, A. (Merthyr)

  Wilson, J. H (Middlesbrough)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Woodhouse, Sir JT (Huddersf'd

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wallace, Robert

  Woods, Samuel

  Souttar, Robinson

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Young, S. (Cavan, East)

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Wason, Eugene

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Steadman, William Charles

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. M'Arthur.

  Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  670

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Keswick, William

  Aird, John

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Kimber, Henry

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Dyke, Rt Hon. Sir William Hart

  Knowles, Lees

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas

  Lafone, Alfred

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Faber, George Denison

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverp'l)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edwd.

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

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

  Lea, Sir Thos. (Londonderry)

  Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness)

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Balcarres, Lord

  Finch, George H.

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillw'n-(Swan'a

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Fison, Frederick William

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Fitzgerald, Sir R. Penrose

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Barry, Rt Hn AHSmith-(Hunts

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor)

  Forster, Henry William

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. (Kent)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

  Fry, Lewis

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B. (Hants

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Bethell, Commander

  Garfit, William

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Biddulph, Michael

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

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Bill, Charles

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  M'Killop, James

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Malcolm, Ian

  Bond, Edward

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Bowles, Capt H. F. (Middlesex

  Goschen, Geo. J. (Sussex)

  Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir Herbert E.

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Brassey, Albert

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

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

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Brown, Alexander H.

  Gretton, John

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Butcher, John George

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Carlile, William Walter

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Monckton, Edward Philip

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

  Hardy, Laurence

  Monk, Charles James

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

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Heath, James

  More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Helder, Augustus

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Henderson, Alexander

  Morrison, Walter

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Coddington, Sir William

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Mount, William George

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Houston, R. P.

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Howard, Joseph

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

  Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Myers, William Henry

  Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Hughes, Colonel Edwin

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington

  Curzon, Viscount

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Penn, John

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Percy, Earl

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Denny, Colonel

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Digby, J. K. D. Wingfield-

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Joicey, Sir James

  Plunkett, Rt Hn Horace Curzon

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Kenyon, James

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Dorrington, Sir John Edward

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  671

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton)

  Purvis, Robert

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Spencer, Ernest

  Williams, J. Powell- (B'ghm.)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

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

  Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wodehouse, Rt Hon. E. R (Bath

  Round, James

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

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

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

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

  Wrightson, Thomas

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Wyndham, George

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Tomlinson, W. Edw. Murray

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whitmore and Mr. Goulding.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Webster, Sir Richard E.

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

  Words added.
  Second Reading put off for six months.

  LONDON WATER (WELSH SUPPLY) BELL (BY ORDER).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg formally to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  SIR FREDERICK DIXON-HART-LAND: Sir, in rising to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, I wish to state that I am not a shareholder, nor in any way connected with any water company. I am much surprised that the London County Council, after the way in which it was received by the House last year when they did not dare even to take a Second Reading, should have again brought it forward. Two very important things have happened since then. The first is the Report of the Royal Commission, which has been so often alluded to in the debate on the last Bill; and, on the question of urgency, Sir Alexander Binnie, the engineer of the London County Council, stated before the Royal Commission that there was a supply sufficient for the next ten or fifteen years. Before that time has elapsed the reservoirs approved of by this House will have come into operation. Then with regard to the amount of water which the scheme proposes to take for the benefit of London. In the first part of the scheme it only pro-
  672
  poses to get 121,000,000 gallons per day, whereas the Thames in flood time passes 1,200,000,000 gallons a day over Teddington Weir, and in ordinary times 300,000,000 gallons. Even in ordinary time this is 100,000,000 gallons more than the 200,000,000 a day we consider necessary for the navigation of the river, and is about the amount which will be obtained from Wales by the first part of the scheme. During the drought which has lately taken place the average was 80,000,000, and the lowest day was 50,000,000. In addition to this it is very objectionable that the water is proposed to be remitted by a conduit 117 miles long, and afterwards by forty-five miles of pipes. The lowest estimate of Sir Alexander Binnie was from £10,000,000 to £14,000,000, while the other estimates in the Report of the Royal Commission are very much higher. In the statement sent out by the London County Council in support of the Bill, they quote from the Royal Commission's Report—
  "There is no doubt something attractive in the scheme of bringing water from the Welsh mountains for the supply of London, and one would be glad if it were possible now to secure a water shed to be used hereafter if London should require it."
  But they forget to state the remainder of the paragraph—
  "That assuming the water should prove sufficient in quality and quantity, the fact remains that it is much more costly than the supply from the Thames, and that it is unnecessary to incur this extra cost now, as the supply from the Thames will be adequate in quantity and quality up to 1941."
  As regards the quality of the water, the experience of Glasgow, which is one of the cities that has been mentioned, is not

  673
  such as would induce London to be supplied in the same way as water is supplied to that city. The Report of the Royal Commission itself says—
  "A vast amount of lead would be brought in the supply from Wales, which would have to be carefully treated."
  The second point was that last summer was the driest we have had for a considerable time. The Conservancy, at the request of the Government, allowed the water companies to take a very much larger quantity of water from the Thames than was in accordance with the Act of Parliament, and this was done, because by the Inter-communication Bill brought in by the Government, it would save the East of London from another water famine. I cannot but feel some pride that the inter-communication question which was established by the Government Bill was first brought before the House by a Bill which I brought in, and which was thrown out by the London County Council, but the principle of which has survived, and has been of such service to the whole of London. If, during the dry summer, the Thames, without these water reservoirs, was able to supply London at the driest time with 50,000,000 gallons over at Teddington Weir, I do not think that with those reservoirs which are so rapidly approaching completion, that London need have any fear whatever as to the supply or any necessity for any urgency during the next three years, as has been spoken of by the hon. Member. There is another question which is very important to this House. Supposing that the supply of the water companies is taken from Wales instead of the Thames, what is to become of the Upper Thames itself? You will have to consider this—that almost the whole revenue of the Upper Thames is drawn from the water companies. It is in consequence of this revenue that we are enabled to keep up the locks and weirs and make practical the navigation of the river. That if the water came from Wales the Government would have to find some means by which the navigation could be kept up. At any rate, as much as is necessary for navigation. If the money does not come from the water companies, I do not know where it is to come from. The matter will have to be considered by Parliament, and it will become necessary for the House of Commons to supply some
  674
  means by which the interests of the Upper Thames, both for navigation and for pleasure traffic, shall be preserved. The last question I have to speak on is that of the purity of the Thames water for drinking purposes. At the present moment there are 500,000 extra people drinking pure water from the Thames, whereas four years ago they made it of an impure character. The report of all the authorities is that the water from the Thames is purer water than anywhere else. It is a very singular thing that the places from which the County Council proposes to take their water actually dried up during the last drought, while the Thames water kept all right. The action of the water of the Thames coming over weirs, and the various points of flow, is this—as everybody in authority will say—that it causes it to be the purest water that any place can have. It is not mixed with sewage or any other noxious thing. I, therefore, hope that this Bill will not be passed, and that the ratepayers will be saved an enormous expense, by which they would not get so good a supply for London as that which exists at the present moment. Under these circumstances I strongly oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, and hope that the House of Commons will not allow the ratepayers' money to be wasted in the way in which it would be.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Sir Frederick Dixon-Hartland.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  SIR J. T. DILLWYN LLEWELYN: I beg to second the motion for the rejection of the Bill. I should be exceedingly sorry if it was thought that no Member from Wales was prepared to speak on this subject. I represent a borough which has not only to take care of itself in regard to its water works, but to secure a supply of good, pure water from an adjacent county. I am also a member of the county council of Glamorganshire, and we require a supply of Welsh water for our own purposes. In the great coal field, of which Glamorganshire is the centre, we are liable to have our water polluted, and it is not always pure in itself, lying as it does on the main coal.

  675
  Some of it is full of mineral matter, and unfit for domestic purposes, and, therefore, we have to go outside the county to the region of the old red sandstone to obtain a supply of pure water. In the Rhondda Valley there is a population of 150,000 to 200,000, and we oppose this measure because we think we should get a supply of our own Welsh water in the first instance. At the same time, water is not given to an individual or a county, but should be available for the whole country; and I should be very sorry to see a definite refusal given to allow water to be taken from Wales to supply London if only the Government were to take the question up. I have long held that watershed areas should be established with a view of giving water to places in the same district, even though they might not be in the same county. It seems to me that provision should also be made in establishing these water-shed areas for the shipping, in the future, and for large populations. We in Glamorgan look forward to a large increase in the industrial population, not only because of the presence of coal, but because other industries will be attracted by the coal, and on the seaboard where ships will come to carry away the products of these industries. Our county council, therefore, opposes this measure at present for giving power to carry water away from Wales to London.
  MR. STUARTthought the argument of the hon. Member for Swansea Town was rather in favour of the measure than against it, because he represented a borough which had gone beyond its own county for water. However that might be, in anything the promoters of the Bill might do in any area of that district, they would be bound to recognise the claims of Glamorganshire for their share of the water of the district. That statement, he submitted, met the point of the hon. Member. The question of a Welsh water supply, as opposed to a Thames water supply, was altogether independent of the question of authority or the question of purchase; it was a question of what was the best and purest source of supply; but whichever the best source might be, and the concensus of opinion was that the Welsh source was the purest, the question of what water should be brought into London could never be a purely financial question. It was considered by the Royal
  676
  Commission on a financial basis, and the financial basis alone could not be regarded as an element of consideration. The promoters were also of opinion that the figures brought before the Royal Commission as to the cost of obtaining a supply from Wales were seriously erroneous, as had been shown in a letter to The Times by Mr. Shaw Lefevre. All the promoters asked was that the Bill should be sent upstairs to a Committee, which should consider the relative merits of the two sources of supply, not only from the financial point of view, but also on other bases.
  MR. JOHN BURNSonly rose to reply to a statement made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge, who, as Chairman of the Thames Conservancy Board, might be expected to know something about the river. The hon. Member had asked what would happen if the County Council took the place of the water companies and obtained a supply from Wales instead of the Thames watershed, and had pointed out that the revenue of the Conservancy would almost disappear. It was almost time that the Thames Conservancy obtained its revenues from other sources than the water companies, and if they were to do that they would look more sharply after the companies. He also mentioned that according to the report for 1899 of the engineer to the Thames Conservancy, proceedings had been instituted last year in twenty-four cases for non-compliance with the provisions of the Act in respect of pollution, and sixteen convictions obtained against offending parties. To avoid this contamination, Londoners wanted to get their water from cloud land in Wales, where there were no effluents from sewage farms or house-boats.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESstated that the Glamorgan County Council opposed the Bill on somewhat different grounds to those set forth by other hon. Members. They were vitally interested in the question, and, as they did not desire to acquire a monopoly over the watershed area, they desired to prevent a monopoly being granted to others. They opposed the Bill on the ground that powers so large ought not to be entrusted to one local authority, however important. They asked that the House would not give to the London County Council a first charge upon the

  677
  natural resources of the Welsh counties. The second principle which operated against this Bill had reference to the case of counties and boroughs which were increasing in population from year to year, and were in close proximity to a watershed. Such local authorities had the first claim to the natural resources of the district. Those were two broad principles on which he ventured to oppose the treatment of this great matter by way of private Bill. He suggested that the Bill should be withdrawn for this year, and thus give time for the House to consider what the principles really were.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN,): I merely rise for a moment in order to reply to the hon. Member for Hoxton; but before I do that I wish to say a word with regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Battersea as to the impurity of the supply from the Thames. It is very easy to quote from a report isolated passages which appear to support one's argument, but the balance of authority is entirely against the hon. Member. The whole of this question has been examined by two Commissions, both of which came to the conclusion that on the whole, the quality of the London water as supplied at present was admirable. The hon. Member for Hoxton has referred to something which I said at the close of my speech. The views that I expressed were that the question of the supply of water from Wales was a very important one, but not a matter of immediate urgency. What I think I said was that the proposal that the water authority of London should be in the field in time to secure the reversion of a water area in Wales is one for which I have a great deal of sympathy, and I think that would be an exceedingly proper subject for the consideration of the future authority who should have charge of the water supply of London. But it would be out of the question to entrust that duty to a body like the present body, with regard to which the House has just decided that it should not be the authority in the matter.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON, in recommending the withdrawal of the motion, said that the London County Council had done their best to carry out their duty by
  678
  the ratepayers and water consumers, and to solve this most difficult problem. They had been defeated and thwarted by the Government. The whole responsibility now lay on the Government to deal with the question. He himself was, however, looking to the past, not very sanguine that the Government would rise to the occasion and deal with the matter in a far-reaching or satisfactory way.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill withdrawn.

  THE METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have examined this Bill, and I feel it my duty to advise the House that it is one which the House cannot properly entertain as a private Bill. The promoters do not ask Parliament to confer any powers upon them, but they invite it to bestow new and large powers upon a public department—the Local Government Board—to enable it to initiate and superintend a scheme for carrying out the recommendations of the Royal Commission on London Water Supply, and it extends the provisions of a public Bill of last session. These being the objects of the Bill, it ought not to have been introduced as a private Bill, and I trust that the hon. Member in charge will withdraw it.
  Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

  GLASTONBURY CORPORATION GAS BILL.
  Reported; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  GLASTONBURY AND STREET GAS BILL.
  Reported [Parties do not proceed] Report to lie upon the Table.
PETITIONS.
  CORPORAL PUNISHMENT BILL.
  Petition from London, against; to lie upon the Table.
  ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Dunblane, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Barnes; and Newport Pagnell; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Trowbridge; Kingsland; and Leeds; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Sunderland, (twenty-three); Trowbridge; Penshurst; Crouch End; Preston; Manchester; London (four); Wesleyan Methodist Conference; and Coalville; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (NO. 2) BILL.
  Two Petitions from Sheffield, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Coalville; and London (two); to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LONDON GOVERNMENT ACT, 1899 (METROPOLITAN BOROUGHS).
  Copy presented, of Drafts of Orders in Council for the establishment of the Metropolitan Boroughs of Chelsea, Finsbury, Kensington, and Paddington, and incorporating the Councils thereof; and for other purposes in connection therewith [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 114.]
  UNIVERSITY EDUCATION OF ROMAN CATHOLICS (COLONIES).
  Copy presented, of Papers relating to University Education of Roman Catholics in certain Colonies [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No.
  680
  2392 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  MILITIA ACT, 1882 (DEPUTY LIEUTENANTS, IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Return of descriptions of qualifications of Deputy Lieutenants lodged during 1899, as furnished to the Chief Secretary for Ireland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Return of Deputy Lieutenants displaced during 1899, as furnished to the Chief Secretary for Ireland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  IMPERIAL YEOMANRY.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address, 15th March; Mr. Strachey]; to lie upon the Table.
  IMPERIAL REVENUE (COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE) (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "relating to Imperial Revenue (Collection and Expenditure) (Great Britain and Ireland) for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1900 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 318, of Session 1899)."—(Mr. Joseph A. Pease.)
  MERCHANT SERVICE (CERTIFICATES OF MASTERS, MATES, SKIPPERS, AND SECOND HANDS).
  Return ordered, "showing, for the last completed year, the number of successful and unsuccessful candidates (1) for i Masters' and Mates' Certificates of Competency in the United Kingdom; and (2) for Skippers' and Second Hands' Certificates of Competency in England and Wales and Ireland, distinguishing the ports at which the several examinations were held, and stating the fees charged."—(Captain Sinclair.)

  PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE—ALIEN SEAMEN ON BRITISH TRANSPORTS—"BLOCKING" NOTICES.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I desire to call attention, Mr. Speaker, to what I regard as an abuse of the practice of this House. On Tuesday last* the hon. Member for Middlesbrough essayed to move the adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance. You considered that the motion
  * See page 455 of this volume.

  681
  was not definite enough to justify you in submitting it to the House, and suggested that the hon. Member had better give notice for another day.
  MR. SPEAKER: What is the point of order the hon. Member wishes to raise?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: May I explain? I have no interest in this matter, and have not consulted the hon. Member for Middlesbrough. What I seek is to safeguard as far as I can the rights——
  MR. SPEAKER: What is the point of order? The hon. Member has not yet indicated it.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: It is not so much a point of order as one of practice. My hon. friend, acting on your suggestion, gave notice that he would move the adjournment to-day.
  MR. SPEAKER: I did not suggest he should give any notice, but that he should bring the matter forward on another day.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: And he intimated he would do so to-day. But on the Order Paper of to-day there appears a notice of motion by the hon. Member for Argyllshire in relation to the same matter—the presence of foreigners on transports carrying men and stores to South Africa—which is manifestly intended to prevent the hon. Member for Middlesbrough from bringing on his motion for the adjournment of the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: This is quite irregular. The hon. Member objects to the hon. Member for Argyllshire having exercised his undoubted right to put down this notice of motion.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Yes, Sir.
  MR. SPEAKER: There can be no objection taken to that. There is no point of order.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: With every respect to you, Sir, I would suggest it is an abuse of the practice of this House. I want to know whether, when a notice of motion is put down which is declared in the public prints to be for the sole purpose of preventing—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to state that. No point of order arises.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: With great respect, Sir, the point I wished to raise was whether it was not an abuse of the practice of the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order, or abuse of practice. The hon. Member for Argyllshire had an undoubted right to put down this motion.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I ask whether there is any remedy for meeting a case of this kind, where, at the suggestion of the Chair, the moving of the adjournment was postponed for a couple of days?
  MR. SPEAKER: The suggestion of the Chair was simply that the hon. Member was out of order, and that if he wished to put himself in order he would have to bring the matter forward in an amended form another day. I might have simply pointed out that the hon. Member's motion was not in order, and have called upon the Clerk to proceed to the Orders of the Day. But I did suggest to him that he might move it another day.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Might that not be regarded as part and parcel of a continuous transaction?
  MR. SPEAKER: No.

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—USAGES OF WAR—BOER ABUSE OF THE WHITE FLAG.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a correct copy of the despatch of Lord Roberts remonstrating with Presidents Kruger and Steyn in reference to the abuse of the white flag, and the reply of President Steyn.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): As far as I know, the reports published in the newspapers were complete and accurate; but in any case the Government have no objection to laying the de-

  683
  spatches asked for on the Table of the House. I believe they are identical in terms with the despatches as they appeared in the newspapers.
  MR. DILLON: Perhaps the Government will satisfy themselves that they are accurate reports before they are laid.

  BOER ARRESTS OF NON-COMBATANTS—CASE OF MR. GARSTIN.
  MR. WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information as to the where-abouts of Mr. Garstin, a British resident magistrate in South Africa, who has been taken prisoner by the rebel Dutch; whether they have threatened to try him for murder; and if so, on what ground; and whether Her Majesty's Government will give instructions to the proper officer in South Africa to endeavour to obtain Mr. Garstin's release on the ground that he was a non-combatant, and had merely taken steps in his civil capacity to enforce the law for the suppression of rebellion.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I was informed by Sir A. Milner, on 19th March, that it was reported that Mr. Garstin, the magistrate for Kenhardt, had been sent to Bloemfontein for trial, but without further particulars. It was not then known by the rebel Dutch that Bloemfontein was occupied by us. I have asked the Foreign Office to make inquiry, and representations, if necessary, through the United States Consul at Pretoria.

  DUTCH DISLOYALTY IN CAPE TOWN—CASE OF MR. DU PLESSIS.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now inform the House of the result of his inquiries as to whether Mr. Barend du Plessis, a well to do farmer of Hanover District, Cape Town, was arrested on the 10th of December last on a charge of high treason based on the unsupported statement of a discharged native servant, and was kept in prison for ten days, and then set free, the Solicitor General refusing to prosecute; and whether any compensation will be made to this gentleman.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Mr. Barend du Plessis was arrested by the military
  684
  on 11th December on a charge of high treason. Evidence was given by three native servants as to alleged treasonable words, but this was unsupported. He was committed for trial on 16th December and the papers sent to the Solicitor General, Grahamstown, who declined to prosecute, so du Plessis was released 20th December. Sir Alfred Milner informs me that he has not yet heard if the military consider this a case for compensation.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: Were the servants discharged who gave the information?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information as to that.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What were they paid for it?
  [No answer was given.]

  MAGERSFONTEIN ENGAGEMENT LORD METHUEN'S DESPATCHES.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the original communication, dated 4th January, sent home by Sir Redvers Buller, who was then in chief command of the Army in South Africa, from Lord Methuen, respecting the reverse at Magersfontein on the 10th and 11th December, will be published; and what is the reason for withholding from the public a communication with reference to a matter of such general interest.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): For the reasons which I stated in answer to the hon. Member on the 23rd,* it is intended not to publish this communication.

  LORD METHUEN AND COLONEL GOUGH.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether Lord Methuen has sent home any communication with reference to the circumstances under which he ordered Colonel Gough to retire from the front; whether Colonel Gough was ordered home by Lord Methuen because he refused to obey an order of Lord Methuen's; and, will the promised inquiry into Colonel
  * See page 173 of this volume.

  685
  Gough's conduct embrace an inquiry into Lord Methuen's conduct.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Pending the inquiry which is to be held into Colonel Gough's case it should not, I think, be discussed by way of question and answer in this House.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Does the hon. Gentleman decline to say whether Colonel Gough disobeyed orders or not?
  MR. WYNDHAM: An inquiry will be held in this case, and it would be most improper, in my opinion, to discuss any of the matters, essential or subsidiary, which are likely to come before the tribunal.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will Lord Methuen's conduct form a subject of inquiry?
  [No reply was given.]

  THE PROVISIONING OF MAFEKING.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the statement of Mr. Julius Weil, of Messrs. Julius Weil and Co., Government contractors, to the effect that in addition to executing an order given by Lord Edward Cecil for Colonel Hore's forces, numbering some 550 men and 500 horses, he had forwarded to Mafeking very large stocks on his own initiative and at his own risk, knowing that in the event of hostilities large supplies would be required by the population of that town, numbering in all some 10,000 persons; and whether he will inquire into the facts of the case; and, if they be found as stated, whether the Secretary of State will consider the propriety of suitably recognising the foresight of the contractor who thus, acting on his own initiative, rendered possible the protracted defence of Mafeking.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. I hope that it will before long be possible to obtain from the gallant officer in command at Mafeking a full report of the circumstances attending the provisioning of that town.

  COMMISSIONS FOR COLONISTS.
  MR. ORR-EWING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for
  686
  the Colonies whether any commissions will be offered in the infantry and Royal Artillery to New Zealand and Tasmania, and if it is intended to offer any commissions in the cavalry to any of the colonies.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Ten Royal Artillery and twenty infantry commissions have been offered to New Zealand, and two Royal Artillery and five infantry commissions to Tasmania. No cavalry commissions are being offered to the colonies, because we have been led to believe that they would rarely be acceptable. But, as I have said, the proportions laid down will be subject to minor variations, and any suitable application from a colony for a cavalry in lieu of an infantry commission would be entertained.

  C.I.V. RIFLE SIGHTS.
  MR. WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any steps have been taken to remedy the defective sighting of the rifles supplied to the City of London Imperial Volunteers who are now at the front in South Africa.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir. New backsights have been sent out in sufficient numbers for all the Lee-Enfields in South Africa.

  WAR MEDALS.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will consider, before the conclusion of hostilities, the advisability of inviting competition for the design of a South African war medal previously to any such medal being issued to the country.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Such a competition would have involved much delay. Designs have, in fact, been prepared and submitted to Her Majesty.

  HORSES FOR THE ARMY.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether Captain Fife has been appointed to go to New Orleans, and Captain Tremayne to go to the Argentine Republic to purchase horses for the Army; whether he can state how many horses it is intended to purchase in those

  687
  foreign countries; and whether he is aware that in the opinion of experts Irish horses are more suitable and at the same time cheaper than imported animals.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): Captain Fife has been sent to New Orleans to purchase horses, and Captain Tremayne has been sent to Argentina to take charge of horses on board ship. I am not prepared to state the number of horses to be purchased in foreign countries. In regard to Irish horses, I have on previous occasions explained to the House that trained horses of suitable age are very difficult to obtain in Ireland, but about 5,000 have been purchased there, as already stated.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Will the hon. Gentleman say how much these foreign countries have contributed to the cost of the war?
  [No answer was given.]

  COL. WYNNE'S FIELD ORDER.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will publish the field order, signed by Colonel Wynne, to the troops in Natal, in the month of January last, on the occasion of the advance on Springfield.
  MR. WYNDHAM: It is not intended to publish documents of this character. I may remind the hon. Member that on the 23rd inst.,* in answering the Member for South Donegal, I pointed out that a despatch intended for publication should be a connected account by the Officer Commanding in Chief, not containing separate communications from subordinate officers.
  MR. DILLON: May I call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the document to which I allude was not a private communication, but a field order, not in the nature of a report, and that it was partially published in the newspapers?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I think the hon. Member does not quite understand this question of despatches. That is one field order. Of course there have been scores
  See page 173 of this volume.
  688
  of field orders, and scores and even hundreds of reports from officers commanding brigades and lesser units. The only documents which are published in the London Gazette are the despatches of the General Officer Commanding in Chief. The despatches from the Peninsula were written by the Duke of Wellington, and not by officers who commanded brigades.

  THE ARMAMENT OF KIMBERLEY.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, on the relief of Kimberley, Mr. Cecil Rhodes stated in a public speech that he purposed to have Kimberley armed with artillery through the De Beers Company; and whether, in view of this gentleman's connection with the Jameson raid, he, or the De Beers Company which he controls, will be permitted to have any control of military armament.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am not aware of any such statement. The control of military armament rests with the military authorities.

  SIR GEORGE WHITE.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Government have been in communication with Sir Redvers Buller or Sir George White, or either of them, as to any complaints made by the latter officer, directly or indirectly, of any treatment to which he has been subjected, or any attempts to supersede him; and, if so, will he consent to the publication of such communications.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No communication of the character suggested by the hon. Member has been received.

  NAVAL FORCE AT DELAGOA BAY-SEARCHES FOR CONTRABAND.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty how many British warships are at present at Delagoa Bay, and the names of such vessels; and whether any attempt is being made to stop the landing of war material and men for the Boer army.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,): There are on the Cape Station some twenty cruisers and gunboats, omitting

  689
  the "Powerful" and "Terrible," which have now left for their respective destinations, and an interchange of vessels between Delagoa Bay and Durban and the Cape ports is constantly taking place. The names of the ships at Delagoa Bay at the present time cannot be given without inquiry. They are at present there for the purpose of preventing the landing of contraband of war and men proved to be destined for the military service of the Boer Republics.
  MR. LONSDALE: May I ask what power they have?
  MR. MACARTNEY: I think the hon Gentleman had better give notice of that question.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask whether in future, when our cruisers capture vessels suspected of carrying contraband of war, the Admiralty will refrain from ordering their dismissal before they are searched?
  MR. MACARTNEY: That, again, is a question of which I think my hon. friend had better give notice.

  TRANSPORT—COMMISSARIAT ON THE "CORNWALL"
  MR. ROUND (Essex, Harwich): I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if his attention has been called to statements relative to the treatment of the troopers of the Imperial Yeomanry who, after embarking on board the steamship "Cornwall" at 10 a.m. on the 3rd of March, had no food served out to them till breakfast the next day, and then only two pieces of bread with Nestlé's milk spread on in lieu of butter, and nothing to drink, and for dinner two potatoes only; and if he can give any explanation of this treatment.
  MR. MACARTNEY: There is no information available as to the circumstances mentioned in the question, no report having yet come in from the officer commanding the troops on board.

  TRANSPORT—THE "DUNERA."
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is now aware that Her Majesty's transport steamship "Dunera" was not neaped for three days in Port Talbot, as previously alleged, but
  690
  that in fact during the whole of the time during which the steamship "Dunera" lay in that port there was ample water and width of channel for her to have departed in safety on any tide after completing her loading of coal; and whether he will state the authority upon which the previous report was based.
  MR. MACARTNEY: The "Dunera" entered Port Talbot with a falling neap tide on 7th March, and from the master's experience in going in he determined that the risk of taking the ship out after coaling, with a turn to make in the narrowest part, on a dark night, no leading light to turn on, and on a falling neap tide, was too great without, at least, the same depth of water as he had on entering, and in this opinion he was supported by the local Transport officer. She undocked on the afternoon of the 13th March. Although it is just possible that the ship might have been got out earlier, the risk would have been very great, and therefore she was practically "neaped."
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: And as to the second paragraph of the question?
  MR. MACARTNEY: Upon the authority of the Admiralty.

  WAGES OF SEAMEN AND STOKERS IN THE NAVY.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state the rate of wages paid to able seamen and stokers, respectively, who, being on short service, are not entitled to pensions in vessels of the Royal Navy now on service in South African waters.
  MR. MACARTNEY: The rate of wages (exclusive of allowances) paid to non-continuous (or short) service able seamen and stokers respectively is 1s. 4d. and 1s. 9d. a day in South Africa or elsewhere. There are, however, practically no able seamen or stokers entered for non-continuous service, and, as a matter of fact, on the date of the last return of numbers borne on the Cape station, there were no able seamen and only one stoker non-continuous service.

  THE WAR LOAN.
  MR. WARR: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether arrangements can be

  691
  made whereby the several instalments of the War Loan can be accepted on the several due dates by the various branches of the Bank of England in the provinces.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): Arrangements are being made under which allottees will be able to pay their instalments at the branches of the Bank of England.

  RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH—DISTURBANCES AT ANTI-WAR MEETINGS AT MARGATE.
  MR. MADDISON (Sheffield, Brightside): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the rioting which took place at Margate on the 14th and 15th instant, whereby the premises of a tradesman named W. J. Powell were wrecked; whether he is aware that Mr. Powell and his wife and family were afraid for several days to come into the town because of threatened violence; that the chief constable promised the mob that if they would disperse he would release two men who had been arrested for riotous conduct, which was done, and that the Mayor of Margate stated publicly that Mr. Powell had brought the trouble on himself, though his only offence was that he is opposed to the war in South Africa; and whether he will take steps to afford adequate police protection to Mr. Powell and his family and to others who may hold his views about the war.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): My attention has been called to the recent serious and discreditable disturbances at Margate, and I regret to find that the windows of Mr. Powell's premises were broken and damage done to some furniture which was exposed for sale. The authorities had no reason to believe that Mr. Powell or his family were afterwards afraid to come into the town, or that personal violence had been threatened. It is the fact that three men who had been arrested were released by the chief constable, and in the difficult circumstances in which the police officers found themselves placed I see no reason to doubt that this action was judicious. The mayor admits having stated subsequently that in his opinion Mr. Powell's
  692
  conduct invited what happened. Besides his opposition to the war, there seems—rightly or wrongly—to have been a popular belief that Mr. Powell had given various indications of a feeling of disloyalty towards Her Majesty. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] I am giving the report the mayor has given me. A proclamation was issued by the police on the 16th inst. warning all persons not to take part in any breach of the peace, and there seems no reason to expect any further disturbance. The local police force is small, I but every available man was made use of, and if necessity should arise the mayor can, as I am pointing out to him, of course borrow officers from neighbouring forces. The local authorities are alive to their responsibilities, and I trust they will be supported by the inhabitants of Margate in their efforts to prevent any breach of the peace being caused by excited political feelings.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is opposition to the war, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, an act of disloyalty?
  [No answer was given.]

  WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS—CORDITE ORDERS FOR ARKLOW.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office when, and to what extent, it is proposed to give an order for cordite to the factory in Arklow.
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: An order will be given to Messrs. Kynoch, to whom the Arklow works belong, within the next few days.

  ARMY PENSIONS—CASE OF DOMINICK HOGAN.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Dominick Hogan, an Army pensioner about seventy-seven years of age, who enlisted in 1842 in the 64th Regiment and served over twenty-two years, fifteen years of which was foreign service, and who holds a medal and clasp for service in Persia, medal and clasp for service in the Indian Mutiny, and also a medal and clasp for service in China; and also holds a discharge of good character and conduct, after serving in twenty-six general and 100 other engagements, and

  693
  having been over eight years in active service and action; whether he is aware that Hogan was discharged in 1864 on a pension of 8½d. per day; whether Hogan is entitled, under the Soldiers' Deferred Pension Act, to an extra pension of 4d. per day, he having served over twenty-one years, and having attained the age of sixty years; and whether, owing to Hogan's long service and distinguished career, the War Office authorities will now consider his case with the view of increasing substantially his present pension of 8½d. per day.
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: As I have already told the hon. Member, the case has been repeatedly considered, and Hogan receives the full pension to which his service entitles him.
  MR. FLAVIN: Am I to understand from the hon. Gentleman that these Army pensioners will be used as an advertisement for recruiting in the Army in Ireland?
  [No answer was returned.]

  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS—LIEUTENANT-COLONEL'S PAY.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether lieutenant-colonels of the Royal Army Medical Corps who are doing colonel's work can receive the rank and pay of the higher grade in which they are temporarily serving.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Regulations do not provide for the case of these officers, and it is being specially considered.

  REGIMENTAL TITLES—SUGGESTED BUCKINGHAMSHIRE REGIMENT.
  MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the strong feeling which exists in the county of Buckingham, as shown by a resolution of the Buckinghamshire County Council in favour of having a regiment bearing the name of the county, and having a county depot; and, if so, whether the War Office can see its way to form such a regiment.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The new battalions now being raised were designated in the Army Order of 21st February. For military purposes it was judged best to
  694
  add these new battalions to existing regiments, and I fear it will not be possible to accede to the wishes of the Buckinghamshire County Council.

  VOLUNTEERS—PRIVILEGES TO CIVIL SERVANTS.
  MR. PLATT-HIGGINSI beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in view of the fact that the Treasury have agreed to accord certain privileges as regards their civil pay to those Volunteer members of the Civil Service who have been accepted for active service in South Africa, it is intended to extend the same privileges to those postal employees who, being members of the St. John's Ambulance Brigade, have volunteered for active service, and who have been accepted by the War Office authorities as members of the Army Medical Staff Corps.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): The Postmaster General has not received any application from the Secretary of State for War to grant the privileges referred to to members of the St. John's Ambulance Brigade, but he has been asked to keep their places open for them, and this will be done.

  RESIGNATION OF THE POSTMASTER GENERAL ON HIS VOLUNTEERING FOR SOUTH AFRICA.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what arrangements are in contemplation for the discharge of the duties of the Postmaster General during the absence on active service in South Africa of the Duke of Norfolk, K.G.; and whether during the absence of the Duke of Norfolk there will be a return to the old practice of appointing to the headship of the Postal Department a Minister with a seat in the House of Commons.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Duke of Norfolk has resigned.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: As to the second paragraph.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot answer that.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Has the resignation been accepted?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir.
  SIR J. LENG: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Postmaster General is about to proceed to South Africa; if so, in what capacity and for what length of time he is to be absent from the country; whether there is any precedent for the Minister of an important Department thus leaving his official post; and by whom his ministerial duties will be discharged during his absence.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have already answered this question.

  VOLUNTEER UNIFORMS.
  MR. F. W. WILSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether khaki is to be introduced as the uniform of the Volunteers, and, if not, in view of the number of recruits now joining the Volunteers, and the necessity of providing them with uniforms, whether any change in the colour and material of such uniforms will be made during the present year.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The question of a general service uniform for the Regular Army is at present under consideration. Until a pattern is approved for the Regulars it is not probable that Volunteer commanding officers will wish to make any radical change in the uniform of their corps.

  VOLUNTEERS—SOLICITORS' ARTICLED CLERKS.
  SIR JOHN JENKINS: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether his attention has been called to a possible hardship that may arise in the case of a person articled to a solicitor who has in the present exceptional crisis volunteered for service in South Africa or joined a militia regiment; and whether, seeing that a solicitor has to declare that the clerk has not been engaged in any other employment during the time he has been articled, he will introduce a Bill to remove any disability for admission as solicitor of articled clerks by reason of employment in the auxiliary forces.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): The circumstance to which the hon. Baronet refers is not peculiar to the legal pro-
  696
  fession. There are many other contracts of service and employment in which a similar state of circumstances may arise. It would not, in my opinion, be possible to legislate specially for articled clerks to solicitors.

  HULME BARRACKS, MANCHESTER.
  MR. DRAGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for War whether the Hulme Barracks at Manchester have been condemned for sanitary reasons, and whether the sanitary arrangements there are known to the War Office to be unsatisfactory; and whether several cases of sickness have occurred that can be traced to the unsanitary condition of the barracks, and whether, under the circumstances, he will advise the removal of the 3rd Battalion of the Derbyshire Regiment to healthier quarters.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Hulme Barracks were not condemned for sanitary reasons. The general officer commanding reports the sanitary arrangements satisfactory, and that there have been no cases of sickness traceable to insanitary conditions. But the barracks are undoubtedly old. The battalion is going into camp about 1st May.

  CYPRUS—FAMAGUSTA HARBOUR.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if any work in connection with the Famagusta Harbour has yet been begun, and if the necessary preliminary legislation has been passed by the Legislative Council of Cyprus; and whether it is proposed to carry out any railway works within the town, or to destroy any part of the sea front of the old castle dating from the thirteenth century.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative in regard to both the points. In regard to the second, the final plans for the railway have not yet been received, as it is not intended to commence it till the harbour works are well advanced. When they are submitted, they will be carefully examined with a view to avoiding as far as may be practicable any interference with the old fortifications, and I shall give full consideration to any representations on the subject which my noble friend may desire to make personally.

  INDIA—AGRICULTURAL BANKS.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what have been the practical results of Mr. Nicholson's inquiry of 1897 regarding agricultural banks as a means of relieving the rural population of India from oppression by the moneylenders; what were Mr. Nicholson's recommendations as regards making early experiments in establishing agricultural banks; and what steps have been taken to carry out his recommendations, and what success has attended the action of Government.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): I have not yet received from the Government of India an expression of their views upon the proposals made in Mr. Nicholson's report upon the formation of agricultural banks; but I understand that orders have recently been passed by the Government of Madras on this important matter. I am not yet in a position to state in detail the nature of those orders, but I expect to hear during the present season from the Government of India, who have only recently received the report of the Madras Government on the subject.

  INDIAN FAMINE—SUGGESTED INQUIRY.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, looking to the early recurrence of famine in India, and the unparalleled magnitude of the present visitation, as described by the Viceroy of India, he will suggest to the Government of India to institute, at a convenient time, a detailed inquiry into the condition and food supply of a few typical villages in the provinces liable to famine, with a view to ascertain whether, by local storage of grain in times of plenty, and other precautionary measures, the economic condition of such villages may be so far strengthened that the failure of a year's harvest will not bring the cultivators into danger of starvation.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: During the past twenty year investigations have been made by two Famine Commissions, and there, has also been an exhaustive inquiry into the condition of the people. In these circumstances I am unwilling to call on the Government of India to
  698
  institute at this moment another general inquiry of the kind suggested in the question. But the hon. Member may be sure that the knowledge and experience which is now being gained will be most carefully turned to account, and that any specific question will be investigated concerning which there may be insufficiency of information, with a view to the adoption of such further precautionary or economic measures as may appear to be advisable.

  INDIAN FAMINE—RELIEF WORKS.
  MR. PRICE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether some portion of the labour now employed on relief work in India is being used or can be used for the further provision of tanks and other minor irrigation works.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The periodical reports received from the famine districts show that famine workers are largely employed on digging canals, excavating or improving tanks, and sinking wells. But it is not possible everywhere to construct suitable works of this kind.

  DELAGOA BAY RAILWAY ARBITRATION.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information to give the House in reference to the delay in stating the award of the Delagoa Railway arbitration.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): I am sorry to say we have no information to give the House on this subject.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how soon the matter will be settled?
  MR. BRODRICK: We are without information on that point at present.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I will put another question next week.

  BRITISH PROPERTY HOLDERS IN THE UNITED STATES.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give the House any information regarding the treaty, reported to have been ratified by the United States Senate on the 22nd March, as to the right of British subjects

  699
  to hold real and personal property in United States.
  MR. BRODRICK: A treaty on this subject was signed by Lord Pauncefote and Mr. Hay on 2nd March, and has been ratified with certain modifications by the United States Senate. These modifications are under consideration, and I cannot make any statement at present.

  CHINA—BLUE-BOOK.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the probable discussion on China to-morrow, a Blue-book on China will be laid on the Table?
  MR. BRODRICK: Papers in reference to China have been laid on the Table, and copies are to be had at the Vote Office.

  DEATH DUTIES—ALLEGED EVASIONS.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has come to any, and, if so, to what conclusion on the point which he stated on the 22nd February* was under consideration with reference to the evasion of the law relating to death duties in the eases of estates of great value; and whether any, and, if so, what steps are in contemplation to obtain power to prevent the evasion of the law relating to death duties in the particular instance of the estate of a millionaire peer lately deceased.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The point which I referred to on February 22nd is dealt with by Clause 10 of the Finance Bill. There is no suspicion whatever that there has been any attempt at evasion of the law in the case of the estate to which I presume the second paragraph refers. Probate has been granted on an affidavit which stated a provisional sum only, and which explicitly intimated that a further account would follow. This affidavit, of course, referred only to personal property. In respect of settled property, a separate account has to be brought in, and for this six months is allowed from the death. The six months have not yet expired.

  LIGHTS ON THE MANACLES ROCKS.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of
  * See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxix., page 798.
  700
  Trade whether, in view of the casualties that have recently occurred, steps can be taken to provide a lighthouse or lightship on the Manacles Rocks, off the south coast of Cornwall; and whether either the Trinity House or the Board of Trade are doing anything in the matter.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): Although the matter has been fully considered, no action is being taken by the Trinity House at present. The Manacles Rocks and adjacent coast lie well out of the ordinary Channel track. The casualties which have given notoriety to this part of the coast have occurred to outward bound vessels which had just left known points of departure. The expenditure involved would not be justifiable in view of the demands at this time for new lighthouses and sea marks in many much more urgent cases.

  ACCIDENT ON THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY—RAILWAY SERVANTS HOURS OF LABOUR.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the statement of Colonel Yorke, a Board of Trade inspector, in his Report upon a collision on the Great Western Railway which took place on the morning of the 27th December, 1899; whether he has noted a statement by Colonel Yorke to the effect that it is not always possible for the normal hours of work to be strictly adhered to at holiday seasons, but men who have been for fourteen or fifteen hours on the footplate can hardly be expected to display that unremitting vigilance which is necessary for safety; and whether it is the intention of the Government to propose legislation with a view to preventing danger to the lives of the travelling public by the working of excessive hours on the part of railway servants.
  MR. RITCHIE: Yes, Sir. I have read the Report referred to, a copy of which was forwarded to the company immediately it was issued. As my hon. friend's question states, the Inspecting Officer, while commenting on the unduly long hours worked, inferred that they were caused by the Christmas traffic. The Railway Regulation Act of 1893 enables the Board of Trade to call upon any company to submit a schedule of reasonable hours, and these provisions are quite

  701
  sufficient to enable the Board to deal, where necessary, with undue hours of work.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he would be willing to lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing all instances of working hours exceeding twelve continuously worked by the servants of the railway companies in England during the months of January and February, 1900.
  MR. RITCHIE: I hardly think I should be justified in asking the railway companies for a Return which would involve very laborious examination, having regard to the fact that Parliament in 1893 approved legislation which enables railway servants and those who represent them to make complaints as to excessive hours of work, and in proper cases to obtain redress.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most of the railway companies have already prepared such a Return for their own information. Will he inquire?
  MR. RITCHIE: Certainly; and if that is the case, of course the difficulty I speak of will not arise.

  RELIEVING OFFICERS AND PRIVATE LUNATIC ASYLUMS.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether any cases have been recently brought to his notice of the proprietors of some private lunatic asylums having offered commissions to relieving officers; and, if so, will he state particulars regarding such cases, and what steps he intends taking regarding the same.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN,): The attention of the Local Government Board has been drawn to cases of the kind referred to in the question. They are in communication with the Lunacy Commissioners with regard to the precise course which should be adopted in the matter, but not in a position to say more on the subject at present.

  CHILDREN IN METROPOLITAN WORKHOUSES.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government
  702
  Board if he can state the number of children at present in the metropolitan workhouses, distinguishing those under two years of age.
  MR. CHAPLIN: The total number, according to the latest returns, is 1,716, of whom 552 are infants under two years of age.

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL—SITTING TENANTS.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in the progress of his Agricultural Holdings Bill, he will introduce provisions to protect the improvements of sitting tenants; whether he is aware of the inconvenience, in the administration of the existing Act, from the practice of ascertaining the value of improvements by means of mechanical scales of unexhausted manures, irrespective of results, and will provide that due, credit shall be given for continuous good husbandry and accumulated manurial fertility; and whether he will favourably consider a proposal to simplify the First Schedule by introducing a definition of improvement, in accordance with Clause I of the Bill, as including anything done by the tenant whereby the letting value of the holding is increased.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,): It would, I think, be very inconvenient that I should anticipate any statement which it may be my duty to make with regard to the suggestions of the hon. Baronet when the Bill is considered in Committee. Proposals of the kind cannot be properly discussed in the form of question and answer.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman, under the circumstances, undertake not to bring on the Second Reading of the Bill before Easter, so that we may have an opportunity of consulting our constituents with regard to it?
  MR. LONG: No, Sir.

  POST OFFICE OFFICIALS—MINIMUM PERIOD OF ATTENDANCE.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, seeing that the Tweedmouth Committee recommended that, in the case of London and provincial town postmen,

  703
  no period of duty necessitating an attendance at the office should be reckoned at less than an hour, such principle is in effect applied to the class of sorting clerks; and, if so, would he state the minimum period of attendance relative thereto.
  MR. HANBURY: It is the case that the Tweedmouth Committee made the recommendation described by the hon. Member as to postmen; and the authority of the Treasury has recently been given to apply the same principle to the class of sorting clerks and telegraphists. The rule now is that in the case of sorting clerks, sorters, telegraphists, and postmen no separate attendance shall be reckoned at less than an hour, except when the attendance falls within an hour of the preceding or succeeding continuous duty. In such a case only the actual time of attendance and the interval between the two attendances will be counted.

  POSTMEN'S FEDERATION—REFUSAL OF LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO EXECUTIVE OFFICERS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the application of the general secretary to the Postmen's Federation for leave of absence to enable him to attend meetings of the executive of the Federation, to be held on the 29th, 30th, and 31st instant, was refused, although leave of absence was given to other members of the executive who reside in London districts; and whether in view of the fact that the General Post Office authorities always profess a readiness to give facilities to the officers of the various associations of employees to conduct the business of these bodies, and in view of the importance of the secretary of the executive being present, he will see that leave is given them to attend.
  MR. HANBURY: I have not received the reply to this question.
  MR. STEADMAN: May I ask whether the delay is caused by the absence of the Postmaster General, who is going to the front? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even to-day throe postmen from the same post office have been allowed leave of absence?
  MR. HANBURY: I have no information.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: How is it, in view of the fact that the Post Office authorities have every means of communication at their disposal, in the shape of telegraph and telephone wires, they cannot give a simple answer to a straight question put in this House?
  MR. HANBURY: All I have to say is that I have no information.

  SORTING CLERKS AND POSTMEN—HOURS OF SERVICE.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that at certain offices sorting clerks and postmen are called upon to perform daily duties necessitating an attendance of 7 hours and 45 minutes (5 hours and 15 minutes day duty, and 2 hours and 30 minutes night duty), such being nine minutes in excess of eight hours; and, if so, would he, on such cases being laid before him, take such steps as would result in their re-adjustment.
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is not aware of duties arranged as described, and will be glad of particulars in order that if necessary the attendance may be modified. (An attendance such as that specified would be six minutes in excess of eight hours—not nine minutes as stated).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that at certain post offices sorting clerks are on Sundays compelled to remain on night duty for forty minutes and to receive payment for thirty minutes, instead of three quarters of an hour; and, if so, will he, on the cases being specified, take such steps as will ensure the removal of the grievance complained of.
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is not aware of the existence of such a practice, and will be glad to be furnished with particulars in order that if there is any infraction of rule it may be remedied.

  SUB-POSTMASTERS' SUPERANNUATION.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, under what section of the Superannuation Act of 1859 the condition is imposed that sub-postmasters must, as a

  705
  condition of being entitled to superannuation, have obtained a Civil Service certificate, and have devoted their whole time to the service of the Department.
  MR. HANBUBY: A Civil Service certificate is required by Section 17 of the Act. In the exercise of the discretion conferred upon them by Section 2 of the Act the Treasury have uniformly declined to recognise any claim to superannuation under that section on the part of persons holding situations in the Civil Service of the State the duties of which are not such as to require that the holder should give his whole time to the public service. Due regard is, of course, paid to the claims of any such persons who might have acquired a claim to superannuation before the Act of 1859.
  MR. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if all officials coming under the Civil Services superannuation scheme give their whole time to their duties?
  MR. HANBURY: Yes, Sir.

  VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM—THE BUCKLAND COLLECTION.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether it has been decided to remove the Museum of Fish Culture from the Victoria and Albert Museum; and, if not, whether any steps are being taken by the Department to develop and keep this collection in proper order, and to provide space for it under the new building scheme.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): I stated on Monday last* that no decision with reference to the Museum of Fish Culture had yet been arrived at No steps are therefore being taken at present.
  LORD BALCARRES: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to answer if I repeat the question in two or three weeks?
  SIR J. GORST: I cannot say.

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACT (1869) AMENDMENT ACT, 1873.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of
  *See page 323 of this volume.
  706
  Council on Education if he can inform the House how many schools have come within the exceptions described in Section 3 of the Endowed Schools Act (1869) Amendment Act, 1873; for how many of them schemes have been framed, submitted, and approved, under that section and Section 75 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870; and if Her Majesty's Inspectors, under Sub-section 3 of Section 3, can inspect such schools without the assent, previously obtained, of the trustees or governors.
  SIR J. GORST: The reply to the first paragraph is, the number known to the Education Department is eighty-nine; in answer to the second it is forty-three; and in the third, yes.

  HORNING (NORFOLK) SCHOOL BOARD.
  MR. PRICE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the Bishop of Norwich has expressed his unwillingness to continue to allow the School Board of Horning, Norfolk, the use of the school there, although willing to allow its use as a voluntary school; and whether, if the Vice-President has any power in the matter he will refuse his sanction to the change, or at least insist upon such a substantial guarantee of subscriptions as to afford a reasonable chance of the school being efficient.
  SIR J. GORST: The Committee of Council have no information on the facts stated in the first paragraph, and no application from either the Bishop of Norwich or the School Board of Horning has been received in the Education Department.

  OLDHAM SCHOOL BOARD GRANT.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the Oldham School Board will lose in grant under the new Code a sum estimated at nearly £400; and whether this loss is owing to the average efficiency, or standard of efficiency, of schools contemplated under the new Code being below that attained by the schools of the Oldham Board.
  SIR J. GORST: The estimate of the loss of the Oldham School Board is £336, which would be made good by a rate of one-eighth of a penny in the £. The

  707
  standard of efficiency is not, in the opinion of the Committee of Council, correctly measured by the amount of grant earned.

  THE NEW CODE—PUPIL TEACHERS.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL, on behalf of the hon. Member for West Bradford: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education if he can state the changes made by the new Code with regard to the payments for pupil teachers.
  Sir J. GORST: The grants now paid for pupil teachers average 40s. per annum, schools receiving more or less, according to the results of the examinations. Under the Code 40s. per annum will be paid for each pupil teacher instructed, independently of the results of examination. Thus the total amount to be paid under the new system is the same as under the old, but will be equally divided. No school can for an ordinary pupil teacher receive under the new system a lower grant than it would have received under the old until after July 1st, 1903.

  THE BLOCK GRANT AND HIGHER GRADE SCHOOLS.
  SIR WILLIAM CODDINGTON: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether the Government purpose taking steps to protect financially the higher grade and other elementary schools whose income may be diminished by the limitation of the block grant as proposed in the new Code of regulations for day schools.
  SIR J. GORST: The reduction of the income of the higher grade schools under the Code will not be considerable, and no school can have its income diminished by reason of the new Code till the year 1891–2. In the meanwhile expedients will without doubt be devised by which the efficiency of these schools will be protected.

  SUGGESTED POSTPONEMENT OF THE CHANGES IN THE CODE.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the memorandum on the new Code drawn up by the Association of School Boards, and to the request made by the
  708
  association that the drastic changes so hastily put before the country should be postponed for twelve months, on the ground that the new Board of Education is coming into immediate existence, with special powers for dealing with the whole problem of National Education; and whether, having regard to this appeal and to the representations of many of the school boards of the large towns that the education given in their schools will be injured by the grave diminution of the grants hitherto earned by many of their schools, Her Majesty's Government will consent to withdraw the changes complained of in the new Code, and allow the whole subject to be more fully considered.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As the arrangement which had been come to with regard to to-night has fallen through, perhaps I may be permitted to state to-morrow what Parliamentary arrangements I will make in substitution for those we have abandoned.

  CORONERS' INQUESTS IN WALES.
  MR. VAUGHAN DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a statement by J. H. Evans, one of the coroners for Cardiganshire, in holding an inquest on one Margaret Ann Howell on the 12th instant, that if jurymen did not understand English they were not eligible to be on the jury, and to the fact that he gave instructions to the constable in charge of the case not to summon jurymen who did not understand English, and whether a person otherwise qualified to sit on a jury at a coroner's inquest in Wales is disqualified by ignorance of the English language; and, if so, under what statute; and whether a coroner has the power to give directions as to the composition of the jury at such inquest.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): So far as I am aware, ignorance of English is not a statutory disqualification for sitting on a coroner's jury in Wales, and the coroner to whom the question refers, and who is himself a Welshman, has never expressed himself in that sense. In the case referred to, medical evidence of special importance was given in English, and the inquisition, as the hon.

  709
  Member is no doubt aware, was drawn in English, and the coroner instructed the police that it would be better to summon jurors who understood English. This expression of opinion appears to me to be altogether in accord with common sense, and in no way inconsistent with the law.

  CORONERS' INQUESTS—VIEWING BODIES.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the fact that in 1898 or 1899 the replies received to circulars sent out by the secretary to coroners and their deputies showed that a considerable majority thought that an alteration in the law is advisable, that a coroner should retain the power of the view, but that the question as to whether the coroner, jury, or both should be relieved absolutely was left for further consideration, whether legislation will be undertaken by him somewhat in terms of the Coroners Bill, 1879, No. 243, Clause 5, by which a Select Committee of the House, to whom such Bill had been referred, intended to give coroners and jurymen the relief now asked for.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I have made inquiry as to the replies referred to, but I find that there was no such decided or conclusive preponderance of opinion in favour of any definite change in the law as to afford a reason for proposing legislation of the kind suggested.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: Did the replies come from the coroners themselves or from the Society of Coroners?
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: From the coroners themselves. There was a preponderance of opinion in favour of some change, but very great difference of opinion as to what change should be suggested.

  CONVICTS' DIETARY REGULATIONS.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the recommendations of the Dietary Committee, in regard to the diet of prisoners in Dartmoor and other convict prisons, have been carried out; and, if not, will he give this matter an early and favourable consideration.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I have postponed the introduction of a new permanent dietary for convict and local prisons pending careful observation, which has been continued during the past year, upon the effect of the changes already introduced in the dietaries of local prisons. I hope shortly to be in a position to lay on the Table of the House new scales of dietary for both convict and local prisons, based upon the suggestions, contained in the Report of the recent Dietary Committee.

  SUNDAY LABOUR IN FACTORIES.
  MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any precedents exist for the proposal contained in Sub section (3) of Clause 33 of the Factories and Workshops Bill to legalise work for five hours on Sundays; and, if not, whether he can see his way to withdraw this proposal.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: There are several provisions in the Factory Acts under which it is possible for children, young persons, and women to work on Sundays. But even apart from precedent, I certainly cannot withdraw the proposal in Sub-clause (3) of Clause 33 of the Factory and Workshops Bill, which, I may explain, is required in the interest of the Irish Creameries, a new and important industry, where a limited amount of Sunday labour is, I believe, indispensable.

  LUNACY LABORATORY RESEARCH.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what class of research it is intended shall be carried out in the laboratories which it is proposed may be provided and maintained in connection with lunacy in Clause 22 of the Lunacy Bill; what is the character of the certificates it is intended to grant to licensees at such laboratories; and whether the number of such laboratories are to be limited in number.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I have no information leading me to believe that the research for which the laboratories may be established will involve any necessity for either licences or certificates; but I am in communication with the Lunacy Commissioners on the subject.

  FOOTBALL IN REGENTS PARK AND PRIMROSE HILL.
  MR. MOON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that Regent's Park and Primrose Hill are closed to players in football matches on the last day of February in every year, while the open spaces under the control of the London County Council are available to such players up to 31st March; and whether he can cause the football period in the first-named open spaces to be extended to 31st March.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): The ground on which football is played at Regent's Park and Primrose Hill is very stiff clay, and it becomes much cut up and the grass destroyed. The grass needs some time for restoration, and I am not prepared, therefore, to extend the football season in these Parks. More particularly as to Primrose Hill, I have to keep in view the fitness of the same ground for cricket.

  ABERDEENSHIRE FISHERIES.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the recent wholesale migration of fishermen, particularly on the Aberdeenshire coast, the Government will take steps, by facilitating the system of harbour construction, by developing light railways, and by a stricter enforcement of the fishery laws and regulations, to restrain this continuous depletion of the country population.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): Each of the three suggestions which the hon. Member makes has already engaged the attention of the Government, and to each some practical effect has already been given. But the Government are not prepared in answer to such a question as this to assume obligations of a wholly indefinite and unlimited nature.

  NEW POST OFFICE FOR LIMERICK.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state what steps are being taken in reference to the building of a new post office in the city of Limerick.
  MR. HANBURY: Measures are in progress for obtaining the additional
  712
  ground required for the rebuilding of the head post office at Limerick.

  CARRICKROE POSTAL DELAYS.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury as representing the Postmaster General whether numerous complaints have been made respecting the delivery of the mails in the Carrickroe sub-post district, county Monaghan; whether he is aware that discontent prevails with the practice of a three-day delivery in the week in some townlands, and only a two-day delivery in the week in other townlands as conveniently situated to the post office; and whether, to prevent such dissatisfaction, the Department will equalise the delivery over this sub-post district.
  MR. HANBURY: As the hon. Member was informed in answer to his question of the 27th of October last, the latest returns of the correspondence for the Carrickroe district showed that the present arrangements for the delivery of letters were the best practicable. Further inquiry will however, now be made, and the question of affording an improved service will again be considered.

  LOUGH CORRIB DRAINAGE WORKS.
  MR. PINKERTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that frequent complaints have been made by millowners in Galway to the Commissioners of Public Works with regard to the failure of the Drainage Trustees to maintain the drainage and navigation works on Lough Corrib; that, in response to these complaints, an engineer was sent down to inspect the works, and reported to the effect that there is a considerable accumulation in the channel which should be removed by the Drainage Trustees; and if, in consequence of that report, the Commissioners communicated with the Trustees with the view of having this order carried out; and whether the Trustees have taken any steps to comply with the orders of the Commissioners of Public Works; and if he can state the amount of assessment levied on the locality for the maintenance of these works, and the amount expended by the Drainage Trustees in improvements and repairs.
  MR. HANBURY: No complaint has been made as to the navigation works, which do not affect the mills, but other-

  713
  wise the statements in the first paragraph are substantially correct. The Trustees have given an assurance that immediate steps will be taken to remove the accumulation. The secretary to the Trustees states that, on an average, about £300 a year was spent by the Drainage Board on works of maintenance between 1895 and 1898, and that in 1899 over £600 was so spent. I have no information before me at present as to the amount of the assessment.

  FAIR RENTS IN COUNTY LOUTH.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that hundreds of applications from tenants in the county of Louth to have fair rents fixed have been pending for over twelve months; and whether he can state when these cases will be disposed of by the sub-commissioners.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): A list containing 192 cases from the County Louth is at present in course of disposal. The hearing of these cases was commenced at Drogheda on the 12th instant. The list contains all cases in which the applications were received in the office of the Land Commission prior to 1st April, 1899. Two hundred and fifty-eight additional applications which have been received from the County Louth since the latter date will be listed for hearing in due course.

  RICHMOND LUNATIC ASYLUM.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that the medical superintendent of the Richmond Lunatic Asylum, Doctor Connolly Norman, has issued his yearly report, in which he states that out-nursing of some of the inmates would be beneficial to them as well as beneficial to the ratepayers; and whether he will inquire into the suggestions made by Doctor Connolly Norman as to the out-nursing of lunatics which seems to work so well in Belgium, Germany, and other countries, for a long time past.
  MR. ATKINSON: The fact is not quite as represented in the first paragraph of the question. What Dr. Norman in his report stated was, that if the Committee of Management are satisfied that a system of out-nursing would be advantageous, he
  714
  has no doubt that such powers could be obtained as would permit of the carrying out of such arrangements as might commend themselves to the Committee as beneficial to the insane and economical to the ratepayers. I may point out that there is no power under the existing law to adopt the system of out-nursing, even if such a course were deemed advisable. The matter, however, is receiving the consideration of Government.

  BELFAST PROTESTANT ASSOCIATION LECTURES.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a man calling himself "Ex-Monk Widdows" has lately been preaching and lecturing in Belfast, under the auspices of the Belfast Protestant Association; and that his real name is Nobbs; whether he was sentenced in Toronto, Canada, to five months imprisonment, and sentenced again in 1888 by Mr. Justice A. L. Smith to ten years penal servitude for an unmentionable crime; and whether, seeing Widdows, alias Nobbs, was never a monk, the Government will proceed against him for obtaining money under false pretences.
  MR. ATKINSON: At the request of my right hon. friend I will reply to this question. I am aware that an individual calling himself ex-Monk Widdows has been recently delivering lectures in Belfast. I am unable to say whether he is an accredited agent of the Belfast Protestant Association, though I observe he has been associated on several occasions with Mr. Arthur Trew, who, I believe, is a prominent member of that body. It is a fact that Widdows was convicted and sentenced in 1888 for the crime mentioned, and though I have not been able to procure a copy of any conviction against him in Canada, I have no reason to doubt that he was convicted and sentenced in Toronto for a similar offence. There are some legal difficulties in the course suggested in the last paragraph of the question, but the matter has been placed in the hands of the police.

  LAND SUB-COMMISSION SITTINGS IN COUNTY CORK.
  MR. EDWARD BARRY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state how many fair rent applications are

  715
  now awaiting hearing before the Land Commission from the Skibbereen, Drumanway, and Clonakilty Unions, when last a sitting of a Sub-Commission took place for those unions, and when the next sitting may be expected.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): There are one hundred and forty-nine applications to fix fair rents from the Union of Skibbereen, forty-three from the Union of Drumanway, and seventy-three from the Union of Clonakilty, that have not yet been listed for hearing. A Sub-Commission sat in these towns on July 6th, April 28th, and March 31st, 1899, respectively. Further sittings will be arranged for these districts at as early dates as possible, but such dates have not yet been fixed.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many fair rent applications are now awaiting hearing before the Land Commissioners from the Cork Poor Law Union, when last a sitting of the Sub-Commission for this union took place, and when the next sitting may be expected.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): Ninety-eight applications to fix fair rents from the Union of Cork have not yet been listed for hearing. A Sub-Commission last sat in October, 1898, for the disposal of cases from that Union. A further list containing cases from the Union is at present in preparation, and will be taken up when the list for Kihnallock District, now in course of disposal, has been completed.

  QUEEN'S COUNTY COUNCIL SECRETARY.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that inconvenience has arisen in the Queen's County owing to a contention raised by the secretary of the county council as to whether the notice given to him by that body under Section 115, Sub-section (5), of the Local Government Act was sufficient, the council being in the position that it is left in doubt whether the secretary is their officer or not; and whether he is aware that the official in question is over seventy years of age, and whether any steps can be taken to insure that the business of the county will be
  716
  carried on by an officer whose legal status is undoubted.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): I am not aware that any inconvenience, such as is suggested, has arisen. If the notice served upon the official referred to was insufficient the county council, through their own negligence in that respect, have themselves to blame. The point is one for decision in a court of law in some proceeding between the council and their officer, and is not a matter in which either the Irish Executive or the Local Government Board can interfere.

  IRISH AGRICULTURAL GRANT.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether, owing to the construction placed by landlords upon the introductory words of Section 54 of the Local Government Act, occupiers holding under tenancies with March and September gale days are deprived of the benefit of that portion of the Agricultural Grant declared to be intended in relief of county cess for the half-year ending 29th September last, and also of the adjustment in respect of poor rate on buildings to which their liability to the whole poor rate equitably entitles them; and whether he will deal with this matter in the proposed amending Bill.
  MR. ATKINSON: I am not aware whether landlords have generally adopted the construction referred to. The effect of such a construction would be as stated in the question. In reply to the second paragraph, I can only say that the necessity for any amendment of that law is under consideration.

  ROYAL COLLEGE OF SCIENCE, IRELAND—COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland whether he is in a position to announce the names of the members of the Committee which he stated had been appointed to consider the teaching of the Royal College of Science in Ireland, and the building which will be required; and whether he can state what the terms of reference to the said Committee will be.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKETT,): The names of the Committee appointed by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland are Sir William Abney, K.C.B., Chairman, the Secretary of the Department and the Assistant Secretary for Technical Instruction, the Commissioner of Valuation for Ireland, and Mr. S. E. Spring-Rice, C.B. The reference is as follows—
  "To consider and report on the future position and functions of the Royal College of Science for Ireland with reference to technical instruction as related to industries and agriculture in that country; to report on the requirements of the college as regards staff and organisation; and to make recommendations as to the arrangement and nature of the new college buildings."

  CHAPTER OF ST. ALBANS.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury by what statutory or other authority a dean and chapter has been granted to St. Albans, and from what source the endowment for such chapter is to be derived; and whether the grant to St. Albans may be regarded as the precursor to similar grants in the case of the other sees constituted in recent years.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that a charter is to be granted, but there is no endowment in connection with it.

  PRESS REPRESENTATIVES IN THE LOBBY.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that a gentleman who is an accredited press representative in the Lobby of the House of Commons holds an official and salaried position in the London Record Office: and whether it is consistent with the rules of the public service that a gentleman holding a public position of this description should be permitted to act as an agent for the press. May I be permitted to state that the question has been so sub-edited that neither in form nor in phraseology is it mine, and this alteration has been made entirely without communication or consultation with me?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman still takes an interest in his question, but if he does I may inform him that the person to whom he refers does not occupy a salaried position, but he does certain work for the
  718
  Record Office for which he is paid. No Department has any control over his time when not engaged on this work.
  MR. HAYDEN: May I ask if it is in the interest of the public service that an employee of a Government Department should be connected with the press in this manner?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. HAYDEN: I shall draw attention to this on the Estimates.

  MARINE INSURANCE BILL.
  MR. WARR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is able to say when the Marine Insurance Bill will be introduced.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This Bill will, I believe, be introduced in another place. It has not yet been introduced, and I am afraid I cannot give a definite answer to the specific inquiry my hon. friend makes.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can for the convenience of Members now state when it is proposed that the House should adjourn for and reassemble after Easter.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have been rather disappointed with the progress of public business. I had hoped that we should have advanced the Finance Bill further than we have, but I still hope that if we make reasonable progress in the business that still remains to be done we may be able to get away on Tuesday, April 10th, and in that case I shall give the House a fortnight and two days holiday, and not ask it to reassemble till Thursday, the 26th.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: What Estimates will be taken to-morrow?
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: And as to the Ecclesiastical Assessments (Scotland) Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: To-morrow we begin business by moving the Speaker out of the Chair, and, this being completed, we shall proceed with the Estimates in their order. Perhaps, being on my feet, I may say that I am rather disappointed in my anticipation, and must somewhat depart from the arrangements for next week. I

  719
  held out a hope to Scotch Members that as the first Order for Monday we would take the Ecclesiastical Assessments (Scotland) Bill, and go on with other Scotch matters, but I find that a stage of the Finance Bill must be taken on each day next week. As a matter of fact, the Report stage must be taken on Monday. I do not suppose it will take any length of time, but the Ecclesiastical Assessments will be the second Order. On Tuesday I must ask the House to take a stage of the Finance Bill first.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: What are the various stages of the Finance Bill that will be taken?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: On Monday we take the Report. On Tuesday I have to move the Speaker out of the Chair for a Resolution of the House in Committee of Ways and Means for insertion of certain clauses. Then must follow on subsequent days the recommittal of the Bill, the insertion of these clauses, and the Third Reading of the Bill on Friday.
  MR. BARTLEY: Will there be a morning sitting on Tuesday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: Is it proposed to interfere with the debate on the Indian famine?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think the Government business for that day need take long. It need not displace the hon. Member's motion if the House will treat the business of the Finance Bill as formal business.
  MR. H. S. FOSTER: When will the Sea Fisheries Bill be taken? Will it be brought on at a time to admit of its being discussed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will consult my right hon. friend in charge of the Bill. I do not think there is much chance of its being taken to-night or on Monday.

  MONEY LENDING HILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 156.]
  PALATINE COURT OF DURHAM BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 157.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to amend the law relating to Youthful Offenders; and for other purposes connected therewith." Youthful Offenders Bill [Lords]
  Also, a Bill intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, to increase the number of Magistrates in the Burgh of Leith." Leith Burgh Provisional Order Bill [Lords].
  Also, a Bill intituled, "An Act to amend in certain respects the Acts relating to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board; and for other purposes." Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill [Lords].
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for empowering the Governments Stocks and other Securities Investment Company, Limited, to increase the dividend upon its preferred ordinary stock; and to amend The Governments Stock Investment Company, Limited, Act, 1887." Governments Stock and other Securities Investment Company Bill [Lords].
  Lee Conservancy Bill.—That they give leave to the Lord Russell of Killowen to attend in order to his being examined as a witness before the Select Committee appointed by this House on the Lee Conservancy Bill; his Lordship consenting.

  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILS [Lords].
  GOVERNMENT STOCK AND OTHER SECURITIES INVESTMENT COMPANY BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  LEITH BURGH PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 158.]

  FINANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. JOHN ELLIS (Nottinghamshire, Rushcliffe) in the Chair.]
  New clause—

  "(1) If any manufacturer of tobacco shall have in his custody or possession fit for sale,

  721
  or shall tender for drawback, or if any dealer in or retailer of tobacco shall have in his custody or possession any tobacco containing a greater proportion of oil than 3 per cent., he shall incur an excise penalty of £50, and the tobacco shall be forfeited.

  (2) The expression 'oil' in this section includes any substance of a fatty or oily nature which may be present in tobacco, and the expression 'fit for sale' shall, as respects roll or cut tobacco, have the meaning assigned to it by Section 4 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1887.

  (3) In computing the amount of moisture in one hundred pounds of tobacco for the purposes of that part of Section 1 of the Manufactured Tobacco Act, 1863 (as amended by subsequent Acts), which deals with the calculation of moisture for drawback, any fraction of a pound of moisture—

  (a) if it is over any number of entire pounds less than fourteen, shall be treated as an entire pound, and

  (b) if it is over fourteen entire pounds, or any number of entire pounds exceeding fourteen, shall be disregarded;

  and the quantity of dry tobacco shall be treated as diminished or increased accordingly.
  This sub-section shall not apply to snuff."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)—
  brought up and read the first time.
  Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  SIR J. A. WILLOXappealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider this proposal. For the first time and without notice the right hon. Gentleman was introducing a penalty on manufacturers of tobacco, by making the proposal contained in the clause.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER' (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I thought when I placed this clause upon the paper that it would be a great advantage to the trade. I know the acquaintance which the hon. Member has with the subject, and if he desires further consideration of the clause I will not press it now.
  Clause (by leave) withdrawn.
  New clause—
  "The duty to be paid on goods or commodities deposited in a customs or excise warehouse is hereby declared to be the duty chargeable at the date of the actual removal of those goods or commodities from the warehouse, and if before that date any sums shall have been paid in respect of duty, the difference (if any) between the sums so paid and the actual duty chargeable shall be paid or repaid, as the case may be."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)—
  brought up and read the first time.
  Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I should like an explanation of this clause.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I shall be very happy to explain. This clause is intended to prevent the very unseemly thing that occurred on the 3rd and 5th of March at the Customs House. At present the mode of effecting clearances on dutiable goods is that persons come to the Customs House with a cheque, and on receipt of the cheque the goods are cleared. Hon. Members are aware of the manner in which this method of proceeding was taken advantage of for the purpose of forestalling the duties on the 3rd and 5th of March. I propose that the time of the clearance of goods shall be interpreted as that of their actual removal from the bonded warehouse. This will tend in another way to ensure the observance of the law, because goods should not be allowed to remain long in bond after the duty has been paid.
  MR. LOUGH: I hope this matter will receive just a little more consideration. The House probably concluded from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's remarks that these are Government warehouses, in which these goods were stored. They are not warehouses belonging to the Government, they are private warehouses and if these are all made subject to this drastic proposal a great blow will be given to the warehouse system. Before the present Budget we had an opinion expressed by the Treasury about this matter of keeping goods in warehouse after the duty has been paid. It arose in connection with the Budget and in connection with one of these bonds it was asked whether there was the right to retain the goods in the warehouse; I think the Treasury—I do not say the light hon. Gentleman was responsible for it—expressed the opinion that there was no such right. That expression of opinion created amongst the proprietors of these warehouses something like dismay. Warehousing is a great business in London. I say, with great deference to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's opinion, that by this proposal a great additional difficulty will be thrown on this important business. I don't think

  723
  that we should lightly increase the difficulties with which the business is carried on. A great deal has been said about the unseemly proceedings at the Customs House on the 3rd and 5th of March, but that was because the Budget of the right hon. Gentleman was rushed in the most extraordinary way this year. There was no reason why it should have been rushed and I think if this Budget had been taken at the proper time there would have been no ground for the complaints made. This is a most extraordinary clause. It seems to me a very clumsy way of meeting the difficulty which I do not believe in myself. I believe it will cause a great deal more difficulty in connection with business than the right hon. Gentleman thinks.
  SIR J. LENG: I think the proposal of this clause will give general satisfaction. The fact that in two days upwards of two millions and a quarter of money was rushed into the Customs for the clearance of goods in bond clearly requires that some attention should be paid to this subject by the Treasury, because whatever may be said about it the object of that sudden and large payment of duty was to take advantage of the position of affairs and practically diminish the revenue of the subsequent year. It will be a great thing that in all such matters the commercial interests shall be put on the same footing. That will be accomplished by this clause, and I think if any practical difficulty is found in the working of it the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or his successors, will endeavour to remedy the difficulty. It will have the effect of remedying what happened this year, and that is very desirable.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I hope the Government will succeed in preventing what has been complained of with respect to clearances. Nothing can be more injurious to our finance than the taking of 2,000,000 out of a year when you want it and putting it into another when you do not want it. My hon. friend says the Budget was rushed and that it led to these proceedings. The fact is exactly the reverse, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. These proceedings were the cause which compelled him to bring on the Budget at the time he did. These are what you may call in a certain sense gambling trans-
  724
  actions. They are speculations on the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and they ought not to be encouraged. I hope this will help to prevent such transactions in future.
  MR. LOUGH: It appears that there is some misunderstanding on the question from the two short speeches we have heard. This two millions and a half of revenue has been spoken of as if all this money had been put into somebody's pocket. It is a great mistake, as will be seen if the House will only think for a moment. Take spirits—it is only 5 per cent. of the two millions and a half. In the case of tobacco you must take the proportion at one-twelfth. You will see that quite an undue fuss was made about the transactions. There is another point. The trade is constantly changing, and I am sorry that Chancellors of the Exchequer are not, perhaps, as familiar with the details of it as they ought to be, or some of the provisions of the Budget would not appear as they are. A great change has taken place in this country lately, and goods are dealt with in different ways. Large contracts are made for goods duty paid, and they are made a long time in advance. The vast majority of them, as far as I know, were merely acts done by agents for clients they had. I do say that if we have this very clumsy way of collecting the revenue, we ought to remember the situation of the traders when making those violent plunges which seem to me to do a great deal of harm to business. The Chancellor can take off a duty as suddenly, and I cannot recall a case in which great loss did not fall on the holders of stock throughout the country when duty was taken off. I believe we will have to find a much less drastic clause than this, and one better suited to the trade. If others felt as I feel about it I would oppose the clause, but I will not do so. All I want is to get the best system for the collection of the revenue, and to see that some protection is given to traders when duties are taken off.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I should like to read a few sentences from a circular that has been put into my hands—
  "On Friday, 2nd March, notice was given that the Budget would be presented on Monday, 5th March. Deeming this to foreshadow a sharp increase in taxation, holders

  725
  of dutiable merchandise spent the interval in paying duty and arranging for clearance. Tea traders were particularly busy, and before 3.30 p.m. on the 5th they paid duty on twenty-three million pounds, bringing up the total since 1st January to forty-three million pounds in excess of the usual quantity, Allowing £1,400,000 for tea and £700,000 for duty, these operations have involved an outlay of £2,100,000, together with the expense of finding storage room for some 450,000 packages entailed by the new order to remove duty-paid goods 'forthwith' from the bonded warehouses. Buyers were in consequence so preoccupied that it was needful to close the market last week, and give the trade time to recover from their exertions, and to accomodate themselves to the new condition of the sixpenny duty imposed on the 6th March. Distributors at once raised their prices, and have thus secured the greater part, of the £350,000, which is the difference between duty at 4d., and at 6d. on forty-three million pound weight of tea."
  Question put, and Clause added.
  Clause added.
  MR. BARTLEY: The object of the clause I now beg to move is, I think, apparent to everybody, and it certainly expresses the opinion of most members of this Committee. It is not a new idea. It has not grown out of the present war entirely. In 1894 I moved a similar amendment of the Finance Act following the Budget of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire.* Surely those who go and fight our battles should not be taxed in the same way as others. There are some advantages already granted to soldiers and sailors who die in the service of the Crown. Their estates are exempt from certain stamp duties. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer was very sympathetic on this matter when I moved the same clause, or a practically similar clause, in 1894. He spoke in favour of it and said it should be regarded with a sympathetic feeling by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am glad to think that he now somewhat agrees with that, and I am very hopeful that he will assent to this proposal. I have included in my Amendment other forces of the Crown, besides the Army and Navy, so as to cover the case of any persons killed in heroic action in the field. I think they should be included, but I
  *See Debate in Committee on the Finance Bill, 9th July, 1894. (The Parliamentary Debates[Fourth Series], Vol. xxvi., page 1249.)
  726
  believe the right hon. Gentleman has not taken a sympathetic view of this as he does in the case of those who die in the service of the Crown. In his speech in 1894 he drew a distinction between those two classes of heroes, and although I regret it, I cannot persist in that part of the resolution if he insists on excluding it. I give the Treasury absolute discretion to settle each case coming under the purview of this clause, if he will agree to extend it to heroic acts done in civil life as well as military life. I do not press the special wording of my clause. All I want is that the country should not derive any benefit from those unfortunate incidents that lead to our soldiers and sailors being killed in warfare. The limit of £5,000 excludes all persons of large means. I think the common feeling of justice requires that we should exempt them from this heavy tax. The question has been discussed a good deal in public, and I am sure the great bulk of the House agrees with my proposal.
  New clause—
  "Estate duty shall not be payable on an estate the principal value of which does not exceed five thousand pounds in the case of any person killed, or dying within twelve months from the effect of any wound received, in the performance of his duty in the Navy, the Army, or other forces of the Crown. The date from which this exemption may be claimed shall be the twelfth day of October one thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine. The Treasury may, if they think fit, authorise the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to remit the death duties in any case of an estate the principal value of which does not exceed five thousand pounds, when the person loses his life in the performance of some heroic act of saving or attempting to save another person or persons from danger, disease, or accident."—[Mr. Bartley.)
  —brought up and read the first time.
  Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. GALLOWAY: I rise to support this very heartily. Do I understand that the clause applies only to the estates of men who are killed or who die from the effect of any wound received? I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he admits that principle to be just, as I sincerely trust he will, does he not consider that a man who dies of disease should also be included in the clause. There is another point I wish to put before the right hon. Gentleman in

  727
  this connection which I think worthy of consideration. There are a certain number of men called up and not sent on extra service at once. They are kept at the depots. I have known cases of men who died before they actually got to the seat of war, and I do think they are entitled to the same consideration. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot provide for them in the Bill, I do hope that those who die from disease will receive consideration.
  MR. DILLON: I oppose this on the ground that it belongs to a class of proposals most vicious and objectionable in principle—the extending of relief by exemption from taxation. It is a method which popularity hunters and gentlemen who wish to make themselves agreeable eagerly grasp at. Instead of coming out manfully and squarely and openly, you give a remission of taxation, and a remission of taxation is precisely the same thing as the giving of grants. The straight and honest way would be to make up your minds what you are going to do for these people, and vote the money and let it appear on the face of the Estimates. I will state three objections which appear to me to be of enormous weight against the particular proposal we are asked to consider. The first objection appears to be so strong as to be absolutely fatal if we were living in times when the voice of reason would be heard inside and outside of this House on the question of the war, but of course we are not. What is the proposal before us?
  "Estate duty shall not be payable on an estate the principal value of which does not exceed five thousand pounds in the case of any person killed, or dying within twelve months from the effect of any wound received, in the performance of his duty in the Navy, the Army, or other forces of the Crown."
  In other words, a grant of money shall be given to the heirs of everybody dying from wounds sustained in the course of the present war. That grant is to be calculated on the most stupid and the most monstrous principle that could be possibly devised by human ingenuity. The richer a man is the larger will be the grant. If an officer who has performed prodigies of valour, and is wounded, afterwards returns to the ranks, as many of them have done, and distinguishes himself in every way, if he is killed, and leaves to his unfortunate widow and family £500, £100, or no
  728
  pounds at all, under this ingenious clause the family get nothing at all. But if he leaves £5,000 then the family get £100. Was there ever put before the House so monstrous a doctrine? If a man, taken as a prisoner to Pretoria at an early stage of the war, dies there from a small wound he may have received, leaving £5,000, his family is to get a present of £100 or £150—I have not calculated the exact amount—while the family of an officer who has fought all through the war, and has no real estate, is under this ingenious and magnificent clause to get nothing at all. Was there ever such a proposal made to the House of Commons? Because this proposal is in favour of the war it has the effect on hon. Members of making them say "shovel out this money" without considering whether it is to do good or harm. The more you examine the proposal the more insane and monstrous it appears. One man has £1,000 to leave to his widow and family. They get a trifle of £40 or £50 under this clause, and another man who has no wife and no family leaves his property to an elder brother, who benefits by this proposal to the extent of £300 or £400. Is not that grotesque? Many of the officers who are being killed are unmarried, and under this ingenious clause you are making a present of £50 or £100 of the taxpayers' money to wealthy men in England who want no relief whatever. This is going to be done by the British House of Commons when thousands of the widows and families of your soldiers will be starving after this war is over. [Cries of "No!"] They are starving already. [Cries of "No!" and "Name!"] I say they are. I will do better than give names. I have received a circular appealing to me as an Irish Member, and pointing out the wretched condition of the wives and families of the soldiers. There are many poor families of soldiers who have no real estate to leave, and whose little belongings cannot come under the purview of this clause There will be many families in want, and you will require large sums of money. I am sure I won't oppose any Vote you propose for any of the soldiers. I think the families of the soldiers are treated in this country with too little generosity. Is it not a monstrous thing, at this stage of the war, before we have any information as to what the Government are going to propose for the families of

  729
  the common soldiers, to bring forward a proposal of this kind, which in its very essence is unjust? It is calculated to give the greater relief the greater the amount of property a man leaves. There are many of your officers who have no property at all. No more grotesque and monstrous and insane proposal was ever placed before the House of Commons. I do trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider the matter for a moment before he commits himself to it.
  MR. BUTCHER: I am not surprised that the hon. Member has strongly opposed this proposal. Any proposal with which he does not absolutely agree is always monstrous and insane. There was one part of the speech of the hon. Member with which I found myself able to agree, and that was when he referred to the wives and families of soldiers killed in action. I am glad to think that there is already some provision made for the widows and children of our soldiers killed in action. The Government have taken an important step in ordering an inquiry into the administration of the Patriotic Fund, which exists for that very purpose, in order to ensure that it shall be worked in the best possible manner. We have also the satisfaction of knowing that the country has responded generously to the appeals made to them for the support of the widows and children of those who have met their death in the service of the State. If these funds are not sufficient, I would gladly welcome any proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide additional money for so absolutely legitimate an object. On the general merits of this proposal I would say that, prima facie, it does seem an unreasonable thing that if a man prematurely meets his death in the service of the State, the State should immediately seize that opportunity of levying a tax on those he leaves behind him. The exemptions from duty upon estates of persons killed in action are mainly two. One of them provides that if an officer is killed in action and has an estate under £100, the State shall not levy any duty upon that property. The other exemption is to the effect that if a common soldier, seaman or marine is killed in action no estate duty shall be levied upon his property. That is a reasonable exemption, but it is open to two objections. One objection is that it does not apply to non-commissioned
  730
  officers. Another objection is that at the present moment there are men of large property serving in South Africa as common soldiers, and if they are unfortunately killed in action their estates would be exempted altogether. I am glad to think that men who have large properties have gone out, and all praise and all credit to them for having gone out, to serve their country as common soldiers, but there is no reason why these large estates should be exempted from duty. My hon. friend who moved the clause has limited its application to estates of £5,000 and under. I have to propose another limitation, and that is that the exemption should only apply where the £5,000 or less goes to the widow or children of the man who is killed. I agree with the criticism of the hon. Member who has just sat down that, if the property goes to a collateral or more distant relative, or no relative at all, there is no ground for exemption in that case. If, however, you exempt from duty a comparatively small sum which goes to the widow and children of the man who is killed, then I say you have a proposition reasonable in itself and one which I think the great majority of the House will be prepared to accept. The clause moved by my hon. friend the Member for North Islington makes no provision for those who die from disease contracted on active service. That is a case in which I think it will be very difficult to make definite provision by Act of Parliament. It seems to me you must give a certain discretion to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and my proposal is that the Commissioners may extend the provision of exemption to cases of death from disease where the circumstances are such as to warrant the adoption of that course. I think you may be perfectly satisfied that the discretion will be exercised in a proper manner. I heartily support the general view embodied in the new clause of my hon. friend, but I would suggest that it should be amended in the way I propose.
  CAPTAIN PRETYMAN: I think the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo surprised some on this side of the House, because the Irish Members for a week have been asking exemptions. Now the hon. Member argues that all exemptions are to be condemned. I should have expected the sympathy of the hon. Members from

  731
  Ireland, rather than opposition. The hon. Member said that the richer the man killed the larger would be the exemption. I should hardly say that a man who only leaves £5,000 to his widow and children comes under the designation of a very rich man.
  MR. DILLON: I only called him rich in comparison with a man who left nothing at all.
  CAPTAIN PRETYMAN: That does not make any reason why we should not have some sympathy for the man who leaves a little. I hope the Committee will deal with this matter on reasonable lines. The reason the limit of £5,000 is fixed upon is that a large number of the poorer officers in the Army make provision for death, whether on active service or not, by paying out of their scanty income a small monthly sum to regimental or other societies. On their death annuities are paid to the widows. I happen to have in my mind the case of the Royal Artillery Widows' Society. In that particular society the officers put by out of their pay so much a month in order that on their death the society shall pay to their widows an annuity. In that case, supposing the widow to be twenty-five years of age and the annuity to be worth £200 a year, the value would be between £4,000 and £5,000. Under the Death Duties Act such a widow would be asked to pay a lump sum of money which she does not possess. What, no doubt, was in the minds of the Committee when they first heard of this sum of £5,000 was simply the case of a man who leaves £5,000 in cash. In this case there is no cash at all, but merely an annuity, which is valued for the purposes of the death duties at something under £5,000, and on which the widow would have to pay a lump sum. In such a case the money has never belonged to the person. Does that man come under the hon. Member's designation of a rich man? Do we not constantly hear Members on either side of the House asking the Government to encourage thrift? What can be more thrifty or more desirable than an action of this kind, by which a man provides for his widow and children? So desirable is it that a case has been placed in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, quite apart from this question of active service, to see whether
  732
  he could not make some special provision to lighten the burden on these widows in connection with the Royal Artillery Widows' Society. They would, however, receive great benefit by the passing of this clause, and it would deal with the cases, at any rate, of officers who were killed in action or who died on active service. I quite allow you must draw the line somewhere, and it may be said that there is really no difference in the case whether a man is killed on active service or dies an ordinary death. But I think there is a very great difference. A man who dies an ordinary death in time of peace, whether he be a common soldier or an officer, takes no more risk than an ordinary member of the population, and there is no reason why a special exemption should be made in his case. But when on active service it is entirely different. The man is employed by the country, and it is his trade to take imminent risk of death. But that the country in whose service he was taking that risk should on his death exact a heavy penalty from his widow and children is most unreasonable and unjust. I quite agree that the exemption should be confined to the widow and children. I put this forward quite apart from any question of grants. Give them a grant as well if you like. Considering that the common soldier and the officer are laying down their lives side by side in South Africa, I think the endeavour to set up the case of the former against the case of the latter is unworthy of the House of Commons.
  MR. DILLON: I said that both ought to be treated justly.
  CAPTAIN PRETYMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member's idea of justice is very different from mine. His idea of justice is that because a soldier in the ranks is probably not in a position to make a provision of £5,000 for his widow and children, who in his life-time would not expect any such sum, therefore we are to make no recognition whatever of an officer who is leaving for his widow and children, who have been brought up in a different rank of life, a provision as barely sufficient to maintain their position as the small provision the man in the ranks might have been able to make for his dependants. I think the hon. Member has entirely failed to make out any case

  733
  against this clause, and I venture to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take the matter into his most favourable consideration. All these clauses may really be dealt with together, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the point in the proposal which stands in my name. I have included every person subject to military or naval law under the Army Act, or the Navy Discipline Act, thereby bringing in the member of the auxiliary forces as well as the regular soldier. The clause brings the matter into consonance with the terms of the Army Act, and is therefore wider and more workable. It includes also deaths from disease or any other cause while on active service. With regard to the case of persons who may die possessed of more than £5,000, I do not press that part of the clause if the right hon. Gentleman does not feel himself able to grant it, but I think it is worthy of consideration. I think the House may fairly be asked to make this concession without it being accused of passing legislation induced by sentiment—other than proper and reasonable sentiment; and not only now we are at war, but when the war is over, the House will feel that it has done what is right, and this decision will stand as a good action for all time.
  MR. BROADHURST: I take it for granted that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to give favourable consideration to this proposal he will certainly embody the limitation suggested by the hon. and learned Member for York. At the same time, I think it right to remind the right hon. Gentleman that he cannot accept this proposal without being in a position to guarantee to the House that the widow and orphans of the common soldier or sailor should have some equal compensation in their case.
  CAPTAIN PRETYMAN: They are exempt already.
  MR. BROADHURST: They are exempt because they have no real estate or fortune in the funds or in the bank. It would be manifestly unfair to enact a special exemption in the case of the officer, without some special and corresponding advantage being given to the common soldier or sailor.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACHwas understood to assent.
  MR. BROADHURST: The Chancellor of the Exchequer agrees, and surely the hon. Member for the Woodbridge Division will accept the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as one worthy of consideration. He shakes his head and says the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman is not worthy of consideration.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: My gesture was only intended to imply that I thought officers and men should be treated alike.
  MR. BROADHURST: That is exactly the point I am raising, and thereon I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My reason for rising was that I could not imagine that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be caught napping in the manner suggested by these Amendments, and be induced to give special advantages to certain members of the Army.
  MR. BARTLEY: No one proposed to do so.
  MR. BROADHURST: This will be an advantage to the widows and orphans of officers killed or dying in connection with this war, and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman cannot allow this to pass without some assurance that the widows and children of the rank and file, who have no real estate to leave, who have no fortunes of any kind, should be provided by the State with some corresponding advantage. Surely that is only even justice. I hope the House will not say that the soldier of the rank and file who gives his life for his country is not equally with his officer entitled to the consideration of the State. The hon. and learned Member for York referred to the fact that the widows and children of the soldiers killed at the front are being largely provided for out of charitable funds collected by and from the public. But that is a very unsatisfactory condition of things. There is a limit to the charitable resources of this country, and that provision might cease at any moment. Apart from that, I hold that the State is responsible, and that the widows and children should be provided for wholly and liberally by the State, and that they should not have to depend on the Lady Bountiful who distributes parish or district public funds. We are drifting to-night into an entirely new channel of public provision. This is a matter which

  735
  cannot stop at this present motion, if carried. There are a number of dangerous employments other than war. The Government itself is introducing a Railway Accidents Bill which has reference to a dangerous employment. The loss of life and limb in connection with the railway service is enormous and is a matter for grave consideration. The miners, too, are subjected to enormous risks. There is not a miner who leaves his home in the morning who has any considerable guarantee that he will return whole and sound to his family at night. I will not attempt to exhaust the list of dangerous employments: I will only mention one other—that of seamen. Look at the hundreds of fishermen's lives which are lost in the course of a year. These are all dangerous employments, from the exercise of which the State as well as the community gains great advantages. If you legislate for one class of dangerous employment you must legislate for the others. You cannot make preferential provision by Act of Parliament for one particular section of the community. I would repeat that I am not necessarily speaking against the motion if it is limited in the manner which has been suggested——
  MR. BARTLEY: It sounds rather like it.
  MR. BROADHUEST: I hope the hon. Member for North Islington will curb his bombardment of objectionable interruptions with which he has been so free of late. Surely this is a reasonable and just view to bring under the notice of those who are responsible for Treasury expenditure and those who are responsible to the country for Government measures. The hon. Member for North Islington is not responsible for those measures. [An HON. MEMBER: Not yet.] That is one of the misfortunes——
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. BROADHURST: I might have ended in a complimentary manner to the hon. Member, but I will leave the subject. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give his best consideration to the points I have brought under his notice, and that if this motion is agreed to he will see that corresponding advantages are given to the rank and file.
  MR. LOWE: I wish to associate myself fully with and
  736
  to join in the appeal which has been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to incorporate this Amendment in one form or another into the Bill. It seems to me that it is enough for a man to have laid down his life for his country and for his family to have given to the service of the nation that which was most valuable to them, without their being called upon to make a further sacrifice in the shape of this duty on the little property he has left behind him. It appears to me that this applies to any soldier of whatever rank he may be, and that the hon. Gentleman opposite is quite under a delusion in thinking the clause applies only to officers. If the hon. Member desires to give some special bounty to the family of the common soldier, the proper course is for him to propose to confer such a grant. But the present is not the proper occasion on which to do that, because we are not discussing the question of conferring grants upon anyone. The question before the Committee is whether the property of a deceased soldier up to a certain amount should be exempted from duty, which is a very different question. I think if this principle is once admitted, there is a great deal to be said in favour of exempting such property, whatever its value, from the duty. At the same time, I entirely agree that it would be wiser under all the circumstances to limit the scope of this clause so that it will apply only to cases in which the value of the property is under £5,000. I think it is wise so to limit the clause, because in the case of large estates the burden of having to pay the duty would be comparatively small, and, therefore, the hardship would be proportionately less. It is also wise to confine it to the widow and lineal descendants of the deceased soldier, because in the case of those in a more remote degree of relationship they would not, like the nearer relatives, be dependent for their maintenance and support upon the property which descended to them. Moreover, the burden which would be cast upon the national exchequer by the exemption being limited in this way would be a mere flea-bite compared with what it would be if the duty were remitted on all estates, without reference to value or those to whom the property descended. The proposal is a very moderate and reasonable one, and the exemption might be conceded without

  737
  imposing any appreciable burden upon the public funds. Indeed, it is only at an exceptional time like the present that it would impose anything worth calling a burden at all upon the general body of the taxpayers; but lam sure that any little sacrifice it might involve on their part would be most readily and cheerfully borne, seeing that it would constitute a just and fitting, but a very small, recognition of the splendid gallantry and self-sacrificing patriotism and devotion which have been invariably displayed by our soldiers and sailors throughout the whole of the present war.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: These questions of exemptions are always difficult and sometimes invidious. There is one thing which I think the House of Commons cannot be too careful of, and that is to remember that the grant of an exemption is practically a grant to the person in whose favour the exemption is made, at the expense of all the other taxpayers. That view, I think, is taken in the alternative amendment dealing with the same subject as that now under discussion which the hon. Member for King's Lynn has placed on the paper. The hon. Member for Leicester alluded to cases of heroism ending in death on the part of miners and other persons engaged in private employment. I do not think it is quite fair to put persons of that kind on the same footing as soldiers and sailors who devote their lives to the service of their country in time of war. I may say that, as a matter of fact, Parliament has not taken that view. I think the hon. Member for East Mayo in discussing this question has not quite recollected that there is at present an Act of Parliament in force which does confer an exemption of this kind upon common soldiers, seamen, and marines. For the last hundred years, ever since the time of the great French war, that Act has existed, and it is the fact, I believe, that at the present time if a person in any one of those three positions dies, leaving property to the amount of a million behind him, that property would not be subject to estate duty. But if such a person is an officer that Act does not apply. Is that equal treatment of officers and soldiers? No; it is not. After all, it must be recollected that in the case of the widows, and I believe of the children, of officers who are killed in action, Parliament does provide grants to aid them in their neces-
  738
  sities. I do not think it is quite fair to argue that grants of that kind are on the same footing as exemptions from a tax which is levied on the property a person may happen to leave behind him. The two things do not seem to me to stand in exactly the same position. That is the present state of the law. There is an exemption from taxation of this kind in favour of common soldiers and sailors. At the present moment there are to my knowledge serving in Africa, in the position of privates in some of the forces, persons having means far in excess of the bulk of officers. The position is that the estates of such men losing their lives in the military operations will be free from estate duty, while the widows and children of officers serving by their side, who may be left with only a few hundred pounds, will have to pay duty. That is not fair, and the question arises how to deal with the matter. I cannot agree to the clause of the hon. Member for North Islington, because it exempts others than widows and children of officers, nor can I accept the clauses standing in the names of the hon. and learned Member for York and the hon. and gallant Member for the Woodbridge Division, because they deal with property beyond the limit of £5,000. I will not at the present moment express any definite opinion as to what the limit of exemption should be, but £5,000, I am sure, is as high as it ought to be put. I have been in communication with my noble friend the Secretary of State for War on the subject, because it has occurred to me that it may be possible to achieve the same end by some system of increased grants to the widows and children of officers who might be killed in the war, and if that is possible I should prefer to assist them upon that basis. I cannot say at the moment whether such a system can be devised or not. If it cannot, then, after the opinions which have been expressed, I am sure it will be the general view of the House that something else should be done. I will myself prepare a clause, and move it at the proper time, if a clause is necessary. The matter requires further consideration, and I would prefer to deal with it myself.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I feel quite confident no hon. Member would object to such a

  739
  clause as has been suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is confined to a compassionate allowance in the case of the widow of an officer who, in consequence of the alteration in the death duties, has been left not so well off as before. I feel the strongest objection to the alternative which hon. Members who have spoken have suggested, because it will be very unequal and unjust if carried out, and it would benefit unequally certain persons and not others who are equally deserving. I wish to put this point to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the subject of exemption. The question of a compassionate allowance is a different case, because the War Office would deal with each individual case in proportion to the distress involved. But supposing the alternative proposal is accepted, this anomaly will then arise. Nobody objects to the death duties as such. Suppose an officer dies a few years earlier than he would otherwise have done under the ordinary operations of nature. It is not fair that an officer of sixty years of age should receive the same allowance as an officer who is killed at the age of forty. You propose that the estate of an officer who dies at forty is not to pay death duty on this particular sum, and the successor or the widow of an officer who dies at sixty years of age is also to be exempted. Surely the officer at forty has a much longer probability of life than the officer at sixty. I think you must put it on a fair basis in considering your compassionate allowance, and you should take into consideration how many years would probably have elapsed before the death duty would have had to be paid. I have no objection to these individual cases being dealt with upon their merits, but I should object very strongly to anything in the nature of an exemption from death duties through being killed on the field, because I think there are many other trades and occupations in which chances of sudden death are equal or even greater than those of an officer in the Army.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Not in the service of the State.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: One man may be sent to a climate where his life is injured at a much earlier period than it otherwise would be, and in cases of that kind exemption would be just as reasonable.
  MR. BARTLEY: After the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer I shall be quite satisfied to leave the matter in his hands, and I will withdraw the clause.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  CAPTAIN PRETYMAN: I only wish to say that I accept what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has offered. Speaking for myself, I do not prefer the system of a compassionate grant. That appears to me to be a very offensive term to employ. I entirely dissent from the views expressed by the hon. Member for Poplar, and the niggling spirit in which he has treated this subject. To come here and make such a comparison between a man of sixty and a man of forty is nothing short of a scandal. It is one thing to relieve the savings of an officer of the payment of death duty, and quite another thing to make him a compassionate grant. I most strongly approve of the system of exempting the small savings left to the widow and children from taxation, instead of giving a compassionate grant just as if they were paupers. I desire to strongly impress upon the right hon. Gentleman—and I think my view will be shared by the hon. Member for York and a large majority of hon. Members on this side of the House—that we regret that he has not approached this question in a better spirit than it has been approached. All we ask is that the State should not take advantage of the death of a man in the service of the State to come down and demand the death duty upon the provision he had made for his widow and children. That is all we ask, and I think it ought to have been accepted in a better spirit. I beg to formally move the clause standing in my name.
  New clause—
  "Section 7, Sub-section 1, of the Finance Act, 1894, shall be construed as if there were added at the end thereof the following enactment:—

  1. Where on the death of any person subject to military or naval law under the Army Act or the Naval Discipline Act when on active service (within the meaning of that expression as defined in the Army Act, and extended to a person subject to naval law or engaged in naval operations against the enemy), the principal value of the property passing on the death of such person to or in trust for his widow, or any lineal descendant of such person, shall not exceed five thousand pounds, no death duties (as denned in

  741
  Section 13, Sub-section 3, of the principal Act) shall be leviable in respect of such property, and where on the death of any such person the principal value of the property so passing shall exceed five thousand pounds in determining the value of the property so passing for the purpose of estate duty, an allowance of five thousand pounds shall be made and deducted from the value thereof, in respect of which five thousand pounds no such death duties as aforesaid shall be leviable.

  2. Nothing in this section is to preclude any exemption from taking effect which would have been applicable if this section had not been enacted.

  3. This section is to apply and have effect with respect to any death since the eleventh day of October, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine."—(Captain Pretyman.)

  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. MADDISON: I desire to associate myself with the views expressed by hon. Members on this side of the House with reference to these proposals. The hon. Member for the Woodbridge Division of Suffolk, in a rather heated speech, pleaded for a higher tone of debate on this question. I do not think you can have a higher tone in any debate than a demand for justice. No hon. Member on this side of the House has pleaded for anything more than justice, and I therefore submit that the "niggling policy" to which reference has been made does not exist in fact, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my hon. friend the Member for Poplar put the case in its proper position. The "niggling policy" referred to is neither more nor less than a desire to secure equality, and I venture to submit that the Amendment now before us would not secure equality. The hon. Member would have us believe that he is more concerned about the widows and orphans of those officers than we are who think his Amendment unjust and unequal. According to the Amendment it would be possible if an officer left an estate worth £5,000 that it would be exempted from death duties.
  CAPTAIN PRETYMAN: I have withdrawn that.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman did not explain that to me. The whole clause has been put from the chair.
  CAPTAIN PRETYMAN: Perhaps I went too far in saying that I had with-
  742
  drawn it. I mean that I do not wish to press it.
  MR. MADDISON: I understood that the whole clause was before us, but evidently the hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to give it a decent appearance by dropping some of the cargo overboard. I will confine myself to the substantial part of the Amendment. The inequality would work out in this way. In case an officer left £5,000, no death duty would be payable, but his widow may have £5,000 or £10,000 in her own name, whereas another officer's widow may not have anything in her own right at all. The inequality would arise as between officer and officer, and the Treasury could not differentiate in a case like that. There is also an inequality as between officers and men. I am perfectly well aware of the law relating to men serving in the ranks, and that law is often used as an argument in favour of the wretched pay given to private soldiers. At any rate, the law which was passed at the beginning of the present or the end of last century was in keeping with justice, because it made a distinction between officers and men. I desire to support very heartily the proposal that if anything is done in this direction it should be by way of compassionate allowances. It has been assumed that we on this side of the House are indifferent to the splendid bravery of our officers equally with the bravery of our men. Although it has been displayed in what we believe to be an unjust and unnecessary war, we naturally realise that a man can serve his country in fighting in a cause on the merits of which we differ. The soldier does not enter into our controversies at all. We can recognise heroism either on our own side or the side of the enemy, and I protest against the idea that we have no regard for the bravery of our officers and men in South Africa. I do more. I protest against the idea that we are not willing to recompense the widows of the men who have died or the men themselves who will return in a crippled and mutilated condition. But I submit the proper way to do that is, as I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested, by way of compassionate allowances. What is the objection to them? The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Woodbridge Division of Suffolk used a

  743
  very significant phrase when he asked, "Do you want to pauperise the widows and orphans of these brave men who have died for their country?" That shows the old spirit of caste, because when the case of the private soldiers was first mentioned the hon. Member said they had been provided for by various charitable funds. You may pauperise the widow of the private soldier, but not the widow of the officer.
  CAPTAIN PRETYMAN: It is a case of pauperising a person who has got something. You cannot pauperise a person who has nothing.
  MR. MADDISON: I could not have imagined that any hon. Member of this House was so completely ignorant of the minds of the people of this country as to say that capacity for pauperism depends on the amount of money a man has, and that when he has nothing he cannot be pauperised. If the hon. Gentleman's language means anything it means that. In reply, I would ask if you do not pauperise a private soldier's widow by giving her money out of charitable funds, how can you pauperise an officer's widow who gets money direct from the War Office? With reference to soldiers of industry mentioned by my hon. friend the Member for Leicester, the right hon. Gentleman said they were not in the service of the State. Technically they may not be, but in whose service are the hundreds of thousands of miners, of railwaymen, and of seamen in this country? Do they not contribute their labour to the State? By this policy you differentiate between different kinds of service to the State, not by special grants, but by altering the system of taxation in favour of one class and not in favour of another. I say these proposals are proposals for grants of the worst kind, because you increase the amount in proportion to the wealth of the officer's widow, and I object, under the plea of patriotism, which just now covers a multitude of sins, to tampering with the taxation of the country. After all, what are these death duties? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not get the money in that form he would have to get it by other means. They are part and parcel of our system of taxation, and should not be interfered with, and I maintain that it is altogether wrong to attempt to alter our
  744
  taxation by such an Amendment as that now before us. The hon. Member for the Woodbridge Division of Suffolk told us of officers who had insured their lives so that their widows would have a small annuity. He mentioned £200 a year, and he proceeded to say that in case that widow was called On to pay death duties she would not have the money to do it. That is no doubt a hard case, but it happens in thousands of instances in ordinary civil life. It is part and parcel of your system. You cannot cover every exception and you cannot make your laws suit every peculiar circumstances, and I ask why a widow who, unfortunately, loses her husband in the war should be treated differently from other widows. I am prepared to deal generously not only to the men, but the officers. I think it would be a burning shame and disgrace to this nation if we did not make proper allowances in every case where a man has lost a limb, or a wife her husband. There is no difference on that point between us on either side of the House. I venture to say that compensation in that direction must be put very high indeed. We are prepared to do all that is necessary, but not in the way suggested by this Amendment. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will resist all attempts to alter the definite system of taxation to suit a set of particular circumstances. The proper way to deal with exceptional circumstances is by exceptional measures, which will not in any sort of way make inequality with other people in civil life. For my own part I will resist any attempt in the direction of the Amendment now before the Committee, which, I think, is not justified on the grounds of justice or equality, and is impregnated with the vicious principle which seeks to set up a higher claim to consideration for one set of people who serve the State than another set of people. I venture to say that the time will come when we shall not hear so much of the military services of the State, but when we shall realise that civilians, like railway men and seamen, do their everyday duty in the face of difficulties and dangers not surpassed by those of soldiers in the field. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!] Why, the shunters of England run greater risks than the troops who have been fighting the Boers during the last three or four months; and I venture to

  745
  say that the percentage of killed and wounded amongst shunters, in any one year during the last two decades, is greater, and the shunters stand more chance of losing life and limb than soldiers on active service. And yet if a shunter has saved, say, £200, through his building society, his widow would have to pay the death duties. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will stick to his sound system of finance and reject the Amendment.
  CAPTAIN PRETYMAN: After the assurance given by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he himself will bring up a clause to deal with this matter, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: No, no!]
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I desire to speak on this clause, because it embodies in a very specific manner a suggestion which I make in regard to the death duties. No doubt the Committee and everybody else must feel the highest degree of sympathy with the man who loses his life in the service of the State, and must also feel that his wife and family have established a very special claim on the country. But let us consider whether the suggestions proposed are proper, and such as should be properly allowed. These suggestions can only really refer to officers; for the Committee will remember that every private soldier, every marine, every common seaman who loses his life in the service of the State is already exempt from death duty. [An HON. MEMBER: No!] Every half-penny of it; and therefore, if it were possible to conceive of a millionaire dying in the ranks in the service of Her Majesty in South Africa, the whole of his million would be exempt from death duty under the law as it stands. I do not know but that there may be millionaires in the ranks. There is certainly going to be a duke among the lieutenants, and therefore there may be an equally remarkable case in regard to privates. These three Amendments consequently touch exclusively officers. Let it be further understood by the Committee that in the case of every officer, both in the Army and Navy, dying in action, a very special pension is awarded to the widow—a pension that has been assumed to be adequate to the circumstances. If that pension is not adequate,
  746
  then, in God's name, let it be increased; but let it be increased in the proper department of the Army and Navy. That is a proposal which no Member of the House would oppose. But it is an entirely different thing to make a special remission of general taxation in special circumstances, in the case of officers in the Army and Navy. Now, is that a proper thing to agree to? I confess that it has been my ambition always to attack the death duties; and I have resisted, as far as I could, the attempts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to screw them up. But on this occasion I must rank myself on the side of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the first place, if you are going to make a remission of the death duties on the ground that a man has lost his life in active service in the service of the State, why on active service alone? Those 300 men who went down in the "Victoria" lost their lives in the service of the State just as much as those who died in the field. There have been even men on these front benches who have given their lives in the service of this House and the country as truly as those soldiers and sailors in South Africa. I do not see how you can draw the line here. Just consider how unequally the remission would work. You are to remit the duty in the case of an officer who leaves £5,000. The amount of that duty would be £150, and you therefore make a present of £150 to his wife and family. But take the case of an officer who leaves nothing; you make no remission to him at all. Surely his wife and family would need assistance far more than the wife and family of a man who leaves £5,000. My hon. and gallant friend can scarcely have considered the effect of his proposal. He proposes that the £5,000 should be deducted in every case. Now in certain cases the deduction of £5,000 from the total amount left would be to limit the death duties to 3 per cent., and in other cases to 5 per cent. [Captain PRETYMAN dissented.] Well, I won't press that point; I only wanted to show that a remission of this nature must necessarily act in favour of the officer who leaves most. If an officer left £5,000, that money might go on his death perhaps to strangers, or to cousins, or to nephews. Well, these are not materially disadvantaged by his death; they in fact get an advantage: and yet, by this proposal

  747
  the death duty would be remitted in this case too. Take a son who has a young father, and who therefore does not expect to get his £5,000 soon. If his father was an officer and killed in the war, the consequence would be that he would really be advantaged. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!] Certainly he would be materially advantaged. But take the case of a poor man, a man destitute of £5,000, who leaves a widow and children who had been entirely depending upon him. In consequence of the death of that officer it is quite possible the widow and children would have to go to the workhouse. It is manifest that the advantage goes all the wrong way. The plan would give nothing to him that hath nothing, and to him that hath something it would give something more. No; in my belief this is not the fund from which these allowances should be made. They should be made out of the funds provided for the Army and Navy, and then make them as large, as splendid, and as generous as you like. Do not deal with them out of the death duties, which should be levied on some consistent and consecutive principle, and not on the principle of dealing with hard cases as they arise. I do not think this is a right plan; but if my light hon. friend wants a right plan, I commend to him an Amendment which I have ventured to put down, which goes to this, that the widow, and everybody——
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot anticipate his Amendment.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To tell the truth, I was anticipating it because I was afraid my Amendment would be ruled out of order. I will, however, follow your ruling, Sir; but I am informed that a suggestion has been made in an unauthorised quarter which would fully meet the case by making the same allowance all round. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer has practically adopted, in his reply, the suggestion which the unknown person to whom I have referred has put on the Paper, and I believe the right hon. Gentleman is right.
  MR. DALY: I should say that the hon. and gallant Gentleman in moving this Amendment did not take the right way to gain support for it when he made a quite uncalled for attack on the Front Opposition Bench. Then he
  748
  made an attack on the hon. Member for East Mayo, because that hon. Gentleman had expressed an opinion against the dole to be given to officers. I consider it nothing short of a dole, and I am sure these men who are going to be killed in South Africa would be ashamed to ask the Treasury for a dole, either in an indirect or direct form. All these new clauses have been put down for the purpose of gaining a little cheap popularity in the country. There is nothing in the Press nowadays but jingoism from top to bottom. I am very pleased that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not going to accept the Amendment, although suggested from the other side of the House; but I may remind the Committee that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has treated the proposals made on the other side of the House very differently from those made on this side by the Members from Ireland. I oppose the clause because the relief given will fall on the taxpayers. The most comical thing about it is that an officer who has £5,000 would get relief to the extent of £150 to £200, but an unfortunate officer who has no money at all simply gets nothing. That is part of the system of helping the rich in every direction. I have heard great praises given for the self-sacrifice made by the gentlemen who are going to the front; but all these gentlemen, when they return, will be candidates for every situation open. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer should see his way to make some provision for the unfortunate soldiers from Ireland who come home without legs or arms, and are disabled for life.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is wandering from the clause under discussion.
  MR. DALY: I admit that; but, at the same time, I was looking forward to the time when it is quite possible that some of these soldiers who come home to Ireland maimed for life will be a charge on the rates; and I think that if provision is made for the officers it should be made for the soldiers. I find there is £8,335——
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is really not germane to the subject; and I warn the hon. Member that he must not wander from the clause under discussion.
  MR. DALY: I did not wander from the clause. I expect we shall go to a division on this clause, and not allow the hon. and gallant Gentleman to withdraw it.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I hope the Committee will not prolong the discussion. It will only delay the consideration of the remaining clauses of the Bill if a debate be continued which will lead to no practical result.
  Question put and negatived.
  Question proposed:—
  New clause—
  "Section 20 of The Customs Consolidation Act, 1870 (which has reference to the effect of changes of duty on existing contracts), shall apply to the imposition of new duties as well as to increases, decreases, or repeals, and as so amended shall apply to duties of excise as well as to duties of customs, with the substitution in the case of the excise duty on beer of the time of the charge of the duty for the time of the clearance and delivery from the warehouse."—(Mr Lough.)
  Brought up and read the first and second times, and added.
  New clause—
  "A conveyance on sale made for any consideration in respect whereof it is chargeable with ad valorem duty, and in further consideration of a covenant by the purchaser to make, or of his having previously made, any substantial improvement of or addition to the property conveyed to him, or of any covenant relating to the subject matter of the conveyance, is not chargeable, and shall be deemed not to have been chargeable with any duty in respect of such further consideration."—(Mr. Bond.)
  Brought up and read the first time.
  Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. HALDANE: I should like to hear the views of the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this clause.
  MR. BONDsaid the object of the clause was to remove an
  inconvenience which had been recognised by the Treasury. Doubts had arisen as to whether duty should be charged on covenants relating to improvements in addition to the ad valorem duty on conveyances. Although the practice of the Inland Revenue Department had been not to charge anything in respect of these covenants, last year an attempt was made, owing to some too minute scrutiny of the matter, to charge stamp duty upon the covenants as to improvements. The inconvenience was especially felt in the case of building estates, where a company or an individual divided a large property into small lots and disposed of them at from £5 to £50 a lot. The ad valorem duty on a £50 lot would be 5s., but if every covenant relating to the land, such as those regarding fences, gates, etc., were to be charged as well, it would be seen that the burden would be very excessive indeed. He believed that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to accept the clause, and he trusted that the Committee would recognise the justice of it.
  MR. HALDANEbelieved there was a good deal in what the hon. Member had said. He thought, however, that the words of the clause were wide, and deserved consideration. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was very careful about these matters, and he should like an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that in accepting them he was not parting with any portion of the public revenue.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have looked into the matter myself, and I am quite satisfied that the provisions of the law as they now stand are unfair and unreasonable; and that the duty is one that should not be charged in these cases.
  Question put.
  The Committee proceeded to a Division; but the doors of the No Lobby having been opened before the Tellers in the No Lobby were present, the Chairman directed the Committee to proceed again to a Division:—Ayes, 218; Noes, 37. (Division List No. 91.)

  Bond, Edward

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Greville, Hon Ronald

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Brassey, Albert

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Brigg, John

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

  Palmer, George Wm. (Reading

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Burns, John

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

  Butcher, John George

  Hardy, Laurence

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Hare Thomas Leigh

  Perks, Robert William

  Caldwell, James

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Heath, James

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Carlile, William Walter

  Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

  Piatt-Higgins, Frederick

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Plunkett, Rt Hn Horace Curzon

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Holland, William Henry

  Purvis, Robert

  Charrington, Spencer

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rankin, Sir James

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Houldsworth, Sir Win. Henry

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Howard, Joseph

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

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

  Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Colville, John

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Ridley, Rt. Hn Sir Matthew W.

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Joicey, Sir James

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

  Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

  Jones, William (Carnarvon)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Round, James

  Cross, Alex. (Glasgow)

  Kenyon, James

  Runciman, Walter

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Curzon, Viscount

  Keswick, William

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kimber, Henry

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Denny, Colonel

  Knowles, Lees

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Dewar, Arthur

  Lafone, Alfred

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Langley, Batty

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

  Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Doughty, George

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Strauss, Arthur

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Leng, Sir John

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swansea

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Duckworth, James

  Lock wood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Emmott, Alfred

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Lough, Thomas

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Finch, George H.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Wason, Eugene

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lowles, John

  Webster, Sir Richard E.

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunt'n

  Fison, Frederick William

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Flower, Ernest

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

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

  Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)

  Foster. Sir Walter, (Derby Co.)

  M'Killop, James

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Fry, Lewis

  Maddison, Fred.

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

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

  Gedge, Sydney

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudd'sf'd

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Woods, Samuel

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Wrightson, Thomas

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Wylie, Alexander

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Wyndham, George

  Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

  Monk, Charles James

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Golds worthy, Major-General

  Morton, Ed. J. C. (Devonport)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Anstruther and Mr. Fisher.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  752

  NOES.

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

  Channing, Francis Alliston

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Billson, Alfred

  Crean, Eugene

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Cawley, Frederick

  Crilly, Daniel

  Dillon, John

  753

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lloyd-George, David

  Samuel, J. Stockton-on-Tees)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  Pinkerton, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Daly and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Hogan, James Francis

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Clause added.
  The following Amendments stood next on the Paper—
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN (Cork)—
  To move the following Clause:—
  "Where, before the sixth day of March nineteen hundred, any person shall have contracted for the sale of tea without reference to the duties of customs thereon granted by this Act, it shall be lawful for that person, and he is hereby authorised to receive from the purchaser, and sue for and recover the equivalent in money of the excess of those duties over the duties which would have been payable if this Act had not been passed."
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES—
  To move the following Clause:—
  "The Commissioners of Inland Revenue shall pay, out of the proceeds of the estate duty, to the representatives of any person subject to military or naval law, who has died while on active service since the eleventh day of October, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine.

  "(1) If such person leaves any dependants wholly dependent on him at the time of his death, the sum of one hundred and fifty pounds;

  "(2) If such person does not leave any such dependants, but leaves any dependants in part dependent upon him at the time of his death, such sum not exceeding one hundred and fifty pounds as may be determined by the Treasury to be reasonable and proportionate to the injury to the said dependants."

  THE CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment on the Paper is covered by a clause inserted in place of Clause 8 struck out of the Bill. The last Amendment, which is in the name of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, is outside the scope of the Bill, and therefore out of order.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I submit to you, Sir, most respectfully that my Amendment, which among other things proposes to amend the law, comes within the terms of the resolution to that effect in the Committee upon which this Bill was founded. It has been an unbroken rule on the Finance Bill to allow general Amendments to be moved to the law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue. If we refer to the ruling of Mr. Speaker on the 23rd of May, 1895*, we find that he used these words—
  "It was true that the land tax and the estate duty were not taxes which were levied by virtue of the Finance Bill, but there was a long series of precedents which showed that in Customs and Inland Revenue Bills reductions of taxes which were not levied actually by virtue of the Bill might be opposed in Committee on the Bill. The Bill, it was to be observed, was founded on Resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means, one of which contained the words 'it is expedient to amend the law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue.' The presence of those words had been held to cover general Amendments to the Finance Bill."
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I am perfectly familiar with that ruling; but the hon. Gentleman has not convinced me that the proposed Amendment is in order.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is no general Amendment admissible in the Bill?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have nothing to add to what I have already said.
  Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Question put, "That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 229; Noes, 28. (Division List No. 92.)
  *See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth-Series], Vol. xxxiv., page 127.

  AYES.

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Bainbridge, Emerson

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

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

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

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Arnold, Alfred

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Bethell, Commander

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Barry, Rt Hn AHSmith-(Hunts

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Bond, Edward

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Greville, Hon Ronald

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Brassey, Albert

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Brigg, John

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

  Palmer, George Wm. (Reading

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Burns, John

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

  Butcher, John George

  Hardy, Laurence

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Hare Thomas Leigh

  Perks, Robert William

  Caldwell, James

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Heath, James

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Carlile, William Walter

  Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

  Piatt-Higgins, Frederick

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Plunkett, Rt Hn Horace Curzon

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Holland, William Henry

  Purvis, Robert

  Charrington, Spencer

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rankin, Sir James

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Houldsworth, Sir Win. Henry

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Howard, Joseph

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

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

  Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Colville, John

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Ridley, Rt. Hn Sir Matthew W.

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Joicey, Sir James

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

  Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

  Jones, William (Carnarvon)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Round, James

  Cross, Alex. (Glasgow)

  Kenyon, James

  Runciman, Walter

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Curzon, Viscount

  Keswick, William

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kimber, Henry

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Denny, Colonel

  Knowles, Lees

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Dewar, Arthur

  Lafone, Alfred

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Langley, Batty

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

  Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Doughty, George

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Strauss, Arthur

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Leng, Sir John

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swansea

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Duckworth, James

  Lock wood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Emmott, Alfred

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Lough, Thomas

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Finch, George H.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Wason, Eugene

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lowles, John

  Webster, Sir Richard E.

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunt'n

  Fison, Frederick William

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Flower, Ernest

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

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

  Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)

  Foster. Sir Walter, (Derby Co.)

  M'Killop, James

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Fry, Lewis

  Maddison, Fred.

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

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

  Gedge, Sydney

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudd'sf'd

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Woods, Samuel

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Wrightson, Thomas

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Wylie, Alexander

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Wyndham, George

  Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

  Monk, Charles James

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Golds worthy, Major-General

  Morton, Ed. J. C. (Devonport)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Anstruther and Mr. Fisher.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  752

  NOES.

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

  Channing, Francis Alliston

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Billson, Alfred

  Crean, Eugene

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Cawley, Frederick

  Crilly, Daniel

  Dillon, John

  753

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lloyd-George, David

  Samuel, J. Stockton-on-Tees)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  Pinkerton, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Daly and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Hogan, James Francis

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Arnold, Alfred

  Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Asher, Alexander

  Bainbridge, Emerson

  Barry, Rt Hn A H Smith-(Hunts

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

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

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Perks, Robert William

  Bethell, Commander

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Billson, Alfred

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. Curzon

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. Wm.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bond, Edward

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Hardy, Laurence

  Price, Robert John

  Brassey, Albert

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Purvis, Robert

  Butcher, John George

  Heath, James

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Caldwell, James

  Henderson, Alexander

  Rickitt, Harold James

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstd

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Carlile, William Walter

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

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

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

  Holland, William Henry

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matthew

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Howard, Joseph

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Charrington, Spencer

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Round, James

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Runciman, Walter

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Joicey, Sir James

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Colville, John

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Cook, Fred Lucas (Lambeth)

  Kenyon, James

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Corn wall is Fiennes Stanley W

  Keswick, William

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Kimber, Henry

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Knowles, Lees

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lafone, Alfred

  Smith, James P. (Lanarks)

  Curzon, Viscount

  Langley, Batty

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn

  Steadman, William Charles

  Denny, Colonel

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Dewar, Arthur

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Strauss, Arthur

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Dilke, Right Hon. Sir Charles

  Leng, Sir John

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swan.)

  Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)

  Doughty, George

  Lock wood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Doxford, Sir William T.

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Duckworth, James

  Lough, Thomas

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Lowe, Francis William

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Emmott, Alfred

  Lowles, John

  Wason, Eugene

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Webster, Sir Richard E.

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E. (Ta'nt'n

  Finch, George H.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Fison, Frederick William

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

  Williams, Joseph P.- (Birm.)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  M'Killop, James

  Wilson, Frederick W. (Norf'k

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Flower, Ernest

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

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

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

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

  Fry, Lewis

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hnddersf.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Woods, Samuel

  Gedge, Sydney

  Monk, Charles James

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

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  More, Robert Jasper (Shrops.

  Wrightson, Thomas

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

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Gibbs. Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Cray C.

  Wyndham, George

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

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

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Newdigate, Francis Alex.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—Mr. Anstruther and Mr. Fisher.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Palmer, Geo. Wm. (Reading)

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  756

  757

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Dillon, John

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Bowles, T Gibson (King sLynn

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Pinkerton, John

  Burns, John

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cawley, Frederick

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hogan, James Francis

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Crean, Eugene

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Crilly, Daniel

  Kilbride, Denis

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Daly, James

  McDermott, Patrick

  Bill reported, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 159.]

  MUNICIPAL TRADING.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Select Committee of five members of this House be appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords to consider and report as to the principles which should govern powers given by Bills and Provisional Orders to municipal and other local authorities for industrial enterprise within or without the area of their jurisdiction; that a message be sent to the Lords to acquaint their Lordships that this House hath appointed a Committee of five members to consider and report as to the principles which should govern powers given by Bills and Provisional Orders to municipal and other local authorities for industrial enterprise within or without the area of their jurisdiction; and to request that their Lordships will be pleased to appoint an equal number of Lords to be joined with the Members of this House."—(Mr. Anstruther.)
  MR. BROADHURST: I am rather surprised that an important Committee of this kind should be moved with out an explanation as to what its object is and at whose instance it was suggested. I am not aware that any of the municipal bodies of the country have petitioned in favour of this Committee, and I am not aware of any other public representative institution that has asked for its appointment. It certainly would have been more respectful to the House had some statement been made by some Member of the Government as to why it is to be appointed and by whom it was suggested. It appears to me that there may be at the bottom of this people, whoever they may be, who instigated the Government into this action, and who are opposed to the works carried on by the various municipal
  758
  authorities of the country. If the syndicated interests of the country, the promoters of private companies, who have so much interest in the Government, are the people at the bottom of it, we ought to know. When a mysterious motion affecting an important subject of this kind is moved we should get some information, but in this instance one of the whips, making a profound bow to the Speaker, tries to set in motion a piece of machinery which undoubtedly may be fraught with the greatest interest to the country. I am not in a position to say that the municipal authorities object to it. My opinion is that the municipal authorities have very little to fear at the hands of this or any other Committee. I have no authority to speak for the corporations, but I am able to state with respect to the great industrial concerns which are carried on by the corporation of the town for which I sit in this House, that they are the source of enormous profit to the ratepayers, and that the profits go to the relief of rates instead of in dividends to persons who do nothing to earn them. If it is to strike a blow at that class of trading by municipal corporations I think the Government have been ill-advised indeed, and will get themselves into considerable trouble and discredit by having anything to do with the stirring up of a matter of this sort. This proposed inquiry has been promoted by those who are jealous of the trading capacity of our municipal authorities. On these grounds I protest against the appointment of the Committee. I cannot imagine why it is suggested. We are asked to appoint a Committee of five to meet a similar number of Members of the Upper House. Who invited the Members of the other House to join in the inquiry into corporation work? The Members of that House know nothing whatever of municipal life. There are very few of them who know anything of the local

  759
  government of the country either in corporate bodies or in country districts. Why we should be linked together with members of that branch of the legislature I am at a loss to understand. Why are corporations, so to speak, to be carpeted before a Committee which they have no part or parcel in selecting? What is the charge against them? What is, so to speak, the genesis of this Committee? Surely we ought to know if the Corporations of the country have misconducted themselves, betrayed the interests of the ratepayers, or committed some illegal act. There is nothing of the kind stated. If there is to be a Committee appointed I presume the trial will not be held in their absence. Surely they will be invited to be present and to offer evidence. It is time the corporations should be told what it is about, that they may be in a position to prepare themselves with their defence, if they are to be called up on their defence. I believe all prisoners are supplied with some statement of the nature of the charge brought against them. I have not heard a word of what the charge is against the corporations. Before we proceed further I hope we will be favoured with a statement by some member of the Government. Much will depend on that statement whether a division will be taken against the appointment of a Committee. If the Government are determined to have a Committee, let us have a little more time for the consideration of it, and let notice be sent round to the local authorities so that they may not be taken by surprise, and, as it were, attacked from behind by some influence which we cannot trace and of which we know nothing.
  MR. GALLOWAY: The corporations look upon themselves as persons accused, and they do not think it would be right to adopt the position of seeking in any way to burke full investigation. They accept with reluctance the Committee the right hon. Gentleman is going to appoint, though they think it unnecessary. They say, "We are arraigned before this Committee, and it would be an improper position to object in any way to a thorough and full investigation." There was a case last week at Huddersfield where a great injury was done to the corporation by this motion being put
  760
  on the Table. That injustice will, I hope, be removed by this motion being put down and discussed. The hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees upstairs told me that they had very great difficulty because the decisions of the House are not uniform in regard to this matter. I know one case where an Electric Lighting Bill was accepted by the House, and a similar one from another part of the country was thrown out. I do not think anyone, whether representing the views of a corporation or those of private promoters, could defend such a position of affairs, and it is because this position is going to be removed that we accept the motion before us.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I apprehend that the object of this is to secure, through this Committee, the framing of a series of common clauses which should be inserted in Bills brought before the House. I see no objection to that. I should like to ask the Government if they will kindly say what they propose to do as to the calling of evidence before this Committee.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): The hon. Member for Dundee has accurately described the position taken up by the Government, and so has the hon. Member for South-west Manchester. It is quite a mistake to suppose that this motion has been put down with the smallest intention of making any attack whatever on corporations. Nothing was further from the thoughts of the Government. It is extremely desirable that inquiry should be made with the view of seeing whether some conclusions cannot be arrived at as to the general lines which should be followed not only with regard to Bills of this kind before the House, but also with regard to Provisional Orders. I may say that we at the Board of Trade require to have some kind of direction, such as that suggested, in order to enable us to deal properly with the constant applications that are being made to us by corporations. The hon. Gentleman opposite has asked why we have asked a Committee of the other House to join. Whether the powers asked by corporations are asked by Bill or by Provisional Order, they have to pass through the Houses of Parliament, and therefore in connection with matters

  761
  where both Houses have to take action it has always been the custom that the two bodies should sit together and arrive at a common conclusion. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Dundee, I have to say that it is very desirable and necessary that this Committee, when formed, should have the power of calling witnesses. When the Joint Committee is nominated I understand a motion of that kind will be made. With regard to this matter, the Committee should be empowered to get such evidence as will enable them to come to a proper conclusion in the matter.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten in making his appeal to the House for the appointment of this Committee that this proposal does not emanate from a Government Department like the Board of Trade, neither did it spring from the Local Government Board, which is the proper Department to have municipal enterprise within its purview. The suggestion for this Committee sprang from a private Member last year. It was down for three months, and I, with a number of other Members, had the pleasure of sitting up until twelve o'clock, and we were successful in preventing the motion coming on. What we ought to know is why it is that the Government have suddenly undertaken the responsibility of backing a Committee which last year they would have nothing at all to do with, and which they left to the irresponsible care of a private Member who had very little support even on his own side. Why was it put down last year? I think I can throw a little light upon that point. The Government brought in a Bill, and a very good Bill, for nationalising the telephones in a large direction. The hon. Member who put the motion down put it down with a view to hanging up the Government Bill. It was supposed to have served its purpose for that session. But it did not succeed, and all at once we found it removed from the Paper. But this year this skeleton Committee is introduced in order to be used against corporation Bills and municipal enterprise with precisely the same object as it was intended to have with regard to the Government Bill for dealing with the telephone service. We have heard not a single word in explanation of why the Government have accepted the parentage
  762
  of this bastard Committee. The President of the Board of Trade says the Board of Trade want guidance. If that is so let the President of the Board of Trade and the President of the Local Government Board and the Selection Committee, with representatives of the House of Lords, meet together and give us some responsible reasons for the appointment of a Joint Committee. If it is for uniform treatment of similar Bills on similar subjects in different Houses in order to secure consistency in regard to municipal enterprise, that is a reason one can respect, and such a reason may contain arguments that we can understand. But when we find that a Committee which was put down last year to block a Government Bill, and which was ineffectual for its purpose, is now turned on to the general field of municipal enterprise, I am indeed surprised that the Government should have shown such poverty of reasons and such paucity of argument in favour of the appointment of a Committee which the state of municipal enterprise does not at this moment warrant. What is the reason for this Committee? Not a word has been given to tell us. What is the argument in favour of it? We have heard of none. What is the necessity for it from the point of view of municipal enterprise? Is municipal enterprise in this country incompatible with the ratepayers' interests or with public policy? We have had neither speech nor argument to contend that it is. Where is the evidence that municipal bodies ought to be put upon their trial? In the absence of evidence is there to be a rambling inquiry, a fishing expedition, to last four or five years, as did the Labour Commission, so that in the meantime municipalities like Leicester, Birmingham, Glasgow, Manchester, Dublin, and other places should be prevented from promoting Bills which have for their object the benefit of the ratepayers, and the promotion of which has the full approval of the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants?—because the House must remember that no Bill can be introduced under the Borough Funds Act unless it has three-fourths of the ratepayers in favour of it. The delay caused by this Committee will impose upon the public great inconvenience. The gentlemen who met at the Society of Arts will then be able to say, "Oh, the municipalities are doing nothing for electric traction;

  763
  they are doing nothing to link up the urban districts with the outside local areas; they are supine and indifferent. Let private enterprise come in." Through this Committee sitting for three or four years private enterprise will get an unfair advantage over municipal enterprise. In a word, this Committee is to be a hanging Committee—the kind of Committee the Royal Academy appoint a week before the Academy opens. This Committee is to be for hanging up the projects of municipal enterprise with their faces to the wall, so that the company promoter and a number of gentlemen of Oriental mind and Eastern expression and Babylonish tastes can do with electric lighting as they have been doing with certain portions of the English Constitution and the British Empire, converting legislative spheres of influence into spheres of private interest. When I heard this Committee first spoken about I thought we were going to have an indictment of the big corporations. Are our municipal corporations corrupt? No. Then why an inquiry? Are they inefficient? The test of efficiency is the profit that municipal enterprise makes for the reduction of the general rates. It is because they are efficient, and conduct their concerns with economy and large profit, they are to be assailed. Is the inquiry necessary? Absolutely no. Why do I say that? Because every municipal enterprise undertaken by a local authority is subject to the best of all inquiries—the criticism of the ratepayers who pay the rates. Then there is the Provisional Order, which has to run the gauntlet of both Houses, at First, Second, and Third Reading, and also go through the ordeal of the Committee upstairs. Then there is the audit of the Local Government Board—not a single shilling can be spent on electric lighting, water, tramways, or markets unless it is passed by the auditor appointed by either the Local Government Board or the municipality; whilst, finally, the test of election every year is the best safeguard. In the absence of inefficiency, extravagance, and corruption in our municipal life, I strongly protest against the appointment of this Committee as a slur upon our municipal life—a municipal life which deservedly occupies the highest position of any municipal life in the whole civilised world. Now I come to the Committee itself. This Committee ought to be
  764
  appointed not by the Selection Committee, but by this House itself. I have a great respect for the House of Lords when it confines itself to its proper work. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes, I have; I believe that if private enterprise tries to bull-dose and chloroform the House of Commons, of which this motion is an evidence, we may have to look for the purity of our public life and the preservation of our municipal rights to the House of Lords as a second line of defence against monopoly that abuses its power and subordinates Governments to its ends. But I am quite prepared to wait until the necessity for that condition of things arises. In the meantime, the House of Lords is not the body which knows most about municipal government and municipal enterprise. I venture to say that this is a revolution in private Bill procedure which ought to be demanded from the House only by strong facts and irresistible argument. I could quite understand the appointment of this Committee if Glasgow were riddled with corruption as Tammany Hall is in New York. ["Oh, oh!"] That is my view, and I express that view having examined that institution at close quarters, and so far as I am concerned, speaking generally of municipal life, I know nothing outside this country to equal the municipal life of Great Britain and Ireland. I am surprised that the First Lord of the Treasury, whose knowledge of nearly every phase of national life does him credit, and has, perhaps, placed him where he is, should lend himself to a suggestion of this kind. His own city of Manchester is opposed to this Committee, and many of the Manchester councillors regard it as a slight upon the local life of their district. Many of the municipalities, the bulk of the members from which support the right hon. Gentleman, say that this is a superfluous inquiry and that it can reveal nothing which the Government cannot know more clearly without its aid. Except for deferring to that body of company promoters in excelsis, the Liberty and Property Defence League, and except for pandering to the ignorant prejudices of the Lord Wemysses and the gang of company promoters who met at the Society of Arts three months ago, I can see no reason for this Committee. I do appeal to the First Lord to recognise that if this Committee is appointed and sits for a long time great

  765
  harm will be done to the ratepayers' interests of this country. The municipalities of the country object to this Committee, not because they are afraid of inquiry, but because they object to having their town clerks and mayors and committees being summoned to the House of Commons or the House of Lords to be interrogated unnecessarily by a Committee that cannot know as much about the matter as the auditor of the Local Government Board. It is because the appointment of this Committee is dangerous, unnecessary, and is merely demanded by a small clique who have made too much fuss in the country about municipal enterprise, that I appeal to the House of Commons not to support the creation of this Committee.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I cannot see that the Committee proposed by this motion is in the slightest degree hostile to the interests of the municipalities; in my opinion it is very greatly in their favour, and I am sure the decision of the Committee will be for the guidance of the Committees upstairs. I have been Chairman of one of those Committees, and have had the greatest trouble in discriminating where municipal trading should cease. In former days, municipalities no doubt undertook great enterprises which were very useful for their ratepayers, but those undertakings were always confined within the boundaries of the corporation. Now schemes have been started for constructing electric tram ways outside the borough boundaries altogether, and how can a Committee upstairs tell where this should end? We want the guidance of the House upon this subject, and if the House is pleased to appoint this Committee, I think some conclusion will be come to in the matter which will be in the interests of the corporations themselves, because they will be saved a great deal of money in promoting schemes which they will know, from the decision of this Committee, could not get through the House. In reply to one remark of the hon. Member opposite, let me instance the case of a corporation which brought forward a scheme for a large system of electric tramways within a six mile radius of the corporation. The scheme may be good, or it may be bad, but why should it stop at the six mile radius? Why not have a twelve mile radius? Why not work a system of electric tramways or a
  766
  railway to connect the corporation with some other town? On all these matters Committees upstairs require direction. They cannot get that direction from the Orders of the House. It is most important in defence of the ratepayers that the House should lay down definite rules as to whether the corporations are to bring forward these schemes, and therefore I hope the House will pass this motion.
  MR. HALDANE: I must congratulate the hon. Member for North Hampshire on having given the first approach to an intelligent reason for the appointment of this Committee. I quite admit that in the specific case which he has given it is quite proper that there should be certain well-defined considerations which should be taken into account by each Committee, and that the practice upon that point should be uniform. But the motion before the House goes miles beyond anything of that kind. We are asked to appoint a Select Committee "to consider and report as to the principles which should govern powers given by Bills and Provisional Orders to municipal and other local authorities for industrial enterprise within or without the area of their jurisdiction." I agree with my hon. friend the Member for Battersea in the suggestion he has made as to the origin and genesis of this motion. I cannot bring myself to believe that it is the spontaneous idea of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Like the hon. Member for Battersea, I have lively recollections of the origin of this motion. The right hon. Gentleman, as he was then, but who is now a distinguished ornament in another place, and takes a strong interest in this question, because he holds very strong views on the subject of municipal trading, was the real author of this motion. He had a very definite idea in his mind: he knew what he meant by asking for a Committee to inquire into the principles which should regulate embarking on industrial enterprise by corporations. He held that all embarking on industrial enterprise should be discouraged and prohibited by the legislature and that it should be confined within the very narrowest possible limits. That is an intelligent position. But that is not a question for any Committee, still less a Joint Committee of the two Houses, to inquire into. That is a question for

  767
  this House to determine after debate, and it may turn out to be a very large question, in regard to which the House will not come to its full conclusion at once. For my part, I object very much, on a subject in regard to which there may be the greatest conflict of policy between this House and the other, to our finding ourselves hereafter, whenever a question arises on a Private Bill as to the course to be taken, bound by a decision of a Joint Committee over which we have no control—a decision which would be thrown in our teeth upon all such occasions. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Board of Trade thought guidance was wanted, not only for Select Committees but also for the Board itself. What guidance are they likely to get? This Committee will sit and take evidence, and hear objections by counsel if necessary. I quite see that it might get a large amount of useful information. But what is the sort of question we have to consider? This is not a Committee whose function it will be to frame clauses or to draw up some code of restrictions on legislation such as those embodied in the model clauses dealing with Provisional Orders, etc. The province of this Committee is something very much wider; it is to consider general principles—general principles which will apply to the very class of Bills out of which these general clauses and sections have arisen. Take a single illustration which is in the minds of hon. Members who have been present through this sitting. We have had a debate upon the question of whether the London County Council should have the control of its water supply. That debate would have assumed an entirely different form had we been discussing the question of whether Glasgow should have the control of its water supply. In the case of Glasgow, just as in the case of Birmingham and many other places, the question of the control of matters, which is refused for special reasons to the London County Council, assumes an entirely different form. It is not a question which can be settled by any decision of a Committee—whether these corporations should be allowed to indulge in industrial enterprises, such as that of running tramways. It is a question to be decided with reference to the circumstances of each municipality, and that can only be determined by the House after debate on the Second Reading of
  768
  the Bills, with such assistance as may be obtained from a Select Committee. Take another illustration. We have had a great deal of difficulty in settling the question of whether the power of supplying electricity in bulk should be given to private companies or reserved for municipal corporations. Why was that? Because it was considered by the House of Commons that supplying electrical power in bulk was a very different thing from supplying electric light. One was something in the interests of the public generally, while the other would be supplied to a comparatively few firms, and, therefore, in the view of many members, a proper thing for private persons to undertake rather than a municipality. That, again, is not a question of principle which can be settled by a Committee. You have to consider the enterprise, the state of development in which the enterprise is—matters which may be entirely different in five years time—and it is impossible for us to bind ourselves by any hard-and-fast rules, whether they are laid down by ourselves or by a Committee, no matter how eminent, sitting upstairs. The whole history of the practice of this House with regard to these matters seem to show that this is a matter which cannot be considered as one of abstract principle, but which must be considered upon its merits. I have heard nothing intelligible from the right hon. Gentleman as a justification of the appointment of this Committee. There have been two intelligible reasons put forward in the debate. One is the question of whether there should be an extension of tramways beyond the municipal limits. That is a very narrow point, and much too small to justify this motion. The other is the question of referring the whole subject of municipal trading to this Committee. Against that suggestion I certainly protest on behalf of the proper functions of this House. I cannot help thinking that this motion is one which, if carried into effect, will lead to the sort of thing with which we have become far too familiar within the last five years—namely, the practice of the Government saying "There is the Report of a Royal Commission, or of a Select Committee, or of a Joint Committee which lays down the principles on which this case must be decided"—by which means we are prevented from giving full consideration to the principle of Bills which come

  769
  before us. I dislike this practice which is growing up of the Government sheltering itself behind Reports of Commissions and Committees. That practice has been carried too far, and this is an instance in which the House should say that the matter proposed to be referred to this Committee is a matter which it is for the House itself to determine, and with the jurisdiction over which the House will not part.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I venture to hope that this discussion, which has been a very instructive one, will not be unduly prolonged. ["Oh, oh!"] I may express a pious hope, at all events, that it will not be unduly prolonged; because, after all, we are only asking for an investigation by a competent tribunal into a problem the importance of which is denied by nobody. The hon. Member for Battersea stated that the Government had taken up a Committee originally moved for in this House by a private Member. My memory for details is not very good, but I believe in that statement the hon. Gentleman is inaccurate. I have been given a reference in Hansard which shows that on March 2nd last year I was asked by my hon. friend the Member for North Islington whether a Committee could not be appointed to inquire into this question, and my reply was*—
  "In answer to the hon. Member I have to say that the important question to which he refers is one which deserves early investigation, and we, the Government, think the proper method of that investigation would be by a Joint Committee of the two Houses."
  That is the policy which I stated on behalf of my colleagues on the 2nd March last year, and it has been the policy to which we have ever since steadily adhered. The hon. and learned Member who has just sat down objects to this policy, as I think other Members also have objected to it, on the ground that a Committee of this sort appears to mean the passing of a prima facie condemnation upon municipal trading, and that it appears to prejudge the question of whether municipalities are to be allowed to go beyond the bare necessities of life, as it were, which they have to provide for their inhabitants, and to launch out into the illimitable field of commercial enterprise.
  * See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxvii., page 1053.
  770
  The Government do not desire to prejudge that question. We do not desire to lay down any principles for the guidance of the Committee. We do not say whether it is right or whether it is wrong, that, in addition to supplying proper highways, proper police protection, gas, water, and so forth, municipalities should go further, and, either within their own area, or still more, without their own area, deal with these larger commercial concerns. I believe myself that in many cases these commercial undertakings may very properly be entered into by municipalities. That is my own personal opinion. But what we ask for is not a judgment upon that abstract, or more or less abstract, question; it is for some general guidance for this and the other House as to the method by which we are to deal from time to time with the innumerable practical problems which come before us in connection with private Bill legislation, and also in connection with matters for which the Government are responsible. As has been pointed out by one of the Chairmen of these Committees, the Committees of this House have no guidance upon the general principles which should regulate their action. Is that a fair position into which to put four gentlemen chosen from among Members of the House by the Committee of Selection, and ask them thus to deal with great complicated questions? They are competent to deal professionally with evidence placed before them, but it is too much to ask them, without any mandate from this House, and without any general principles laid down for them by this House, to deal with what are after all great questions of policy. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down appears to think that a Joint Committee of the two Houses would have some coercive action in the policy which this House, or the other House should pursue. That is really not the case. This House would have before it the Report of that Committee, and the evidence upon which that Report was founded. It would neither be obliged to accept the Report in general nor in a particular instance give application to it. The House might even reverse it. Our freedom of action will be wholly unimpaired, but some machinery will be provided by which the arguments and the evidence on either side will be put before us in some intelligible and assimilable form. The hon. and learned Member says this is a question

  771
  upon which the House itself should decide. How is the House to decide and by what machinery can the House decide particular issues now? A particular case comes before us. On that particular case no doubt we can decide now, and on that particular case we should still be able to decide after the Joint Committee has reported. But how can we come to any decision upon the broad question of policy to which the hon. and learned Member has referred? It is something to produce an abstract resolution on a Tuesday afternoon, but is the Government to come forward and lay before the House an abstract resolution in regard to municipal trading? Is that to be debated all night, and finally to be voted upon, and is such a debate and division to be any guidance as to policy? Such a debate and division would not be of any value unless we came to it armed with all the assistance which the Report of a Joint Committee is so well qualified to give. I confess it seems to me that those who wish to refuse this Committee, to closure this investigation, are deliberately giving their verdict for chaos rather than for order. They are asking the House to proceed to deal with enormous questions affecting the corporate rights and interests of immense bodies of ratepayers in a piecemeal fashion and at haphazard. That is not a course which the Government can recommend, and I earnestly ask the House—not to bind themselves to follow the Report which a Joint Committee of both Houses may come to, not to bind themselves blindly to acquiesce in a decision which five representatives of this House and five representatives of the other House may come to, but to give themselves the chance of having the evidence collected and decided upon by a competent tribunal. If after that investigation the House should differ from the Report of the Joint Committee (and the House of Commons very often does differ from its Committees), at all events we shall do it with knowledge and not in ignorance, knowing what is alleged on either side. If we differ, even in that case our action will be incomparably more profitable to the community at large, to the great corporations of this country, and to the work of private enterprise, than the haphazard and random dealing with great interests with which we have got familiar in recent years, and with which, unless this Committee is appointed,
  772
  we are likely to become more and more familiar as time goes on.
  MR. DILLON: In supporting this proposal the right hon. Gentleman described it as having for its chief object the protection of the ratepayers.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never said that.
  MR. DILLON: I want to ask any hon. Member who supports this, what evidence he can lay before this House that the ratepayers have asked for this protection. Before we are asked to consent to this measure, which has been described by an hon. Member opposite as a measure for the protection of the ratepayers, ought we not to have from its supporters some statement that a considerable minority of the ratepayers are anxious for this protection? The very reverse is the fact. It is not a proposal which has emanated from any body of ratepayers outside this House. It had its origin in a band of Gentlemen in this House who are interested in the promotion of great schemes of private enterprise. What are the facts which are known to the citizens of municipalities in great Britain and Ireland. Every year they are beleaguered and beset by syndicates and private companies who are endeavouring to grasp those enterprises which ought to be a legitimate field for municipal trading, such as electric lighting and tramways. I live in a city where the tramways have passed into the hands of a company which is now making excellent profits. I should have preferred to see those profits going to the relief of the rates in the city. Every municipality in the country is besieged by these syndicates and companies who are endeavouring to get hold of the valuable monopolies. What do we hear from the President of the Board of Trade? He declared, in a very extraordinary speech, that the Local Government Board wanted guidance. But this question only turned up last year, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the London University and the Member for North Islington made a proposal in regard to the telephone monopoly. The proposal before the House is manifestly one made in the interests of syndicates, companies, and private enterprise as against municipal enterprise. No attempt has been made to show that the ratepayers

  773
  of the country are interested in this proposal. Has any attempt been made to show that the ratepayers of the great municipalities of this country have suffered by the municipalities getting hold of and extending their grip over industrial enterprises? It is quite the contrary, and, so far as I am aware, in every instance in which a great municipality has got hold of some great industrial undertaking, the result has been beyond all question a great saving to the ratepayers. There is not a single shred of foundation for this extraordinary new departure in favour of private enterprise. In Dublin we provided ourselves twenty years ago with one of the best water supplies in the country, and there is no doubt that we have saved our ratepayers enormous sums of money by having got this great industrial enterprise in our hands at the very beginning. Our experience goes to show that the growth of these municipal enterprises, and the gradual extinction of monopolies in gas, water, electric lighting, and tramway companies has been a growth of progress marked by immense saving to the ratepayers of the country. And what do the Government say? I never heard a more lame defence. All they say is that we had chaos, and now we want order and guidance. If you had had order and guidance in this matter twenty years ago we should have made no progress at all. Why have these great principles gradually been established? They can only be established piecemeal by applying yourself to the particular circumstances of the case. I say it is because you had chaos that you succeeded, and because you were not bound by the rules of a Committee of the House of Lords. After half a century of free action in dealing with this municipal question, suddenly the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board awake to the fact that we are in the midst of chaos, and that we cannot proceed any further without guidance. And remember, the guidance sought is not to come from a Committee of this House, but the House of Lords is to be asked to teach us how to deal with municipal affairs. I do not think that the record of the House of Lords in connection with municipal development is so brilliant that we ought to seek its assistance. The House of Lords is permeated with company directors and company promoters, and there is no
  774
  hope in that direction. We are told that we want guidance and enlightenment from a Committee that is to investigate this matter in an abstract sense. In my opinion the proper guidance on municipal development should be sought from the experience of the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board. Even if such a proposal is necessary, I do press upon the Government and the House that the proper way to lay a foundation for such a measure would be to appoint a Committee of this House and not a Joint Committee. Why did hon. Members opposite during the telephone struggle suggest a Joint Committee of the two Houses? They suggested that because they knew that the friends of private enterprise would be found on that Committee in a sweeping majority. Whatever chance there might be for private enterprise in a Committee of this House, a joint Committee would be bound to give the syndicates and the company promoters a majority. It is ridiculous for the Government to tell us that no harm can be done by this innocent investigation, and that we shall be just as free afterwards to reject its decisions if we choose. That statement might do very well for an hon. Member elected yesterday, without experience in this House, but for those who have been here fifteen years it is rather absurd to try and throw dust in our eyes in that fashion. Every hon. Member who knows the practice and customs of this House knows very well that the Report of such a Committee would be thrown in our teeth in every debate upon this subject. Such a Report would inevitably have great weight, and would affect the votes of many hon. Members of this House. Undoubtedly the Committees upstairs would accept the decisions of the Joint Committee as their guiding principles, and it could have no other possible effect than to limit the freedom of the Committees of this House. It is because I believe that such a limiting of the Committees of this House would be a distinct evil and a retrograde stop that I am opposed to the appointment of this Joint Committee altogether. I believe that the true principle to adopt in approaching the consideration of this question of municipal enterprise is to allow the present machinery, which has worked admirably, to work still, and to allow the Committees of this House to apply their intelligence, free of any more fetters than those which already

  775
  exist in the Standing Orders of the House, to the consideration of the circumstances of each individual case; to allow their decisions to be freely reviewed by Members of this House; and to proceed unchecked and unfettered until the time arrives when it may be desirable to introduce some general measure which ought to orginate in this House and over which this House ought to have full control. I object to this proposal because I think the time has not come by many years for any investigation of the kind. There is no call for this proposal outside this House, and there is not a shred of evidence to show that it is demanded by the public outside this House. But even if it were proved and admitted that such an investigation is required, such investigation ought to be carried out, in the first instance, by a Committee appointed by this House, and it should not be a Joint Committee appointed at the request of Gentlemen who have made no secret of their desire to promote and increase the sphere and the development of companies and syndicates as compared with municipal effort. Hon. Members opposite have made no secret of their hostility to municipal effort, and they desire to refer it to a Joint Committee, because they believe that by so doing they will secure a majority in favour of private enterprise.
  MR. JONATHAN SAMUEL: After listening to the speech of the hon. Member for North Hampshire, I have my doubts as to the wisdom of this House passing this motion to-night without further discussion. I am certainly alarmed at the prospect, because I know some corporations that have purchased their gas works under Bills as far back as 1858. The hon. Member for North Hampshire pressed for a Committee last week which rejected a Bill because it extended the tramways beyond the borough, although that has been the universal practice. There is hardly a corporation in this country which has been granted private Bills for the supply of water or gas which has not the power to go beyond the borough boundary. What would be the position of many of our rural districts near our large towns if corporations were prevented from supplying them with pure water and with gas? I believe that in every case where the House of Commons has given the power to a corporation to purchase the gas or water supplies, such supplies go beyond
  776
  the borough boundary. There are many private companies which have tramways in our large towns. These private companies have the right to run through the borough, and are connected with the suburbs of the town. If this Joint Committee were to report to the House that in no Bill in future should a corporation be allowed to go beyond the borough boundary, then the very power which has been given to many corporations to purchase the tramways will be nullified. As the hon. Member for East Mayo has pointed out, you cannot draw a hard-and-fast rule, and you must treat every Bill upon its merits. You must judge every private Bill, whether for the supply of water, gas, electricity, or tramways, upon its merits, because hard-and-fast rules will not apply to different private Bills. I know that there is a feeling on the other side of the House against municipalities, and particularly the London County Council, having the right which has been conferred upon almost every municipality in the country of supplying water to the people within the London area. I do appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury to at least adjourn this debate to-night before coming to any decision, because the Association of Municipal Corporations are holding a meeting on Saturday, and they are very much opposed to this resolution. If they learn on Saturday that it is the intention of the Government to appoint this Committee with a view of restricting——
  It being midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2:—
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he wished to point out that in the Act of

  777
  last year the forces mentioned were 184,853, whereas in this Bill the number was put at 430,000. He merely desired to call attention to the enormous increase.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 4:—
  Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Flynn.)
  But it appearing to the Chairman that the motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House, he declined to propose the Question thereupon to the Committee.
  MR. CALDWELLasked the Under Secretary for War to give him an explanation of the words "from time to time." The clause provided that the Secretary of State might from time to time vary the condition of service and extend the term of the original enlistment up to twelve years.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): I have already announced to the House in respect to artillery that we propose to take enlistments for one year. As the law stood before, if an artilleryman wanted to re-engage after one year's service he could only re-engage for another eleven years. That is the interpretation placed upon those words by lawyers. I think the hon. Member is confusing service with the colours with the service of the Reservists. All we are asking for now is more elbow-room in dealing with a new problem.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5:—
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he desired to know from the Under Secretary what was meant by this clause.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Our object is to make Sub-section 161 consistent with Sub-section 79. Sub-section 79 lays down that if a man is convicted of desertion or fraudulent enlistment he shall forfeit his previous service, but the Secretary of State may give it him back again. At the present time the Secretary of State has not the power to give him back that service. Sub-section 161 deals with cases of crime discovered after three years service. If a soldier behaves in an exemplary manner for three years he can have extended to him the benefit of Sub-section 79, and he can have also that service which he had previously forfeited.
  MR. CALDWELLcontended that the forfeiture was only in regard to fraudulent enlistment, and desertion did not come into the section. He had studied the enormous number of alterations and amendments to this Act, and he would defy anybody but an expert to make either head or tail of the Army Act. He had asked before that the Act should be consolidated and put into a convenient form.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I do not profess to be an export upon the interpretation of legal documents, and I leave that to the hon. Member opposite. Upon the question of proper legal phraseology we are bound to be guided by our legal counsel. This Amendment has been very carefully devised to effect an object to which every single person in this House agrees, and I cannot accept the interpretation which the hon. Gentleman puts upon this section. I think I may take it that every hon. Member of this House would wish the Secretary of State to have power to forgive this forfeiture of service.
  MR. CALDWELLcontended that it was no answer to say that the section had been carefully prepared. It did not need experts to interpret language of that kind, and if the Government intended to give the Secretary of State the power he asked for, a reference was required as to where the forfeiture came in under the Act.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): I have not had my attention drawn to that point, but I will undertake to look it up before the Report stage is reached.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid it was no use trying to put him off in that way, and he begged leave to move to report progress.
  Committee report progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  CENSUS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk), in the Chair.]
  MR. FLYNN: What provision is made in the Act as to the form the census is to take?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): The hon. Member will see that it is the same form as used hitherto.
  MR. FLYNN: I know that provision is made, but my point is whether the number will be ascertained in each barony, or what area will be enumerated.
  MR. ATKINSON: The number will be ascertained in each area of local administration.
  MR. FLYNN: That means district councils districts.
  MR. ATKINSON: Yes, that is so.
  Bill reported without amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  CHARITABLE LOANS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Motion made, and question proposed, "That this House will, upon Monday next, resolve into Committee on the Bill."
  MR. DILLON: We have been waiting here night after night watching this Bill, and many hon. Members interested in it are leaving for Ire-
  780
  land. I do wish the Attorney General for Ireland would put it down for some day after Easter, to enable those who lost their chance of speaking on the second reading to have a reasonable debate upon it. I put it to the Attorney General that it is very unfair to bring it on in this way.
  MR. ATKINSON: I propose putting it down for Monday. I should be very reluctant to put it off until after Easter. I hope the hon. Member will consent to that course.
  MR. DILLON: Our experience goes to show that there is very little chance of reaching it on Monday, and the Attorney General gives us no pledge that it will be taken upon that day.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The chances are that the Bill will not come on for discussion on Monday. We do not want to block the Bill, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give us the assurance that he will put this Bill off until after Easter.
  MR. DALY: The Second Reading of this Bill came on last Thursday night, and we had not a fair opportunity of considering it. As the right hon. Gentleman got the Second Reading through without opposition, I hope he will agree to what we ask him to do.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member object to Monday?
  MR. DALY: I do object.
  Mr. SPEAKERhaving ascertained by the preponderance of voices that the majority of the House desired that the Committee should be deferred till Monday next, Committee deferred accordingly till Monday next.

  COAL MINES (PROHIBITION OF CHILD LABOUR UNDERGROUND) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.
  Adjourned at twenty-five minutes before One of the clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with—
Portland Urban District Gas.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  EDINBURGH DISTRICT LUNACY BOARD BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee with amendments.
  COWES PIER BILL [H.L.]
  The Queen's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee with amendments.
  EXMOUTH AND DISTRICT WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Select Committee, That the promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill; Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.

  PONTEFRACT PARK BILL.
  COLONIAL BANK BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed.

  LINCOLN CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS) BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
  GRANTHAM GAS BILL.
  REDHILL GAS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

  MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
  GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN AND WATERFORD, AND CENTRAL IRELAND RAILWAY COMPANIES AMALGAMATION BILL [H.L.].

  GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN AND WATERFORD, LIMERICK, AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANIES AMALGAMATION [H.L.]
  MIDLAND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY OF IRELAND BILL [H.L.].
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bills mentioned in the notice standing in my name be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. This follows a precedent set by your Lordships' House last week when the Dublin Corporation Bill, and another Bill which depended upon it, were referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses.* This procedure is, as I said on that occasion, a somewhat novel one; but with regard to these particular Bills, which deal with the very important question of the amalgamation of railways in the south of Ireland, I think there is a distinct precedent for the course proposed in the case of other Amalgamation Bills which were referred, in 1873, in the same way as I am now proposing, to a Joint Committee of the two Houses.† The Bills are very important in character, and will have a very large effect, especially on the South and Central parts of Ireland; They were referred to a Hybrid Committee of the House of Commons last year, and the inquiry was of a very protracted, and, if I may be allowed to say so, of a not wholly satisfactory nature. I trust your Lordships will assent to the motion which I now move.
  Moved to resolve, That it is desirable that the—
  Great Southern and Western and Waterford and Central Ireland Railway Companies Amalgamation Bill [H.L.],
  The Great Southern and Western and Waterford, Limerick, and Western Railway Companies Amalgamation Bill [H.L.],
  And the Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland Bill [H.L.],
  be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.—(The Earl of Morley.)
  * See page 3 of this volume.
  † See debate on 25th February, 1873, on Railway, &c. (Transfer and Amalgamation), Bills. The Parliamentary Debates [Third Series], Vol. ccxiv., page 886.
  LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON: My Lords, I have given notice to move, as an Amendment to the motion of the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, to add the following words:
  "And that the said Committee be empowered to inquire and report with reference to the said Bills—

  1. What special safeguards (if any), having regard to the circumstances of the South of Ireland, are required for the protection of the public in the event of any of the amalgamations proposed in the said Bills being carried out other than the safeguards afforded by existing Public Acts; and

  2. As to the propriety of inserting in the common form clause (No. 38 in the first named Bill and No. 33 in the model Bill) making provision as to general Railway Acts, special words providing for further State interference with railways in Ireland."

  I do not wish to take up the time of the House unnecessarily, and before moving my Amendment I would appeal to the noble Earl to postpone his motion for a few days. He has already kindly postponed it, at my request, from last Monday, but the object for which I asked that the matter should be postponed has not been attained. A large and very important deputation waited on the Irish Government about a week ago to ask for the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the whole question of Irish railways. They asked, further, that these particular Bills should be suspended until that Commission had reported. The answer to that prayer has not yet been given, and all I would ask the noble Earl at the moment is that he should postpone this motion until the answer of the Government has been received. If a Commission should be appointed I take it that the Bills would be suspended, and that there would be no occasion for the appointment of a Joint Committee. Therefore it is material that the answer of the Government should be given before we are asked to affirm that it is desirable to appoint a Joint Committee. If the Government refuse the Commission, then I should most heartily concur with the noble Earl that a Joint Committee would be a very notch better tribunal to discuss these important Bills than a Hybrid Committee of the House of Commons, or an ordinary Private Bill Committee. But until we know what the answer of the Government is I venture to submit that it is somewhat premature to bring this motion forward.
  *LORD GREVILLE: In the absence of my noble friend Viscount de Vesci, I wish to ask the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees whether it is possible to give instructions to the Joint Committee that no further powers should be granted unless a promise is given that the railway will be extended from Mountmellick to Mullingar, a distance of about thirty miles. The County Council of West Meath have petitioned for this extension, and they will appear in the proper course.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: In reply to the question put to me by the noble Lord who has just sat down, I would point out that instructions are never given in this House to Private Bill Committees. I think it would be very unfortunate indeed if this precedent were broken into in any case, and it would be specially inconvenient in the case of a Joint Committee of an exceptionally strong character. The House is really not in a position to understand the bearings of the condition which my noble friend would wish to instruct the Committee to insert. It will be open to him to lay his views, or the views of those he represents, before the Committee, who, I have no doubt, will give them the consideration they deserve. On these grounds I should deprecate most strongly any attempt at binding the discretion of the Committee. With regard to the question of my noble friend Lord Monteagle of Brandon as to the postponement of the motion, I would point out that I have already consented to allow the Bills to stand over from last Monday till to-day. I have great difficulty in consenting to any further postponement. It is very important that the question should be sent down to the House of Commons before we rise for the Easter holidays, and that we should, if possible, get an answer from the Commons before that time arrives. Of course, that would be impossible if I postponed the Bills again till next week, or till a later period. Moreover, I venture to suggest to the House that the case of my noble friend for a further postponement is not a very strong one. He spoke of a Commission to inquire generally into the legislation regarding Irish railways. I presume that the noble Lord would have no idea of referring these individual Bills to such a Commission. These Bills must he dealt with by

  605
  Parliament, either in a Joint Committee or in the ordinary Committees of the two Houses. I imagine, judging from the length of time inquiries by Commission take, that it is not likely that such an inquiry by a Commission, if it is granted, would be completed in sufficient time to enable these Bills to be dealt with in the present session of Parliament. It is hardly fair to the promoters or, indeed, to the opponents of the Bills, that the consideration of them should be further postponed.
  LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON: Will the noble Earl tell me whether I should have an opportunity of moving my Amendment at a later stage in the event of a Commission not being granted?
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: It is open to the noble Lord to move an Amendment such as that of which he has given notice at a later stage. If the House of Commons assent to the appointment of a Joint Committee it will then be my duty to make a motion appointing the Committee. The noble Lord can move his Amendment then, but I think it right to inform him that I shall feel myself bound to oppose it.
  LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON: Then I need not trouble the House by moving my Amendment to-day.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Ordered, that a Message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution, and to desire their concurrence.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS.
  Annual Series: No. 2,392. Trade of Curaçoa and its Dependencies.
  CHINA, No. 1 (1900).
  Further correspondence respecting the affairs of China (in continuation of China, Nos. 1 and 2. (1899)).
  Papers relating to university education of Roman Catholics in certain colonies.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (RULES).
  Rule, dated 19th March, 1900, under the Land Purchase Acts.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  RAILWAYS (IRELAND) ACT. 1896 (RULES).
  Order in Council, dated 22nd March, 1900, amending the Railways (Ireland) Order, 1897.

  METROPOLITAN CATTLE MARKET.
  Account of moneys received and paid by the Chamberlain of the City of London in relation to the Metropolitan Cattle Market, for the year 1899; also an account of extraordinary works executed other than general repairs for the same period.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LONDON GOVERNMENT ACT, 1899 (METROPOLITAN BOROUGHS).
  Draft Orders in Council for the establishment of the metropolitan boroughs of Chelsea, Finsbury, Kensington, and Paddington, and incorporating the councils thereof, and for other purposes connected therewith. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed. (No. 40.)

  COPYRIGHT BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, this Bill is, for the most part, word for word the same Bill that passed through the Select Committee of your Lordships' House last year. In two particulars, however, it differs. The International Copyright Clauses have been re-drafted by Lord Thring, who has had the advice of the Foreign Office. The Committee are under a very deep obligation to Lord Thring for having undertaken this exceedingly difficult task, and for re-drafting the international clauses in such a way as to make them free from objection. Lord Thring has added to the Bill certain Custom House Clauses in order to facilitate its working. The question of colonial copyright was very carefully considered

  607
  in the Committee. We had before us an eminent professor from Canada who was empowered to give evidence on behalf of Canadian authors, and, to some extent, on behalf of Canadian publishers. The principal change the Bill proposes is to remedy the grievance that is felt in the colonies, particularly in Canada, and which presses hardly on colonial publishers. The present law gives an advantage to the English publisher over the colonial publisher, for while the English publisher is empowered to flood the colonies with an English copyright edition, the colonial publisher is expressly forbidden to import into England his own colonial copyright edition. This Bill proposes to place the English publishers under the same restriction as the colonial publishers are now under, and I am pleased to find that the English publishers concur in the change, and think it is only right that it should be carried into effect. It may be of interest to your Lordships to know that if the Select Committee, to whom I shall move that this Bill be referred if it is read a second time, is appointed, a very distinguished author, Mr. Samuel Clemens, better known as "Mark Twain," is desirous of giving evidence, and I am sure the Committee will gladly hear him.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Monkswell.)
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I have, owing to special circumstances, the duty of representing the Board of Trade in this House for the time, and, on behalf of that Department, and in so far as that Department is interested, I do not propose to offer any objection to the Second Reading of the Bill or to the appointment of the Select Committee. But I hope, in assenting to this motion, that it will not be understood that we assent to anything further, or agree that at the present time it will be convenient that these Bills should be passed into law. I do not think that the course taken by the noble Lord opposite is altogether the most convenient one. He has candidly told your Lordships that in two points—one an important point—the Copyright Bills down for Second Reading to-day are not the same as those which passed through certain stages in this House last year. The Bills as they were then passed were sent to various colonies
  608
  for observation, and I think ft will be obviously very undesirable that different Bills from those sent to the colonies should make progress through Parliament until a full opportunity has been given for the answers to have been received from the Colonial Governments. I am not, of course, in a position to say definitely how far those answers have been received, but up to the last date when any communication was made to the Board of Trade on the subject answers had only been received from very few of the colonies. My noble friend who represents the Colonial Office may be able to give more information than I can on that subject, but I have to say, on behalf of the Board of Trade, that they think it undesirable to hold out any hope that the Bills will have a rapid progress.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of SELBORNE): I must confess that the course which the promoters of this Bill have taken does seem to me to be rather inconvenient. The Bill, as it passed the Select Committee last year, was sent, at the request of its promoters, to all the colonies concerned, and the assumption made in sending the Bill was that it would be reintroduced into Parliament practically unmodified. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill has spoken as if the changes which have been introduced are not of great importance, but I must take leave to differ from him. Without worrying the House by giving details of the changes, I may say that in our opinion the Bill has been materially modified, and it will be absolutely necessary to send the fresh Bill, when it emerges from the new Select Committee, again to all the colonies, for no answer made in respect of the Bill of last year can fairly be held as binding on them in respect of the Bill now introduced. So far, three answers only have been received from the colonies, namely, from the Cape, Natal, and South Australia, but we are expecting the other answers shortly. I only make this statement in order to put the position of the Colonial Office quite clear. Whilst we are willing in respect of this Bill, when it emerges from the Select Committee, to act as the forwarding agency to the colonial governments without accepting any responsibility for the Bill, any delay that occurs in the solution of this matter must be laid, not to the door of the

  609
  Colonial Office or of the colonies, but of the promoters of this Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): I do not wish to commit myself to the merits of the alteration, but I think it only right, in justice to the noble Lord who drafted the Bills, to say that he had to deal with a mass of confusion which none but a lawyer could properly appreciate, and that he has managed with wonderful skill to evolve harmony and clearness out of that confusion.
  LORD THRING: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the praise he has bestowed on this Bill. I cannot imagine what the Colonial Office really mean. The Bill, so far as the Colonial Clauses are concerned, is practically the same as the Bill of last year. It is true that the International Clauses have been changed, but that has been done with the approbation of the Foreign Office. So far as the Colonial Clauses are concerned, there is, as I have said, no substantial difference whatever between the present Bill and that of last year.
  LORD MONKSWELL: The noble Earl the Under Secretary for the Colonies is mistaken in assuming that any alteration has been made in the Colonial Clauses.
  On Question agreed to; Bill read 2a, and referred to a Select Committee.
  The following Lords were named of the Select Committee—

  L. Chancellor.

  E. Selborne.

  V. Knutsford.

  L. Balfour.

  L. Hatherton.

  L. Monkswell.

  L. Thring.

  L. Farrer.

  L. Welby.

  L. Davey.

  L. Avebury.

  The Committee to meet on Tuesday next at Twelve o'clock, and to appoint their own Chairman.

  COPYRIGHT (ARTISTIC) BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, this Bill comes before the House under totally different circumstances from those of the Literary Copyright Bill. The latter Bill passed through a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, but the evidence with regard to the Artistic Copyright Bill was not completed. This Bill has been absolutely and entirely redrafted by Lord Thring, and it therefore differs, not only in form, but to a considerable extent in substance, from the Bill of last year. I believe, however, that those interested in the production and sale of works of art will greatly prefer the Bill as it now stands to the Bill of last year. Whereas last year the Bill proposed certain restrictions on copyright, both as to the place of producing the artistic work and the nationality of the producer, and as to registration, the Bill as it at present stands sweeps away every one of those conditions and gives the widest possible copyright. In the Bill of last year, also, a, longer term of copyright were given for different kinds of artistic work This Bill, again, sweeps away those distinctions, and gives the longer term to every description of artistic work. There are, no doubt, other more or less substantial differences between this Bill and the Bill of last year, which are the result, to a great extent, of the evidence that was put before us. I will not attempt to point out these differences, partly because I admit that this Bill is put before the House in a tentative form, and partly because there was such a great difference of opinion between the witnesses who were examined as to the interpretation of last year's Bill that I am not able to say with confidence in what particulars this Bill differs from the one of last year. Whilst for the form we are indebted to Lord Thring, as regards the substance of the measure Lord Knutsford and myself were consulted, and the Bill in its present form must be considered as being not only agreed to by Lord Thring and myself, but also by Lord Knutsford.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and referred to a Select Committee.
  The Lords following were named of the Select Committee—

  L. Chancellor.

  E. Selborne.

  V. Knutsford.

  611

  L. Balfour.

  L. Hatherton.

  L. Monkswell.

  L. Thring.

  L. Farrer.

  L. Welby.

  L. Davey.

  L. Avebury.

  The Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at Twelve o'clock, and to appoint their own Chairman.

  COLONIAL DEFENCE.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I rise to ask Her Majesty's Government (1) whether the duty of self-defence is imposed on a self-governing colony: (2) whether, in the event of war between Her Majesty and a Foreign Power, a self-governing colony can declare itself neutral; (3) whether a Colonial Government which declines to call out its forces or otherwise defend the colonial territory against invasion is liable to compensate those who suffer damage within the territory from the enemy. I must ask the indulgence of your Lordships while I say a few words upon these questions. They refer to the relations between the mother country and her colonies which possess responsible government. Although I am referring in a special sense, and, perhaps, almost exclusively, to the British Empire and the colonies of the British Empire, because Great Britain alone has pursued a system of education and of watching her colonies with the view of ultimately conferring upon them the benefits of responsible self-government, I think your Lordships will also see that these questions refer chiefly to the colonies of South Africa, and to the position of affairs there at the present time, as they have been revealed to us by the Papers which have just recently been laid upon the Table. Responsible government, of course, implies certain privileges and also certain obligations, but so far as I have been able to ascertain Great Britain, when conferring the privileges of responsible self-government, has not as a rule laid down in definite words the corresponding obligations which the colony might be expected to assume. The duty of self defence is naturally one of the obligations which a colony receiving self government might be expected to assume: but the first notice of it that appears in Parliament is
  612
  in a resolution passed in the year 1862* without a division, on the Motion of Mr. Arthur Mills:—
  "Resolved, that this House, while it fully recognises the claim of all portions of the British Empire on Imperial aid against perils arising from the consequences of Imperial policy, is of opinion that colonies exercising the rights of self-government ought to undertake the main responsibility of providing for their own internal order and security, and ought to assist in their own external defence."
  The next case, and, perhaps, the most important, is that which is to be found in the Confederation of Canada Act, 1867, but there all duties connected with self defence are expressly reserved for treatment by the Colonial Parliament. The clause runs thus:—
  "The exclusive authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to Militia, Military, and Naval service and defence."
  In this case, the duty, which is more implied than expressed in other instances, is openly and explicitly stated. When we come to the case of the Cape of Good Hope we find that responsible Government was given in a rather peculiar manner. It came into existence there through the medium of an Act of the Colonial Legislature, which enabled Ministers to sit in Parliament, and which thereby conveyed the privileges of self-government without further direct allusion to that fact. That Act was passed in 1872. But in the Colonial Forces Act, 1892, whereby the Governor appears as Commander-in-Chief, it is stated in the interpretation clause that the word "Governor" means, "Governor acting in Council." Therefore, when acting as Commander-in-Chief within the colony the Governor acts by and with the advice of his responsible Ministers. As to a colony declaring itself neutral, I should have thought the position perfectly clear and distinct. The colonies, of course, have no representation abroad, and they have no foreign policy of their own. They are not consulted with regard to war, and if it had not been for the statement which is contained in Papers recently laid upon the Table, I should certainly not have thought it worth while to put the question. But, my Lords, on a recent occasion in the Cape Parliament, when there was a very important debate with reference to the passing of ammu-
  * See The Parliamentary Debates [Third Series]. Vol. clxv., page 1032.

  613
  nition through Cape Colony into the Orange Free State, Mr. Schreiner, the Prime Minister, in the course of the debate, used very remarkable and very important words.* He had been saying that he, believed there was very little chance of war; he was thoroughly persuaded that there would be no war. He said
  "If I am still to see, despite my best hopes and my deep convictions, that South Africa is to be the scene of war between whites, that one race is to be set against another race in any part of Africa, I shall still say—and I say this to-day, not merely to this colony, but to South Africa and he world—that I shall do my very best to maintain for this colony the position of standing apart and aloof from the struggle, both with regard to its forces and with regard to its people."
  Those words are very important words, and, of course, public attention was directed to them. It was some days later, in speaking to the High Commissioner (Sir Alfred Milner), that Mr. Schreiner expressed the feeling that he had been greatly misunderstood. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to read a short passage from the despatch in which Sir Alfred Milner describes what passed.†
  He says—
  "In the course of conversation, Mr. Schreiner expressed the feeling that his explanations on the subject in the House of Assembly had been greatly misunderstood. He protested against his winds being interpreted as a declaration that the Colony should remain neutral in case of hostilities between Her Majesty's (Government and the South African Republic. He had never harboured such an idea. I replied that in my opinion his words were open to this construction, and that I regretted them. In reply, he went on to explain at some length his point of view. The gist of it was that, while he fully admitted that in case of war between Her Majesty's Government and any other State, this Colony could not be neutral, yet he felt that in the interests of the Empire itself the two main objects which Colonial Ministers should, in that case, keep in view, would be to prevent civil war breaking out in the colony and to guard against the dangers of a native rising. Undoubtedly the forces of the colony should be employed to protect the colony, and he would regard any Minister as most culpable who ran any risk of damage being done to the colony, either from the South African Republic or the Orange Free State."
  In those words the Prime Minister retracted what was the natural impression
  * See Command Paper No. 43 (1900). "Further Correspondence Relating to Affairs in South Africa." page 29.
  † Ibid., page 33.
  614
  obtained from his remarks, and practically undertook that in the event of war he would call out the forces of the colony for its protection. Unhappily, with regard to the war itself, he was wrong. I thoroughly believe, so far as one can judge from reading the Papers, that from the very first Mr. Schreiner was persuaded—and not only was he persuaded but he was assured by President Steyn and others—that there would be no war; but unfortunately those assurances were not fulfilled. But when the war arose, did he call out the forces of the colony? Just before the outbreak of the war considerable irritation existed at Cape Town, because whilst ammunition and guns had been permitted to pass freely into the Free State, requests for ammunition and guns to be sent to Kimberley and other parts of the colony had been refused. Mr. Schreiner was, no doubt, fully persuaded that his reasons were good ones. He said there would be no war, and that there was no reason for sending ammunition, but when the war broke out, if other means had not been taken to arm Kimberley, it would, of necessity, have fallen owing to the action of the Colonial Government. There was also considerable dissatisfaction felt at Cape Town because Volunteers were not called out earlier than they were. However, on October 16, a few days after the war commenced, the Volunteers were called out and were placed under the control of Sir Redvers Buller. But a little later on—November 9—the Prime Minister took occasion to say that he would not call out the burghers for the defence of the colony, and he sent a minute to Sir Alfred Milner embodying that statement. He enclosed a circular which he had sent to the Civil Commissioners and to the resident magistrates of the colony, and which ran as follows*—
  "It has been represented to the Prime Minister that an impression exists that it is the intention of the Government to call out the burgher forces of this colony. The Prime Minister desires me, therefore, to inform you, and to direct you to give all possible publicity to the fact, that it is not intended to call out the burgher forces, that it is considered that the military forces of the Crown are sufficient to preserve, or, in case of a temporary incursion of the enemy, to restore order, and that all that is expected by the Government of the ordinary citizen is that he should remain loyal to Her Majesty, and give no countenance or
  * See Blue-book last referred to, page 212.

  615
  assistance to her enemies now invading this colony."
  Just consider what was the position of the Cape Colony at that particular moment. In Natal, Ladysmith had just been besieged. Kimberley was actually being beseiged. The north-east of the Cape Colony, and, indeed, the north, and I rather think even a portion of the west, were in rebellion, and under these circumstances one would have thought that the state of things was very critical as regarded the colony itself, and such as to justify, and, indeed, require any measure which it was in the power of the Colonial Ministers to take for the defence of the territory. As all events, that measure was not taken, and the result was that the colony suffered damage. The Colonial Ministers had not done all that was in their power to defend their territory. The injury was not confined to English colonists. Loyal Dutchmen have been looted just as much, and the question arises: Who is responsible for the damage which has been done? That is one of many similar questions which will have to be answered at no distant date. In the first instance, no doubt, the persons liable will be the Boers, who have done the damage, so far as it is possible to collect payment from them; but when you have passed from that point, pray who is then to be liable? Is it the British taxpayer, or does the recourse of the burghers who have suffered loss lie against their own Government, which did not do all that was in their power to protect them? This and similar questions must arise within a very short time. It is no good passing them by or attempting to ignore them. It is, usually, our unhappy fate to be too late in the consideration of African affairs, and it is much better that these things should be brought before the public now and be considered before the time for their solution arrives. I beg to ask the questions standing in my name.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The questions of the noble Lord are certainly very wide ones, and they are not made easier to answer by the fact that they have an abstract form about them which renders specific language rather difficult. I wish to guard myself, in endeavouring to answer these questions, from any attempt to frame new maxims on the complicated constitutional problems that
  616
  are involved. The first question is, whether the duty of self-defence is imposed on a self-governing colony. I took that question, in the first instance, to mean self-defence in the event of actual invasion. If that had been the question, of course the answer is that a self-governing colony is bound to do all it can in defence of its own territory against invasion, but I should add that there is also an obligation of honour, which we hold to be absolute, on the mother country to do what she can to assist the colony. But I rather gather from the speech of the noble Earl that he referred not to a condition of affairs resulting from actual invasion, but to what I may call the general position as between a self-governing colony and the mother country in normal times of peace. Well, if I am right in supposing that that was the point to which he wished to direct our attention, the answer is not difficult. The relations between the mother country and the self-governing colonies in respect of an attack from the sea are, in general principles, that the land defence lies in the sphere of the self-governing colony and the defence of the coaling stations or from sea attack lies with the mother country. The cases where a self-governing colony is liable to land invasion are so special that no general principles have ever been laid down in connection with them that I am aware of. As regards the second question—whether, in the event of war between Her Majesty and a foreign Power, a self-governing colony can declare itself neutral—it is perfectly obvious that no part of Her Majesty's dominions can claim to be at peace with a Power with which Her Majesty is at war. Now, the third question—whether a Colonial Government which declines to call out its forces or otherwise defend the colonial territory against invasion is liable to compensate those who suffer damage within the territory from the enemy—presents a purely abstract proposition, because there is no case to the point in connection with the war in South Africa. It is a matter of common knowledge that the Government of Natal has done all it can to use the colonial forces to repel the invasion of its territory, and it would be perfectly unjust to say that the Cape Government had declined to call out its forces. It has called out its Volunteers. It has called out its forces to the extent

  617
  to which it, and I may also say the Government, consider it wise that they should be called out. I do not go into the question of the exact moment at which they were called out, nor into the rather wide points involved in the word "otherwise" in the noble Lord's question. I must not be understood to say that on every point and in every particular the Cape Ministry has held the views of others who are responsible in connection with the war, but it would not be just or accurate to say that the Cape Government declined to call out its forces; and, in connection with the special point the noble Lord brought forward with respect to the burgher forces, I think it must have occurred to him that some of the burgher forces had much better not have been called out, because it is only a matter of common notoriety that we could not rely on the loyalty of all the burgher forces. Then, my Lords, when I am asked whether such a Government, on the hypothesis in question, is under a certain liability, I must decline altogether to lay down the law on a point which, I think, would puzzle even constitutional lawyers to answer—namely, what is liability, and under what conditions would liability intervene. All I can say in answer to the question of the noble Lord—and I would point out that he has only referred in this question to one class of possible damage consequent upon a state of warfare is that the damage arises from other causes than that referred to in the question. What Her Majesty's Government have aimed at from the beginning, and have openly avowed, is to endeavour to exact compensation to those to whom it is due from those who have caused the damage. The questions involved in compensation are very complicated and difficult. They concern the Colonial Government as well as Her Majesty's Government. The first care and anxiety in the question of compensation naturally lie with the Colonial Governments, who are, in the first place, responsible to the parties supposed to be injured, and it is for them to take steps in co-operation with Her Majesty's Government to see that compensation is exacted from those who caused the damage and paid to those who have suffered. All I can say is that this is, and must be, a matter of co-operation and consultation between the Colonial Govern-
  618
  ments and Her Majesty's Government. The question has not for a moment been lost sight of, but is now under careful consideration.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]—FUNDS AVAILABLE.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, the Motion which stands in my name is not conceived in any feeling of hostility towards the Education (Scotland) Bill. On the contrary, I believe that if the Secretary for Scotland can give the Return for which I ask in a sufficiently detailed form it will provide further data for argument in support of the Bill, and may also have the effect of providing even further funds to be devoted to the purposes of the Bill. The history of the last fifteen years has been rich in instances of grants-in-aid, equivalent grants, and the like. Indeed, I think that those who have not followed the subject closely may well be bewildered with regard to their number and the purposes for which they have been used, and, while I do not for a moment question the good intent of those grants or the way in which they have been applied by the various local bodies, yet I cannot but feel that the utmost benefit has not been got out of them, that in many instances they have been frittered away without conferring as much advantage as they might upon the localities to which they were given, and that even in the cases where they have been applied to the relief of rates, or nominally to the relief of rates, the relief has been infinitesimal, and they have been used rather as funds for extra expenditure which might not properly be charged on the rates. Three of these funds are taken hold of, consolidated, and applied for the purposes of the Bill, but in the speech which my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland made in introducing the Bill* he adumbrated an intention or the possibility of laying some charge on the £100,000 Equivalent Grant. It is with regard to each of the three funds which are named within the four corners of the Bill that I ask this Return, and also with regard to the £100,000 Equivalent Grant which is not specially named in the Bill, but which, I hope, may be charged to some extent for the purposes of the Bill.
  *See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxx., page 1031 (16th March, 1900).
  Moved, that there be laid before the House a Return of all the funds available in whole or in part under the Education (Scotland) Bill [H.L.], and the purposes for which they have hitherto been used by the various county and burgh authorities in Scotland. (The Lord Tweedmouth.)
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): I know perfectly well, without the disclaimer of the noble Lord, that his motion is not conceived in any hostile spirit to the Bill. I do not think it will be desirable to assent to the Return in the form in which he asks it, for the reason that in the form in which the motion is on the Paper it would be a duplication of information which is already before the House. The first of the three funds which are taken hold of by the Bill is the technical education money, provided under the Act of 1890. The expenditure of that fund is already given in a voluminous Report which is made year by year to Parliament. The technical name of that Return is the Technical Education Return, and it extends over something like seventy or eighty pages, and is brought down to date each year. I am sure that the noble Lord would be the first to acknowledge that it would be inexpedient to duplicate a Return of that magnitude and detail. The next of the three funds dealt with in the Bill is the secondary education money under the Act of 1892. Equally detailed information as to the expenditure of that fund will be found each year in the Report of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland. That information extends over something like thirty-five or forty pages, and it is of such a detailed kind that it would not be possible to put it usefully into the form of a Report, or, in fact, to alter the form of the information which is now given to Parliament. The third sum dealt with in the Bill is the £35,000 set apart two years ago for higher education. The first distribution of that money is now being made, and as it is not complete it would not be, at the moment, possible to give the information with regard to that fund which the noble Lord desires; but it is our intention, at as early a date as possible, probably in the next report of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, to give the information asked for. If I find it possible to give the informa-
  620
  tion at an earlier date than the publication of that Report, I will gladly do so. The equivalent grant under the Act of 1892 is not dealt with in the Bill. I think the noble Lord went rather further than I did in saying that I intended to lay hands on a part of this grant. What I said, so far as I remember, was that if I did not ask Parliament to devote it exclusively to secondary education and take it away from the local authorities, I hoped the local authorities would remember that they at present had it if they were asked to make a rate for the purpose of the Bill. The objects to which the money may be devoted are, either to the relief of local rates, in aid of expenses incurred under any statutory powervested in the local authorities in such a manner as they may determine, or to any scheme of public utility framed by them with the approval of the Secretary for Scotland. The amount in 1895 was £132,000; in 1896, £125,000; in 1897, £145,000: and last year £161,000. The sum will not be quite so great this year. Nearly the whole of that money goes at present in relief of rates; a very small portion of it indeed goes to what are I called schemes of utility, and a still smaller proportion to education in any form. I am not quite sure that at the Scottish Office we know exactly how much goes in schemes of public utility, because I have reason to suspect that we are not always consulted, and that our consent is sometimes assumed and not asked for. So far as that fund is concerned, I will endeavour to give the noble Lord what information I have. I am as anxious as he is that full information should be given to the public of the destination of that money, and if he will not press the motion at the present time I will try to agree with him upon a form of Return with regard to that money which will give the information he seeks.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My motion was aimed more at the last fund to which the noble Lord has alluded than the three previous ones, which are to be applied fully to the purposes of the Bill. I am grateful to him for his promise of information with regard to the equivalent grant, and I hope he will be able to give it to the House before the Education (Scotland) Bill is disposed of. I withdraw my motion.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  EDUCATION, ETC., SCHEMES—ORDERS IN COUNCIL.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I have put down this proposal for a Standing Order of the House in order to stop up a gap—not a very large one—in the working of our machinery. At present there are a certain number of Commissions and other bodies which have legislative powers to this extent—that they can make a scheme and lay it on the Table of the two Houses of Parliament, and then it becomes law at the end of a certain time if no Address is presented against it. It is obviously a considerable abuse, and if the matter was more important it would be a grave abuse, that by the delay of the printer in circulating a scheme nobody knows of its existence until a few days before the power of arresting it has expired. I have known it run very near to the edge of the time that is allowed. That, clearly, is an abuse, the possibility of which ought not to exist. I want to avoid using any language which would intimate that any serious miscarriage of justice or of public policy has taken place; but, still, it is an error that ought to be prevented, and it will be prevented by saying that the laying on the Table—a matter over which we have control—shall not take place until the scheme is printed, and that, when it is printed, it shall be circulated to peers.
  Ordered, That where by Statute any scheme before it can be sanctioned by Order in Council is ordered to lie on the Table for a prescribed number of days, it shall be laid on the Table in a printed form, and not otherwise; and thereupon shall forthwith be circulated to the Members of this House.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

  COMMISSIONS FOR YEOMANRY OFFICERS.
  LORD NEWTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is able to state the conditions upon which commissions in the Regular cavalry will be granted to Yeomanry officers.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: We propose to give one commission in the
  622
  cavalry to each Yeomanry brigade, upon the following conditions:—The candidate must be medically fit. Selected candidates will have to attend before the medical board in London; their age must be above twenty and under thirty, and they must be unmarried. These are the only conditions.

  RETIRED ARMY OFFICERS IN THE MILITIA.
  LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will modify the rule by which retired officers of the Army who are serving in the Militia are, on embodiment, deprived of their retired pay or pension, or deprived of 5 per cent. per annum on the amount of any gratuity they may have received for past services, and at the same time will not be permitted to receive the gratuity which is payable to Militia officers under certain circumstances on disembodiment. I hope your Lordships will allow me to say a few words with regard to this question, first, because of the great importance of the subject, and, secondly, because my noble friend near me says the question is involved. If your Lordships will bear with me for a few moments I will give you some instances of how this rule really works. The general rule is that an officer on full pay cannot receive half pay or retired pay. Therefore, when a retired Army officer who is in receipt of retired pay or a pension of any description is embodied with his Militia, and thereby goes on full pay, he loses his retired pay or his pension as the case may be. The working of this rule is exceedingly hard in many ways. Take the case of two officers who have served together in the Army, and who leave the Army at the same time on retired pay or pensions. One officer goes into the Militia, while the other retires into private life. On the embodiment of the Militia in the event of war or for any other reason the retired officer who belongs to the Militia is called up to do duty with the Militia, and the officer who has done nothing and is still in receipt of a pension is called back to do duty with the Army. The latter officer, on returning to duty in the Army, received a gratuity of £100 to provide himself with uniform. He has for a certain number of years done nothing whatever except draw his pension, sit in his club, and smoke cigarettes. He has not

  623
  served his country in any way. The other officer has entered the Militia and done much hard work, but he does not get the £100. Again, when the Militia are disembodied, the officers of Militia, having been embodied for a certain amount of time, are entitled to a gratuity, but an ex-officer of the Army is not entitled to this gratuity. Therefore, to use a common phrase, he is "had" both ways. I am sure the rule was never intended to work in that way. Another important question is the amount which is deducted from officers who have received gratuities. Some officers retire from the Army having received a lump sum down, but the War Office proceed to deduct five per cent. per annum from the pay of these officers, when they are embodied, on the original amount of their gratuity. I met this afternoon a relative of my own who is in command of embodied Militia who is having deducted the sum of £61 per annum. I do not like to characterise the action of the War Office in this matter as usurious, but five per cent. is an ideal interest which no one can get in these days, and the reduction of five per cent. seems to me more worthy of the late lamented Isaac Gordon than of the Government of a great country. I hope the noble Marquess will see his way to remove this great injustice.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My noble friend has explained a somewhat intricate case with much graphic power, though not, I think, with absolute accuracy on one or two points of detail. He told your Lordships, with truth, that the practice has always been not to allow a retired officer who is re-employed to draw both his retired pay and the pay of the post in which he is newly employed. I do not think that that is, in principle, an unreasonable rule. The theory is that when an officer retires on a pension, the State has a lien upon him, and may recall him to the service. When he is so recalled, I think it is perfectly fair to tell him that he must for a time cease to receive his retired pay and be content with the pay of the post to which he has been appointed. The only exception from that rule of which I am aware is that of Militia and Yeomanry officers, who are allowed during the period of preliminary drill and training of their regiment to receive both retired pay and active pay. And as that excep-
  624
  tion existed we thought it a reasonable thing, in the case of embodied Militia, to allow officers for a period of one month to receive both active and retired pay. The noble Lord gave us the case of officers who had retired, not on a pension, but on a gratuity, and he dwelt upon the hardship of the present practice. It has certainly been the case that the gratuity received in certain cases by officers on their retirement has been regarded in the regulations as being in effect a commuted pension, and in order to avoid the disparity between the case of the officer who retires on a pension and the case of his brother officer who retires on a gratuity, it has been usual to deduct from the pay of the re-employed officer a sum which was considered to be equivalent to the income which he would have received if he had retired, not on a gratuity, but on a pension. I think there is a good deal to be said for the logic of that arrangement, but I am bound to say that, having considered the matter very attentively, I have come to the conclusion that the case is one in which it is perhaps not desirable to press logic too far. I do not think that when you come to consider the facts it is quite fair to contend that these gratuities are really commuted pensions. They are sums of money given to officers as a kind of inducement to them to retire at a comparatively early stage of their career, in order to expedite the flow of promotion. That, I believe, is the accurate history of these gratuities. That being so, I am inclined to hold that these gratuities should be regarded as final payments, and that it is not fair to make any deduction from the active pay of the re-employed officer. I will, therefore, not accept my noble friend's suggestion that the rate of deduction should be reduced, but I am prepared to say that the deduction from officers' pay, which has hitherto prevailed, will no longer be made. Then my noble friend spoke of the gratuity which is receivable by officers of embodied Militia battalions at the end of the embodiment. He is evidently under the impression that when a re-employed officer comes to the end of his embodied service, he is not considered entitled to the usual gratuity. That is a misapprehension of my noble friend's. The only case in which any doubt arises is the case in which a re-employed officer, on account of his re-employment,

  625
  becomes entitled to some addition to his existing pension or gratuity. Where that is the case we allow the officer to receive either the increase of his pension or gratuity to which his embodied service in the Militia entitles him, or to receive the usual gratuity received by other Militia officers. He may make the bargain which suits him best, and I am sure my noble friend will admit it would be impossible to treat him more fairly than that.

  SUPERSESSION OF MILITIA OFFICERS.
  LORD RAGLAN: I have one other question to ask the noble Marquess—namely, whether any decision has been arrived at as to the wholesale supersession of Militia officers in South Africa by officers of other and junior forces.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: When the noble Lord brought this matter before the House the other day* I promised him I would take the advice of persons better acquainted with questions of military precedence than a civilian can pretend to be. I have taken that advice, and I am sorry to tell him that the only conclusion I can come to is that the supersession of which he complains must continue. I do not think he is quite correct when he describes it as the "supersession of militia officers in South Africa by officers of other and junior forces." What has happened is this. We have given to officers in the Imperial Yeomanry, to officers in certain Volunteer companies, and to Militia officers attached to Line regiments, commissions in the Regular Army. We did it in the cases of the Imperial Yeomanry and the Imperial Volunteers because the commissions of officers in these branches of the service did not confer upon them any right of command outside the United Kingdom. To meet that difficulty we had to enlist the men of the Imperial Yeomany and the Imperial Volunteers in the Regular Army, and to give to their officers commissions in the Regular Army, and the result has, no doubt, been that these officers, in virtue of holding these temporary commissions in the Regular Army, do take precedence of officers of the same rank in the Militia. I can understand that there may be some little feeling of sentiment about this matter; but I am assured that
  * See page 425 of this Volume.
  626
  what we have done can really lead to very little practical inconvenience. The occasions upon which a senior Militia officer would find himself superseded or commanded by a junior officer of the same rank—say, of the Imperial Yeomanry—would be very few and far between. I would be very glad if my noble friend or anyone else would suggest a solution of the difficulty other than that which has commended itself to us; but up to the present it has not been forthcoming; and I rather put it to your Lordships that this is one of those minor inconveniences to which we have to submit in time of war. It is an emergency measure, and a measure of temporary operation. I have very often had to consider questions of supersession in the Army, and no doubt, when the case is one in which an officer or a number of officers are permanently superseded by their brother officers, the matter becomes very serious, because then the effect is a lasting one upon the career of the superseded officer; but in this case the matter is, as your Lordships are aware, merely one of temporary importance. These commissions in the Regular Army are given to officers of the Imperial Yeomanry and the Imperial Volunteers only while the war lasts. When the war is over the officers revert to their former positions, and the Militia, officers will no longer be junior to them.

  HOME DEFENSIVE FORCES.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Before the House adjourns I wish to put a question to my noble friend the Secretary of State for War, of which I have given him private notice. It refers to a motion which I have put down on the Paper for a future sitting. I have given notice to move for a Return showing the state and organisation of our home defensive force on 20th February, 1900. I wish to ask my noble friend whether he sees any objection to granting such a Return.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I can assure the noble Earl that I am most anxious not to withhold from him or from your Lordships' House any information upon such points as those which are referred to in the motion of which the noble Earl has given notice, but I must add that I believe it would be contrary to usage and not in the public interest that the Return should be given, and if the

  627
  noble Earl moves for it I shall with much regret be obliged to ask the House not to give it to him.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I must consider whether or not I shall move for the Return. I admit that the terms of the Return are unusual, but the times are unusual. My noble friend is busily engaged in creating an emergency army, and it is an emergency Return that I am asking for, and one which I think we ought to have. If I go to the Foreign Military Attachés in this country I shall no doubt be able to get the information.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Though I object to the Return, I shall be very glad to give the noble Earl, if he will be good enough to ask me for it, any information or access to any official documents he may desire.

NEW BILL.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (IRELAND) BILL [Lords.]
  A Bill to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors to children was presented by the Lord Sudley (E. Arran) (for the Viscount Templetown); read 1a; to be printed, and to be read 2a on Tuesday next. (No. 41.)
  House adjourned at five minutes before Six of the clock till To-morrow half past Ten of the clock.