Sitting of 30 January 1902

Preamble
The House met at Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  ABERCARN URBAN DISTRICT GAS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. M'Kenna and Colonel Morgan.
  BARKING GAS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Humphreys-Owen and Mr. Renshaw.
  BEDFORD CORPORATION WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought by Mr. Pym and Lord Alwyne Compton.
  BELFAST CORPORATION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Johnston and Sir James Haslett.
  BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Elliott Lees and Mr. Hoult.
  BOURNEMOUTH GAS AND WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Dickinson and Mr. Goddard.
  BRIGHTON AND ROTTINGDEAN SEASHORE ELECTRIC TRAMROAD.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Loder, Mr. Vernon-Wentworth, and Sir Henry Fletcher.
  BROADSTAIRS GAS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Lowther and Mr. Kimber.
  BROMLEY GAS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir William Hart Dyke, Sir John Aird, and Mr. Firbank.
  BRYNMAWR AND WESTERN VALLEYS RAILWAY (VESTING).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Macartney and Mr. David MacIver.
  CAVEHILL AND WHITEWELL TRAMWAYS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Atherley-Jones and Mr. Carvill.
  CHARD GAS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Edward Stanley and Colonel Welby.
  CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Joseph Dimsdale and Sir Horatio Davies.
  CITY OF LONDON (STREETS).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Joseph Dimsdale and Sir Horatio Davies.
  CLAY CROSS RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Victor Cavendish, Mr. Bromley-Davenport, Mr. Markham, Mr. Thomas Bayley, and Mr. T. D. Bolton.
  CLEETHORPES IMPROVEMENT.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Doughty and Mr. Harold J. Reckitt.
  COLWYN BAY AND COLWYN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Roberts and Mr. William Jones.
  COMMERCIAL GAS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir John Colomb and Mr. Kimber.
  CORNWALL ELECTRIC POWER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Caine and Mr. Hain.
  DARTFORD IMPROVEMENT.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir William Hart Dyke and Mr. Forster.
  DERBYSHIRE AND NOTTINGHAMSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Thomas Bayley and Mr. Bolton.
  DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BOARD.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harrington, Mr. M'Cann, and Mr. John Gordon.
  DUBLIN, WICKLOW, AND WEXFORD RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Field, Mr. John Gordon, Viscount Milton, and Mr. James O'Connor.
  EAST WORCESTERSHIRE WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Philip Foster and Mr. Martin.
  ERDINGTON TRAMWAYS
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Muntz and Mr. Cecil.
  FAREHAM GAS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir John Aird and Mr. Brand.
  FINCHLEY IMPROVEMENT.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Captain Balfour and Captain Bowles.
  FINEDON URBAN DISTRICT WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Channing and Mr. Charles Spencer.
  FURNESS RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Victor Cavendish and Mr. Richard Cavendish.
  GARSTON AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS AND ELECTRIC SUPPLY (TRANSFER).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Higginbottom, Mr. William Lawrence, and Mr. Warr.
  GLOUCESTERSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir John Dorington, Mr Scott Montagu, and Mr. Cripps.
  GRAND JUNCTION WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir John Colomb and Mr. Goulding.
  GREAT CENTRAL AND MIDLAND RAILWAYS (SOUTH YORKSHIRE RAILWAYS).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Henderson, Mr. Chapman, Sir Frederick Mappin, and Sir William Coddington.
  GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Henderson and Mr. Chapman.
  GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Strutt and Mr. Penn.
  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (No. 1).
  Petition and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jackson and Mr. Fison.
  GEEAT WESTERN RAILWAY (Crumlin Viaduct).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David M'Iver and Mr. Brassey.
  HIGHAM FERRERS AND RUSHDEN WATER BOARD.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Channing and Colonel Stopford-Sackville.
  HULL, BARNSLEY, AND WEST RIDING JUNCTION RAILWAY AND DOCK (SOUTH YORKSHIRE EXTENSION LINES).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Seymour King, Mr. Firbank, Mr. Charles Wilson, and Sir James Woodhouse.
  KENT ELECTRIC POWER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ormsby-Gore and Mr. Price.
  KENT WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir William Hart Dyke and Mr. Penn).
  KINGSCOURT, KEADY, AND ARMAGH RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lonsdale, Sir James Haslett, Mr. T. M. Healy, and Colonel Walker.
  KNARESBOROUGH IMPROVEMENT.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Wharton and Colonel Gunter.
  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY (SOUTHPORT AND CHESHIRE LINES EXTENSION RAILWAY TRANSFER).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir William Hornby and Mr. Fielden.
  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir William Hornby, Mr. Fielden, Mr. T. M. Healy, and Mr. Joseph Nolan.
  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir William Hornby and Mr. Fielden.
  LEICESTERSHIRE AND WARWICKSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Muntz and Sir John Rolleston.
  LEYLAND AND FARINGTON GAS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tomlinson and Mr. Worsley-Taylor.
  LIMPSFIELD AND OXTED WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Cubitt and Sir John Aird.
  LINCOLN AND EAST COAST RAILWAY AND DOCK (ABANDONMENT).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bromley-Davenport and Mr. Perks.
  LIVERPOOL CORPORATION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Lawrence, Mr. Warr, and Mr. Higginbottom.
  LONDON AND INDIA DOCKS (LIGHTERAGE RATES, ETC.)
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Alfred Haslam and Colonel Denny.
  LONDON AND INDIA DOCKS (VARIOUS POWERS).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Joseph Dimsdale and Mr. Alban Gibbs.
  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir William Houldsworth, Colonel Lockwood, and Mr. Macartney.
  LONDON SCHOOL BOARD (SUPERANNUATION).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Macnamara and Mr. Ernest Flower.
  LONDON, TILBURY, AND SOUTHEND RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Round and Mr. Lyttelton.
  MANCHESTER AND LIVERPOOL ELECTRIC EXPRESS RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir James Fergusson and Mr. Schwann.
  MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir James Fergusson and Mr. Schwann.
  MANCHESTER (MARKET STREET AREA) IMPROVEMENTS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir James Fergusson and Mr. Groves.
  METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Perks and Sir Charles Dalrymple.
  METROPOLITAN RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. McLaren and Sir Christopher Furness.
  MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL TRAMWAYS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Frederick Dixon Hartland and Mr. Bigwood.
  MIDLAND RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Frederick Mappin and Sir William Coddington.
  MIDLAND RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS)
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Frederick Mappin and Sir William Coddington.
  NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE ELECTRIC SUPPLY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Burt and Mr. William Allan.
  NEWPORT CORPORATION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Colonel Morgan and Mr. Joseph Lawrence.
  NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Joseph W. Pease, Sir James Kitson, and Mr. Wharton.
  NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Guthrie and Mr. Hermon-Hodge.
  NORTH METROPOLITAN TRAMWAYS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bigwood and Captain Charles Balfour
  NORTH WARWICKSHIRE WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Jones and Mr. Trevelyan.
  NORTHUMBERLAND ELECTRIC POWER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Trevelyan, Mr. Matthew White Ridley, and Major Evans-Gordon.
  NOTTINGHAM AND RETFORD RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Lord Henry Bentinck and Sir Frederick Milner.
  OMAGH URBAN DISTRICT GAS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Murnaghan and Mr. T. W. Russell.
  PRESTON CORPORATION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tomlinson and Mr. Worsley-Taylor.
  RATHMINES AND RATHGAR URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Macartney, Mr. John Gordon, Mr. Lonsdale, and Mr. William Moore.
  RICHMOND HILL (PRESERVATION OF VIEW.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Skewes-Cox and Mr. Bigwood.
  SALFORD CORPORATION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Groves, Mr. Platt-Higgins and Mr. Knowles.
  SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Banbury and Mr. Kimber.
  SOUTH WALES ELECTRICAL POWER DISTRIBUTION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alfred Thomas and Mr. D. A. Thomas.
  THAMES RIVER STEAMBOAT SERVICE.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alban Gibbs and Sir Fortescue Flannery.
  TICEHURST WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Trevelyan and Mr. William Jones.
  TIPTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Alfred Hickman, Mr. Walford Green, and Mr. Norman.
  WADHORST GAS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Jones and Mr. Trevelyan.
  WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Colston and Mr. Walford Green.
  WHITECHAPEL AND BOW RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Perks and Sir Charles Dalrymple.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS].
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in respect of the Bills comprised in the List reported by the Chairman of Ways and Means as intended to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with in the following cases, viz.:—
  Abertillery Urban District Council.
  Ashton-under-Lyne and Dukinfield Corporations (Alma Bridge, &c.).
  Baker Street and Waterloo Railway.
  Barry Railway.
  Birmingham Assay Office
  Birmingham Corporation Water.
  Bradford Corporation.
  Bradford-on-Avon Gas.
  Bristol Corporation.
  Bristol Water.
  Brompton and Piccadilly Circus Railway (New Lines, &c).
  Brynaman and Neath Railway.
  Buxton Urban District Council.
  Caterham and District Gas.
  Central London Railway (New Lines).
  Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway (No. 3).
  Charing Cross, Hammersmith, and District Electric Railway (No. 2).
  Chigwell, Loughton, and Woodford Gas.
  City and Crystal Palace Railway.
  City and North East Suburban Electric Railway (No. 2).
  Consett Water.
  Darley Dale Water.
  Deal and Walmer Gas.
  Devonport Corporation (General Powers).
  Devonport Corporation (Water).
  Devonport Water.
  Donegal Railway.
  Dover Harbour.
  Edgeware and Hampstead Railway.
  Felixstowe and Walton Improvement.
  Great Northern and City Railway.
  Great Northern and Strand Railway.
  Great Northern Railway (No. 2).
  Hastings Harbour District Railway (Extension of Time).
  Isle of Wight Central Railway.
  King's Road Railway (Putney Extension).
  Lancashire County (Lunatic Asylums).
  Leicester Corporation.
  Liverpool Cathedral.
  Liverpool Grain Storage and Transit Company.
  London and South Western Railway.
  London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway.
  London United Electric Railways.
  Longwood Gas.
  Margate Corporation Water.
  Medway and Thames Canal.
  Menai Bridge Urban District Council.
  Midland Counties Junction Railways (Sale) Act, 1901 (Amendment).
  National Telephone Company (Kingston-upon-Hull).
  National Telephone Company (Manchester Area).
  Newcastle and Gateshead Water.
  Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Tramways.
  North and South Shields Electric Railway.
  North-East London Railway (No. 2).
  North Staffordshire Tramways.
  North-West London Railway.
  Nottingham Corporation.
  Owen's College, Manchester.
  Piccadilly and City Railway (No. 2).
  Plymouth, Devonport, and South Western Junction Railway.
  Rhondda Urban District Council.
  Rickmansworth Gas.
  Rusthall Manor.
  South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways.
  Street Urban District Council Water.
  Sutton Bridge Dock.
  Swansea Corporation.
  Swansea Corporation Water.
  Swindon United Gas.
  Taff Vale Railway.
  Tiverton Market.
  Tyne Improvement Commission.
  Warrington Corporation (Education).
  Waterford and Bishop Foy Endowed Schools.
  Weardale and Shildon District Water.
  West Hampshire Water.
  Wigan Corporation.
  Wrexham Water.
  Ystradfellte Water.
  And that they have certified that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in the following cases, viz:—
  Central Argentine and Rosario Railways.
  Rhymney Railway.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the Petitions for the following Bills, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with viz.:—
  Central Argentine and Rosario Railway Bill [Lords].
  Rhymney Railway Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH.
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bills, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—
  Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Bill.
  West Ham Corporation Bill.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL.
  Standing Orders not complied with referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
PETITIONS.
  GROCERS' LICENCES.
  Petition from Flint, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  MIDWIVES BILL.
  Petition from Mitcham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Euxton;—and, Hemel Hempstead; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS. ETC.
  Copy presented, of Directory of Industrial Associations in the United Kingdom [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Return of Evictions in Ireland for the quarter ended 31st December, 1901 [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 1901, as furnished to the Chief Secretary for Ireland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EXPLOSION AT THE UNIVESAL COLLIERY, GLAMORGANSHIRE.
  Copy presented, of Reports to His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department by W. Galloway, esquire, F.G.S., Professor of Mining at the University College of South Wales and Monmouthshire; S. T. Evans, Esq., K.C., M.P., and J. T. Robson, esquire, one of His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines, on the circumstances attending an Explosion which occurred at the Universal Colliery, Glamorganshire, on the 24th May, 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (APPROPRIATION ACCOUNTS).
  Appropriation Accounts presented, for the year ending 31st March, 1901, together with the Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon and and certain Reports upon Store Accounts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 35.]
(3.35.) QUESTIONS.

  South African War—Losses of British Merchants in the Transvaal.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government has considered the position of a number of British merchants carrying on business at Pretoria and Johannesburg, who shut up their premises and abstained from further dealing with the enemy after the beginning of the war; whether these merchants will receive compensation for their losses, where their stores of goods have been commandeered without payment by the Boers, or where losses have been caused otherwise than by their default; and whether permits will now be given on an adequate scale for these merchants to send trustworthy agents up the country to fully restart their businesses.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): Yes, sir. I have considered the position of the merchants referred to, and am aware that in many cases they have suffered unmerited loss, but such loss has been suffered by other classes as a consequence of the war, and no pledge can be given to pay compensation. With regard to permits, the issue is entirely in the hands of the local authorities, with whose discretion I cannot interfere, but I am informed that the number of permits granted has been largely increased lately.
  MR. CHANNING: Seeing that this question of compensation affects other classes as well as those indicated in the Question, may I take it that the matter is not absolutely closed in the view of the Government?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I really cannot add anything to the answer I have already given.

  Peace Proposals.
  MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he is able to state when the Papers containing the communication of the Dutch Government will be laid upon the Table.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am unable to name the date on which these Papers shall be laid. I do not imagine that the Dutch Government are in possession, or will be in possession until to-morrow, of the reply of His Majesty's Government, and, therefore, it is quite impossible to lay them this week. I hope, however, there will be no long delay.
  MR. DALZIEL: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to publish the communication received and the reply, without waiting for further communications?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; I do not know that I can answer that question.

  Administration of the Transvaal.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether, in view of the statement made by Lord Kitchener to the Burgher Police Committee, as reported in an enclosure of Lord Milner's despatch to the Colonial Secretary of 22nd January, 1901, to the effect that the Secretary for the Colonies had foreshadowed an enlightened progressive Government in which the burghers themselves would take a prominent share, and which would ensure to them and their children all their rights of property as well as their ancient laws and customs, it is intended to defer any legislative interference with such rights of property and ancient laws and customs until such time as the body of the burgher population of the Transvaal can at least have cognizance of such new legislation, and can be consulted whether directly or indirectly.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I can give no pledge, but it is not intended to interfere by legislation more than is absolutely necessary for the proper administration of the country.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether, in few of the facts that, as stated by Lord Milner in his despatch of 14th December, 1901, permanent laws of
  1312
  a fundamental character were at that time already drafted by the legal adviser to the Transvaal Administration for submission to the Legislative Council when it should have been called into existence, and that, in particular, an ordinance relating to the mining of gold and other precious metals was stated by the legal adviser to be in course of preparation, it has been decided to create a Legislative Council for the Transvaal to whom these matters shall be referred, or whether they will be determined by the Executive Council consisting of the Administrator and Heads of Departments only.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: It is proposed to create a Legislative Council as soon as practicable, but I cannot fix any time for this which must depend on the state of the country and the progress of military operations.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that no "laws of a fundamental character" shall be passed?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already said that I cannot give any pledge.

  Martial Law at the Cape.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: On behalf of the hon. Member for Morpeth, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether, when martial law was proclaimed in Cape Town on the 9th of October last, any acts of war had taken place near that city; and, if so, can he state within what distance and where; whether he is aware that on that day the private house of Mrs. Koopman, and the professional offices of Messrs. Sauer and Standen, and of Messrs. Van der Byl and Van der Horst were taken possession of, and searched by soldiers or detectives; is he aware of the position of Mrs. Koopman, who is a widow lady in Cape Town, and of Messrs. Sauer and Standen and Messrs. Van der Byl and Van der Horst who are solicitors there; whether the house of Mrs. Koopman is still watched by detectives; whether any incriminating documents were found either in her

  1313
  house or in the offices of the gentlemen named; if not, whether he will say upon what ground and by whose orders these British subjects were subjected to this treatment?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): Martial law was declared in the Cape ports to prevent assistance being given to the enemy through the medium of those ports and the landing of undesirable persons. The offices of Messrs. Van der Byl and Van der Horst were searched as stated, and certain documents were discovered. I have no information about the other points raised in the Question.

  Cost of Colonial Troops.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, what portion of the pay of Colonial troops employed in South Africa is borne by the respective colonies where those troops were raised; and what portion of the expense of equipping those troops and of transporting them to the theatre of war is borne by the colonies.
  MR. BRODRICK: Approximately, the cost of the purely local troops employed locally is borne by the colonies. The cost of the other troops, including the oversea contingents, is borne by Imperial funds. In the case of some of the latter corps, which were raised in the early part of the war, the cost of raising, equipping, and transporting them was borne by the colonies. It is impossible at present to give any figures.

  Major Burnham.
  MR. S. F. ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, if Major Burnham, late chief scout on the staff of Earl Roberts in South Africa, was an applicant for the post of instructor of scouting at Aldershot; and, if so, can he state why, taking into consideration this officer's experience in that department of warfare, his claims were not favourably entertained.
  MR. BRODRICK: I am afraid my hon. friend is under a misapprehension. There is no such post at Aldershot.

  Commission on Colonial Disbursements.
  MR. BARLOW: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for
  1314
  War, whether any other colonies than that of New South Wales, and, if so, which have asked for a commission on money expended by them at the request and on account of the British War Office, and whether such commission is to be paid to all the colonies who have made disbursements, or only to New South Wales; and can he state what precedent there is for the payment of such a commission to New South Wales.
  MR. BRODRICK: The Colony of New South Wales was the only colony which raised the question, but the commission will be granted to all the colonies who made such disbursements, and their Governments have been so notified. The commission was recently given to the Government of Tasmania. As regards precedent, 3 per cent. is the rate of commission allowed on all payments of Army pensions made by Colonial Governments on behalf of the Imperial Government.

  Royal Army Medical Corps—Civil Employment in South Africa.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether there exists any Army or general order in South Africa by which members of the Royal Army Medical Corps are debarred from applying for permanent civil employmemt in South Africa, and if no disability exists would he cause the fact to he communicated to commanding officers in South Africa, in order that they may not place limitations on the Medical Corps, some of whom have served for longer periods in that country during the present war than similar officers in the other branches of the Army, such as time-serving soldiers, yeomanry, or militia, &c.
  MR. BRODRICK: No such order exists, and in ordinary circumstances there would be no objection to allowing Medical Officers to take up State Civil employment under the usual regulations. At the present moment, however, it would not be possible to spare their services, even temporarily.

  Imperial Yeomanry—Aldershot Training.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he will state how many horses are to be allotted to each battalion of Imperial Yeomanry at Aldershot for training purposes.

  1315
  I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he can state what stabling accommodation is at present available at Aldershot for Imperial Yeomanry horses, and whether he proposes to provide more.
  MR. BRODRICK: The stabling accommodation available at present for the Imperial Yeomanry is for over 900 horses, and further accommodation for about500 more will be available on the 4th February, when the Mounted Infantry proceed to South Africa. The military authorities consider that 1,200 horses will be sufficient for the proper training of these Yeomanry while at Aldershot. The above-mentioned stabling accommodation will, therefore, be ample. The horses are detailed to the battalions as may be required for the daily training

  Volunteer Service Companies.
  MR. SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any distinction has been made between the Volunteer Service Companies at the Cape and the other companies of the battalions to which they have been attached, or whether they have done all duties equally with them.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): I am not aware of any such distinction having been made.

  Newspaper Postage to Troops in South Africa.
  MR. MITCHELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the postage on local newspapers, addressed to Commanding Officers or Chaplains for distribution among the soldiers in South Africa, may be reduced from 4d. to 2d. per pound until the war is terminated.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The Postmaster General regrets that he cannot see his way to recommend any exceptional rate of postage for newspapers addressed to Commanding Officers or Chaplains for distribution among the troops in South Africa.

  Status of Volunteer Officers.
  LIEUTENANT-COLONEL PRYCE-JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state why officers of Volunteers should not be brought generally under the Act of 1901, together with those of the Militia and Yeomanry, and rank with them, seeing that they become at times subject to military law, and pass the same examinations in drill at the school at Chelsea Barracks and in the five military subjects.
  LORD STANLEY: The conditions of service of the Volunteer force are quite distinct from those of the Militia and Yeomanry. The suggested change in the status and legal obligations of the officers certainly can hardly be dealt with on a question of precedence.

  New Volunteer Regulations—Mounted Infantry and Cyclist Companies.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of States for War if he will be good enough to refer also to the Committee upon the New Volunteer Regulations the question of the new Financial Rules for Mounted Infantry and Cyclists, reducing by fifty per cent and over the conditions under which such companies were raised less than two years ago at the instance of the War Office.
  MR. BRODRICK: The Committee has been formed for a definite object, and it would not therefore appear expedient to add to their labours by a subsidiary and special reference of the nature proposed.

  Army Recruiting—Statistics.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the total number of recruits raised for the regular Army and for the Militia respectively during the year 1901, specifying in each case the numbers obtained for the infantry arms and the number of specials.
  MR. BRODRICK: The number of recruits for the regular Army (exclusive of one-year and re-enlisted men) was 45,356, of which 24,446 were for Infantry. The number of recruits for the Militia was 37,644, of which 32,668 were for Infantry. The specials amounted to about 33 per cent.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: Will the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting be got out earlier this year than last year?
  MR. BRODRICK: I will make inquiries on that point.

  Physical Standards for Recruits.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the instructions recently issued by the Inspector General of Recruiting, still further lowering the physical standard for recruits below that hitherto allowed for specials, and to the fact that recruiting officers have been authorised to accept individuals whose height does not exceed five feet, but who, as stated in the official instructions, may be of otherwise magnificent physique; and whether any limit has been placed upon the number of these extra specials who may be enlisted under the new order.
  MR. BRODRICK: The Commander-in-Chief and my other military advisers are in favour of taking men below the present standard of height to a limit of five feet, provided that they are bonâ fide twenty years of age, and fully up to all other standards, including weight and chest measurement. They must be properly proportioned, strong, active, intelligent, and of good character. Recruiting officers have been empowered to submit such applications for special enlistment to the Adjutant General. I have sanctioned this proposal experimentally, and no considerable number of men will be enlisted till the result has been reported on by regimental officers, and carefully considered.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Is there any special merit in five feet? Why establish any standard at all?
  MR. PIRIE: How is the bonâ fide age to be ascertained?
  MR. BRODRICK: A special inquiry will have to be made on that point in each case.
  MR. PIRIE: In each individual case?
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes.

  Average Age of Recruits.
  MR. SEELY: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office what was the average age of recruits enlisted last year for the regular Army; act what age are men being sent out to South Africa; and will he state what is the annual cost of a recruit.
  LORD STANLEY: The information as to the average age of last year's recruits is not at present available, but the average age for the previous five years was 19. The age at which a soldier may go to South Africa varies according to the work he is expected to undergo—Infantry men are sent out at 20, Artillery at 19, and Militia and young soldiers who are intended for Lines of Communication, at 18. The average cost of a recruit for his first year (including cost of recruiting staff) is as follows:—Infantry, £50, Cavalry and Engineers, £60, Artillery, £54.

  Irish-made Goods for the Army.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the Department of Agriculture in Ireland offered to defray the expense of examining Irish-made brushes for Army, but that this offer was refused. Whether, seeing that there is a receiving depot at Montpelier Hill, Dublin, the staff could be supplemented to enable Irish-made goods being received. And, whether, having regard to the fact, that the Civil Service and Board of Works use Irish goods, he will state why the same rule should not apply in regard to the Army stationed in Ireland.
  LORD STANLEY: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative, and to the second paragraph in the negative. As regards the third paragraph, any goods made in Ireland are taken into general stock and issued to the Army generally, irrespective of where the units to receive them may be quartered.

  Militia Battalion Reliefs.
  MR. M'KENNA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can make any statement as to the date when the 3rd Battalion South Wales Borderers, which volunteered for active service in South

  1319
  Africa in February, 1900, will be permitted to return home.
  LORD STANLEY: As I have already stated, fresh battalions are proceeding to South Africa in relief of those there, but I cannot yet fix a precise date for the return of those battalions which will be relieved.
  MR. M'KENNA: Cannot the noble Lord state a date by which this battalion will be relieved?
  LORD STANLEY: I am afraid I cannot.

  Royal Garrison Regiments—Officers' Pay.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can explain why royal garrison regiments, which are now serving abroad in subtropical stations, are officered in the senior ranks by two classes, and why officers of the same rank are paid at different rates; and will he explain why an officer serving with such garrison regiments is paid, if he is in receipt of a pension, only a portion of the pay of his rank, while other Officers who have commuted their pensions for a lump sum, are paid the full pay of their rank.
  LORD STANLEY: The officers all draw the pay of their rank, except those officers retired with a pension, who may draw such retired pay plus £150 a year in lieu of the pay of their rank if the former be more advantageous to them.

  Worcester Regiment—Cases of Misconduct in Tipperary.
  MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the conviction, on the 22nd instant, of three men of the Worcester regiment stationed in Tipperary, at the Clonmel Quarter Sessions, for window breaking in that town, and to the words used by the County Court Judge, in passing sentence, to the effect that the offence was wilful and must not be permitted to continue; is he aware that three other men of the same regiment were convicted of stealing watches, and that during last year windows were broken and houses damaged by men of the
  1320
  regiment then stationed there; and as the ratepayers have had to pay compensation to the owners of these premises, will he instruct the War Office to recoup the Local Urban Council the amounts so paid, and take steps to prevent a repetition of such offences by the military.
  LORD STANLEY: The windows were broken by recently joined recruits. The judge made no remarks in passing sentence. This is the first time the men of this regiment have committed such an offence in the district. The watches were stolen by men of indifferent character with a view to being discharged after conviction for felony. As regards compensation, the remedy is against the individual soldier and not against the State, and would form a matter on which the judge would adjudicate in passing sentence.

  Woolwich Arsenal—Discharges of Workmen.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether a number of men working in Woolwich Arsenal were discharged in December last in consequence of the vote being exhausted, although the orders were not completed; and whether he can state the amount of the reserve small arm ammunition now in stock.
  LORD STANLEY: The total number of men discharged on reduction in November and December last was 47; 32 of these were discharged because the work on which they were employed was completed. I am not prepared to publish the reserve stock of small-arm ammunition. It is being amply maintained.

  1st Battalion Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he can state how many years home service the 1st. Battalion Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers have had, and when in the ordinary course their term of Colonial service will commence; and whether, having regard to the distinguished services of the Battalion in the present war, and their losses killed and wounded, it is the intention

  1321
  the War Office to bring the battalion home before proceeding again abroad.
  MR. BRODRICK: This regiment had been eleven years at home when the war broke out and would, according to the roster, have gone abroad in the season 1907–1908. The disturbance in the roster is too great to enable us to say precisely whether the regiment can be brought home, but all consideration will be given to the claims of the regiment.

  Naval Manœuvres.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admirality, whether arrangements could be made for the issue of an official narrative of the manœuvres of each year as soon as may be after the operations are concluded, and so much of the report of the umpire's as can be issued without prejudice to public interests.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): There will be no objection to publishing the narrative of the manœuvres each year, shortly after the operations are concluded. The question as to whether the umpire's report, or any portion of it, shall be appended to the official narrative must be a matter for the decision of the Admiralty in each case.

  Naval Savings Bank.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, can he say, with reference to the statement of the invested assets of the Naval Savings Bank in Parliamentary Paper, No.317, of Session 1901, giving the value of those assets as £311,504 12s. 10d. on 31st March, 1900, whether the investments are taken at the prices current on 31st March, 1900, or at the prices at which the investments had actually been made; if the latter is the case, what would be the value of these assets if taken at the prices current on 31st March, 1900; and, in that case, can he state why the assets on the date in question are valued at a price other than that shown by the prices current to be their apparent market value at that date.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The investments referred to are taken at the
  1322
  prices at which they were actually made. The value of the assets if taken at the prices current on the 31st March, 1900, would have been £337,949, 18s. The account is prepared in accordance with Section 11 of the Naval Savings Bank Act, 1886, which requires the statement to show the investments under this Act, and not the apparent market value at a particular date. I believe this is in accordance with the ordinary practice with respect to Trust investments.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is contrary to the practice in the Post Office Savings Bank?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, Sir.

  H.M.S. "London."
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether he can state the nature of the defects in the boilers or engines of H.M.S. "London" which has prevented the completion of her late trial, and whether these trials are at the contractor's expense.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: There were no defects in the boilers of the "London," the completion of her trials has been prevented by injury to the port air pump, two of the bucket valves having been carried away. The contractors for the machinery of the ship have gone into liquidation, and the work has been carried on in the first instance by the Receiver, and recently by the Admiralty. The question as to the apportionment of the expense incurred by the failure of machinery during the trials will be decided on the completion of the accounts as between the various parties concerned.

  HM.S. "Condor."
  CAPTAIN NORTONasked whether there was any truth in the recent rumour that H.M.S. "Condor" had been found.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I have heard no rumour to that effect.

  Germany and the Persian Gulf—Bagdad Railway.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,

  1323
  has His Majesty's Government made any agreement in writing with the German Government having reference to the concession or construction of the railway through Anatolia by Bagdad to the Persian Gulf; if so, what is the date of such agreement, and when will it be laid before Parliament.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The answer is in the negative.
  MR. HORNER: Seeing the importance of communication with India, I should like to ask my right hon. friend whether he will give any information as to any alternative railway through Russia, which would be far shorter and more direct?
  MR A. J. BALFOUR: I can give my hon. friend no information in reference to the very large subject he has opened out.

  India Land Revenue Resolution.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he has received a copy of the Resolution of the Land Revenue of India recently prepared by the Viceroy, and which, apparently, has been published in India; and whether he will lay the same upon the Table of the House, and have it circulated to hon. Members in time for consideration before the debate on the motion concerning Indian Affairs on the 11th proximo.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): I propose to present the Resolution to Parliament, together with the accompanying reports of the local Governments, as soon as they arrive; but I am afraid that they will not do so in time to admit of their publication and circulation by the date named.

  India Office Staff.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he will state the grounds upon which the revision of 10th December last of appointments and salaries in the India Office has been made; what the financial effect of this revision will be; and whether, looking to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Indian Expenditure, the increase, if any, will partly be borne by the Imperial Treasury.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The revision of appointments and salaries was necessitated partly by the increase of work in the India Office, partly by the fact that whenever the conditions of service in the Public Offices generally are improved, similar measures have to be taken at the India Office. The mean increase in expenditure will be £2,886 a year; but in spite of this, and of the constant growth of work, the charge for salaries in the India Office is now about £3,300 a year less, than it was in 1890–1891. It would not be in accordance either with the recommendations of the recent Royal Commission or with the consequent arrangement between the India Office and the Treasury, which was published as a Parliamentary Paper in December, 1900, that any part of the cost of the revision should be borne by the Treasury.

  Incidence of Taxation in India.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will lay upon the Table of the House and circulate to members the note by Sir David Barbour, K.C.S.I., entitled "An Inquiry into the Incidence of Taxation in British India, 1881," which is the authority upon which Lord Cromer rests his statement in the Viceroy's Legislative Council, 1882, that the average agricultural income in British India was 18 rupees per head of the population; and, has he yet received a copy of the Official Memorandum prepared for the Viceroy of India from figures collected for the Famine Commission of 1898, showing the latest estimate of the value of agricultural production in India, from which the Viceroy, in a speech to his Council on 28th March 1901, estimated the average agricultural income per head at 20 rupees; and, if so, will he lay it upon the Table of the House, and print it for circulation as a Parliamentary Paper.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: To the first part of the hon. Member's Question my answer is that, as has already been stated in answer to a question in this House in the year 1893, the note to which it refers was of a confidential nature, and was based on information which is now from 20 to 30 years old. For these reasons I do not think it expedient to present it to Parliament. In reply to the second Question, I have not received a copy of the Memorandum referred to, and I must

  1325
  consult the Viceroy before I can reply to the Question. There is a long and voluminous report on an inqury instituted by Lord Dufferin in 1888 into the condition of the agricultural population, and I propose to publish this.

  Ceylon Government Inscribed Stock.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY,: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience to banks and other business houses in the City arising out of the arrangements for receiving applications for the new issue of Ceylon Government £3 per cent. Inscribed Stock; whether he is aware that such applications were receivable only on specified forms; that on application at the Crown Agents' Transfer Office, No. 1, Token house Buildings, E.C., at 10 o'clock on the day of the issue, 23rd inst., information was given that such forms would not be received there until 12 noon; that the applications had to be lodged in Downing Street, and that on the same day the application list was closed at 1 o'clock; whether he can see his way to arrange for a greater interval in future applications for Colonial loans between the actual issue of the application forms and the closing of the lists.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am informed that no such statement as the hon. Member refers to in the second paragraph of his Question was made at the Crown Agents' city office. The forms of application were available at that office, and at the other offices named in the Prospectus, a few minutes after 10 o'clock on the 23rd inst., and the list was closed at 1.20 on the same day, the loan having been largely over-subscribed by that time. In all cases of subscription at a fixed price the interval between the issue of forms of application and the closing of the list must depend on the response made by the public to the loan; but I may add that, though special forms were issued for the convenience of subscribers, applications were receivable in any form.

  Staffordshire County Council—Clerk's Salary.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the clerk to
  1326
  the County Council of Staffordshire, who receives a salary of £2,000 a year, and in additional allowance of £1,500 a year for clerks, is also allowed to continue his private practice; and whether this is an arrangement which is sanctioned by the Home Office.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): When the Secretary of State fixed the salary at the amount recommended by the Standing Joint Committee in 1895, the question of private practice did not arise. Both salary and allowance are subject to reconsideration on the occurrence of a vacancy.

  Breaking up of London Streets.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can hold out any hope of steps being taken to prevent the streets in London being taken up by gas, water, electric, and hydraulic power companies and various civic authorities without system, to the inconvenience of the public.
  MR. RITCHIE: I understand that this matter is engaging the active attention of the Local Authorities, within whose jurisdiction it properly falls in the first instance. The Corporation of the City have deposited a Private Bill, in which they ask for powers to control the breaking up of the streets within their area. For the rest of London, I am informed that the County Council are in communication with the Borough Councils and hope to be in a position shortly to put forward proposals for legislation, giving them the necessary powers as central authority in this matter. Any such proposals will receive the careful consideration of the Government; and, knowing as I do the gravity of the inconvenience caused by the present state of things, I shall be glad, if it lies in my power, to help the matter forward.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: Is the London County Council at present in any way responsible for the breaking up of the streets?
  MR. RITCHIE: I cannot say without inquiry.

  Royal Commission on Coal Supplies.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the composition of the recently appointed Coal Commission and the terms of reference thereto were communicated to a section of the Press before Royal sanction had been given and before publication had been made in the official gazette; and, if so, whether such is the usual practice.
  MR. RITCHIE: The Home Office was not responsible for the communication to the Press of information about the Royal Commission on coal supplies, but I understand that no such communication was made before the Royal Assent had been signified. It is not the practice, and it would be obviously inconvenient, to defer publication until after the notice occurs in the gazette. In accordance with the usual practice arrangements had been made for giving the information to all newspapers simultaneously, but as a matter of fact some of them received it earlier than others. This was entirely due to an oversight.

  Export Duty on Coal.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: On behalf of the hon. Member for Morpeth, I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state whether the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on the Coal Question empowers the Commissioners to inquire into the operation of the export duty on coal recently imposed, and, if there is any doubt upon that point, whether he will amend the reference with a view to remove the doubt.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I think that there is no doubt that the Commissioners are empowered by the terms of the reference to inquire into this matter.

  Chinese Imperial Seals.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the advertisement of a sale of the Chinese Imperial Seals on Friday next; whether he will cause in-
  1328
  quiry to be made as to whether these seals are stolen or looted property; and whether he will see that they are restored to the Chinese Government.
  MR. RITCHIE: As soon as the hon. Member drew my attention to it I took steps to investigate and consider the matter and, amongst other things, I had an interview with a representative of the firm of auctioneers concerned in the sale. His statement, which be subsequently put in writing, was to the effect that the seals are the property of a gentleman, not a British subject, who purchased them in Tientsin from a foreign officer who, with the assistance of another person also of foreign nationality, had procured them from Peking. There does not appear to be any ground upon which the Government can take action in the matter; but I may perhaps add that I am sure the House will be glad to learn that, however these seals were obtained, British troops were in no way concerned.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that is simply the account received from the auctioneer, or whether he has taken any steps to satisfy himself of the truth of that story.
  MR. RITCHIE: I have no reason whatever to believe that the statement made to me by the auctioneer was not accurate. Whether it be accurate or not, I think there is no means of ascertaining the truth of the statement.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: Having regard to the fact that no assurance has been given that the property is not stolen property, will the right hon. Gentleman direct that it shall not be sold?
  MR. RITCHIE: I understand that the hon. Member is a lawyer. If he will point out to me what locus standi I should have in the circumstances I have named, I shall be glad.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: If stolen property is publicly sold, has the right hon. Gentleman no right to interfere?
  MR. RITCHIE: No one has made any claim to the property. How on earth am I to know that the property was stolen? I do not even know that these seals are genuine.
  MR. DILLON: I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the last answer, whether he has read the auctioneer's notice, in which it is stated that these seals are the property of the Empress of China, and were used by her at the time of the sacking of Peking.
  MR. RITCHIE: I understand that that is the statement in the catalogue, but on my asking the auctioneer the question he said he would distinctly decline to guarantee that they were genuine.

  Swine Fever Regulations in Norfolk.
  MR. PRICE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will be able at an early date to relax the regulations as to the movement of swine in the area scheduled round the city of Norwich.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY,): Yes, Sir, on Monday or Tuesday of next week.

  Anthrax and Rabies—Board of Agriculture Investigations.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether it is the practice of the Board of Agriculture to communicate to County Councils the result of examinations of specimens sent to the Board in suspected cases of anthrax or rabies; whether the results of the examinations of specimens sent by the veterinary surgeons employed under the Carmarthenshire County Council have been communicated either to the senders or to the County Council; and whether, in view of the desire of the County Council to carefully carry out the anthrax order, he will give instructions that the results of every examination of specimens should be forwarded to the County Council.
  MR. HANBURY: The County Council itself deals with all questions of anthrax—and the examination is made by their officers. The final diagnosis in cases of rabies is made by the officers of the Board—and the result is usually made known to the Local Authority by one of our Inspectors. There can be no objection to doing this in all cases.

  Argentine Cattle at Deptford.
  MR. STUART SAMUEL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can state on what date the last authenticated case of foot and mouth disease of cattle occurred in the Argentine Republic, and whether he will now consider the removal of the prohibition against the slaughter of Argentine cattle at Deptford.
  MR. HANBURY: No, Sir, I cannot yet undertake to remove the prohibition. It is still too soon to assume that the disease has entirely disappeared. So recently as October, 3rd, His Majesty's Consul at Buenos Ayres reported the existence of disease in the southern part of the province of Buenos Ayres on the authority of two stockowners of repute in that district. The latest positive reports of disease were made in February, 1901, cases having occurred at that time in Santa Fé and Cordova.

  German Tariff on British Goods.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he can state what is the present condition of affairs regarding the new German tariff, and especially as to the increases of the duties upon Sheffield and other British goods.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I understand that the German Tariff Bill is at present under consideration by a special Committee of the Reichstag. A Return, comparing the existing and proposed rates of duty on the principal articles in which British traders are interested, has been prepared by the Board of Trade and presented to this House. Information has since been received of certain modifications of the proposed rates introduced by the Bundesrath, and those modifications have been published in the Board of Trade Journal. They do not, however, materially affect the proposed duties on Sheffield goods. The whole question of the effect of the proposed tariff on British Trade is receiving the careful consideration of the Board of Trade and of their Advisory Committee on Commercial Intelligence.

  Preferential Railway Rates on Foreign Goods.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a Select Committee, to inquire into and report upon the prevailing system of preferential rates for Foreign goods and produce imported into the three Kingdoms.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, prohibits Railway Companies from making any difference in rates for home and foreign merchandise, in respect of the same or similar services. I have no evidence that this law is infringed by any "prevailing system," and I cannot recommend the appointment of a Select Committee, but I shall be quite prepared to inquire into any specific cases in which complaint of preferential rates is made by or on behalf of traders aggrieved.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the difficulty that exists in ascertaining the facts, because of the way in which the books are kept?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I had better have notice of that Question.

  Vaccination in the Metropolis.
  MR. CORRIE GRANT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he is aware that the Metropolitan Asylums Board have repeatedly declined to supply information as to the names and addresses, ages, and conditions as to vaccination of all smallpox patients treated in their hospitals, although they are required to give this information by section 8 of The Vaccination Act, 1898, and whether children born in these hospitals, and duly vaccinated, and afterwards dying of smallpox, are included in the statistical tables of the Metropolitans Asylums Board among unvaccinated cases.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,.): The section mentioned by the hon. Member does not apply in the case of a smallpox hospital
  1332
  maintained by the managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District, as the managers are not a sanitary authority within the meaning of the section. I am, however, informed by the managers that a register similar to that described in the section, is in fact kept at the Hospital Ships, but that only two persons have made application to inspect it. The reply of the managers to these applications, which it appeared were made on behalf of the National Anti-Vaccination League, was to the effect that arrangements would be made for the register being produced, assuming that the person wishing to inspect was prepared to comply with the regulations of the managers, and satisfy the Medical Officer before entering the ships, that he was adequately protected against contracting smallpox. With regard to the last part of the question, it is the practice of the managers to classify as unvaccinated any person who was already infected with smallpox before vaccination was performed. I understand that no birth took place in the smallpox hospitals of the managers last year, and that this year there have only been three births.

  Housing Question—Select Committee.
  MR. NANNETTI: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether it is intended at an early date to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the Housing Question, and report thereon this session.
  MR. WALTER LONG: No Sir. As I have previously stated, I intend to ask the House to appoint a Committee to inquire into the period for the repayment of loans raised by Local Authorities, but I do not propose to move for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the Housing Question generally.
  Captain DONELAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care to appoint a Member of the Irish party on the Committee?
  MR. WALTER LONG: Care will be taken to make the composition of the Committee thoroughly satisfactory.

  Wireless Telegraphy—Communication with the Highlands and Islands.
  MR. JOHN DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any experiments have been made with the system of wireless telegraphy, with a view to its application in the postal telegraph service, more especially in cases such as prevail in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, where, under present conditions, the Department has in many instances been unable to establish telegraphic communication between the islands and the mainland on account of the cost. And, will he state the nature of the difficulty which at present prevents the adaptation of wireless telegraphy for the purposes of the public telegraph service.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Post Office has made many experiments with various systems of wireless telegraphy, and communication has already been established in more than one instance. The Postmaster General is not aware of any case in the Highlands which would be suitable for wireless telegraphy; and as regards the Islands of Scotland, where there is any demand for telegraphic communication, it does not appear that in present circumstances the annual expense of a wireless system would differ materially from the expense of submarine cables; and in any case a guarantee could not he dispensed with. The Postmaster General will, however, continue to keep the matter under review.

  Committee on Local Records.
  SIR BENJAMIN STONE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can say when the Report of the Committee on Local Records will be presented.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Report of the Committee is in course of preparation, but it is impossible for me at present to say when it will be presented.

  Tuberculosis in the Post Office.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Postmaster General has had his attention drawn to
  1334
  the Report of the Association of British Postal Medical Officers on the prevalence of tubercle among postal employées, and to the summary of preventive measures drawn up; and whether the Postmaster General is prepared to adopt the measures therein set forth for the more effective prevention of tuberculosis among the staff of the Post Office.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General received the report referred to in due course. Some of the preventive measures suggested in it were already in operation, and others that have been found practicable have been adopted. Statistics supplied by the Registrar-General show that the rate of mortality from phthisis and cognate diseases between the ages of 15 and 65 is much greater in the country at large than amongst the established employéesof the Post Office; and there is no reason to think that persons in the Post Office service are more subject to these diseases than others.

  Promotion among London Telegraphists.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that all London telegraphists entering the service between the years 1881 and 1889 were informed by the Civil Service Commissioners that they had a prospect of receiving £190 per annum; and that during these years operating telegraphists received this salary the senior class being classed in the Estimates as among the general body. Will he explain why some London telegraphists are now in receipt of £160 per annum with no reasonable prospect of advancement; and, whether the Postmaster General will state what steps are to be taken in order to carry out the promise of the Civil Service Commission in the case of all men included in the promise.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General is aware that London telegraphists entering the service at the period referred to had a prospect of rising to £190 a year by promotion to the class of Senior Telegraphists, now styled Overseers and Senior Telegraphists; and they have that prospect still. The class still exists and access to it is obtained in the same manner as heretofore, namely by promotion on the occurrence of vacancies.

  Ilford Sorting Office.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the sanitary condition of the sorting office at Ilford has been reported as satisfactory; whether there is any water laid on; and, whether, seeing there is no lavatory there, nor a retiring room, the new premises can be proceeded with immediately.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The sorting work at Ilford is being performed in a large room hired temporarily for the purpose, in order to relieve the head Post Office; and no report has been received that the accommodation is otherwise than sufficient for such temporary use. The arrangements for the purchase of a site for the new office are in hand, and the building will be proceeded with as soon as possible.

  Bisk Allowances to Post Office Clerks.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can give the amount of risk allowance paid weekly to counter officers attending to the paid charge duty at the Lombard Street Branch Office for the quarter of a century prior to the publication of the Tweedmouth Committee's Report; whether that report secured to all employees, receiving risk allowances at the date of its publication, such allowances unaltered; and whether there is a risk allowance paid weekly to the counter officer who now performs the paid charge duty at Lombard Street Branch Office; and, if so, what allowance.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Down to May, 1897, a risk allowance of 3s. a week was paid to the officer performing the duty referred to at the Lombard Street Branch Office, but on an examination of the duties early in that year, it was found that there was no such risk attached to the duty as would justify the payment of an allowance, and it was consequently discontinued. The Tweedmouth Committee's recommendation was not intended to apply to a case of this kind. Subsequently in 1900, the duty was revised and the sale of stamps added to it, and as this addition involved a certain risk, a small allowance of 2s. a week was granted;
  1336
  and this is now being paid to those officers performing the duty in question who are properly entitled to receive it.

  Valuation in Ireland—Select Committee.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state when it is proposed to nominate the Select Committee on Valuation in Ireland as promised last session.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The pledge given by the Government on 14th August, was explicit, and will be redeemed forthwith if the hon. Member so desires after weighing the facts which I submit for his consideration. (1.) The Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation in Ireland will contain a chapter on Valuation. (2.) The principal witness whom such a Committee would probably wish to call at the outset, Mr. Barton, would not, owing to his official duties, be in a position to prepare a statement, still less to appear, until after March 1st. The complete Report of the Commission cannot be issued until after Easter, but the chapter on Valuation could be published separately within a fortnight, or at most, three weeks. The selection of the Committee and drafting of the reference would, I submit, be facilitated if we had the Report before us. If the hon. Member shares that view, the Report will be separately published.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: The position taken up in the answer is a reasonable one, but inasmuch as valuation proceedings are under the arrangements of last year, suspended until after this Committee has reported, I hope there will be no unnecessary delay.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Hear, hear!

  Irish Industrial Schools.
  MR. GILLHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, at a Petty Sessions Court recently held at Bantry, Co. Cork, the magistrates refused to commit a boy named Healy to an industrial school, until a police constable, after enquiry, made an information, and that all the magistrates present considered, on the

  1337
  evidence before them, that Healy was a fit subject for committal, but that the resident magistrates stated that, owing to the circular issued by the Lord Lieutenant and not withdrawn, a postponement was necessary. Whether, seeing that pending the inquiries Healy absconded from the house of a relative and is now a vagrant, he will, pursuant to his promise of 7th May, 1901, facilitate the committal of children to industrial schools.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This case came before the magistrates for the first time on the 9th December, when the resident magistrate very properly observed that as there was no evidence in support of the application to commit the boy the case should be adjourned to enable the police to obtain evidence. On the 20th January, the boy was brought before the Court and duly committed to an industrial school upon the evidence of the police.
  MR. GILLHOOLY: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he is entirely misinformed as to the facts of this case.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Irrecoverable Rates in Ireland.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that owing to the action of the Local Government Board in declaring that the insolvency or poverty of an occupier of a house is not a sufficient reason for County Councils to strike off items as uncollectable rates, but that the rate collectors should be required to produce a sheriff's return of nulla bona, a double loss to the ratepayers is incurred, namely, the cost of legal proceedings as well as the amount of rates in such cases, whether, in view of this fact, he will take steps to empower the county councillors to adopt the same practice with regard to ascertaining what uncollectable rates are as the grand jurors previous to the passing of the Local Government (Ireland) Act adopted.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Local Government Board has not declared that the collector should be required to produce a Sheriff's return of nulla bona. On the
  1338
  contrary, the Board is prepared to regard as irrecoverable all sums which have not been collected, provided it is satisfied that all reasonable exertions have been made to enforce payment. The collector is empowered to distrain on his warrant and it is not necessary for him to obtain decrees. The provisions of the Grand Jury Act to which reference is made have been repealed, but the provisions of No. 2 Poor Rate Collectors Order are practically of the same effect, and further legislation is not necessary.

  Glin Pier.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, seeing that the Board of Works engineer inspected Glin Pier during the recess, whether, if his report be satisfactory, the subsidised steamer tourist service between Kilrush and Tarbert will be extended to Glin.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The inspection of the Pier had no connection with the question of the extension of the existing steamer service between Tarbert and Kilrush, respecting which I have nothing to add to the communications already made by me to the hon. Member.

  Rates on Small Houses in Ireland.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that since the passing of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, occupiers of houses and cottages under £4 valuation are liable for rates, and of the burden consequently entailed on the solvent ratepayers both by the failure of these small occupiers to pay their rates and by the cost of legal proceedings, he will take steps to have the owners of houses and cottages under the said valuation made primarily liable for the rates?
  Mr. WYNDHAM: The Local Government Act was based on the principle that the occupier should be rated, and the Agricultural Grant was fixed upon this understanding. The fundamental change suggested is neither practicable nor desirable.

  Ex-Sergeant Sheridan, Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Mr. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu-

  1339
  tenant of Ireland whether he can state the grounds on which Sergeant Sheridan was dismissed from the police force in Ireland, and why a public inquiry applied for by Sergeant Sheridan into the grounds of his dismissal was refused; and is he aware that Sergeant Sheridan has publicly stated that he was wrongfully dismissed; and is it the intention of the Irish Government to prosecute Sergeant Sheridan for the offences for which he was dismissed.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The case of ex-Sergeant Sheridan has already been exhaustively discussed in this House. I must refer the hon. Member to the statement made by me on the Appropriation Bill at the end of last session†;to that statement I have nothing to add.
  MR. DILLON: This is a very important question. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman why Sergeant Sheridan, while under charge of the gravest possible crime, was allowed to go free in Ireland for many months? Is it true he has now been allowed to leave the country for America? If so, why was he not put upon his trial?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I cannot answer the Question put to me without repeating a great portion of a speech I made last year. It was a difficult case, and I have already stated the reasons for coming to the decision we did. If hon. Members are not satisfied, they will no doubt give me another opportunity of justifying my action. I cannot, however, do that in answer to a Question.
  MR. DILLON: Nobody in Ireland is satisfied, and I shall take the earliest opportunity of raising the question.

  Rents on Sir George Colthurst's Ballyvourney Estate.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. E. G. Peet, Lay Assistant Commissioner, has been continually engaged in valuing holdings on the estate of Sir George Colthurst, in the Ballyvourney district, since the passing of the Land Act of 1896, and that his valuations have been in some cases cut down by the Chief Land Commission to the extent of 25
  †See (4) Debates, xcix, 1316.
  1340
  per cent. And, having regard to the expense to the tenants, who are forced by Mr. Peet's valuations to seek the protection of the Chief Land Commission, will he explain his qualifications as a Commissioner; and, also, can he state why the Chief Land Commission have not yet heard appeals on the Colthurst estate which have been lodged since April, 1900, and fix a date when these appeals will be heard.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There have been several appeals from the decisions of the sub-Commission fixing fair rents on this estate, but it does not appear, I am informed, that the rents so fixed were reduced on appeal to the extent mentioned. In some cases the decisions of the sub-Commission were affirmed, and in some the rents were raised. The qualifications of Mr. Peet are described in Parliamentary Paper, No. 107, of the session of 1897. It is probable that all outstanding appeals from the estate in question will be listed at the next sitting of the Commissioners for the hearing of appeals from Cork.

  Richmond Lunatic Asylum.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of lunatics sent annually from the county Wicklow to the Richmond Lunatic Asylum since the year 1890 to 31st December, 1901. I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the annual expense of maintaining the Richmond Lunatic Asylum from the year 1890 to the present year; also the annual increase during the same period in the number of lunatics received into the asylum.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The information in answer to these Questions cannot conveniently be compressed within the limits of a reply, and I have communicated the figures to the hon. Member.

  Portrane Asylum.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say how much money has been expended on the Portrane Branch of the Richmond Lunatic Asylum, and how much more money the Asylum Board propose to spend upon it.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed that the expenditure already incurred on this auxiliary asylum amounts to £317,280, and that the Asylum Board propose to expend a further sum of £45,350 upon it.

  Increased Rates on Irish Railways.
  MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the contemplated raising of rates by the Great Southern Railway Company, notwithstanding the promise given prior to the passing into law of the Amalgamation Bill, he will have public notice given of the date on which the inquiry will be held by the Railway Commissioners, and permit the parties interested to be represented thereat.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Railway Company, in December, published a notice of their intention to apply to the Railway Commissioners for their consent to increased rates. The notice required any persons feeling aggrieved by the proposed increase to serve objections upon the Registrar to the Commissioners. Some 80 objections have been received. The Commissioners have fixed February 18th at the Four Courts, Dublin, to hear the application of the Railway Company, and also to hear the objections.

  Increase of Judicial Rents.
  MR. FLYNN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the detailed Return of Appeal Judicial Rents for January, 1901, issued by the Land Commission; is he aware that these rents fixed by the Chief Land Commission show an average increase on the rents fixed by the Sub-Commission of 18s. per tenancy in Antrim, 18s. in Fermanagh, and £1 10s. in Down, an average increase of 14s. for the Province of Leinster, and of 18s 3d. for the whole of Ireland; and, whether, in view of these figures and of the expense and the delay caused, steps will be taken by the Government this session to abolish this practice of appeal from the Sub-Commissioners except where legal questions may arise.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The averages quoted in the Question do not afford a
  1342
  proper basis from which to draw conclusions as to the general result of the decisions of the Land Commission Court. The Court decides judicially in each case after hearing the evidence of the parties, upon consideration of the report of the Valuers, and of all the circumstances of the case, holding and district. The reply to the second paragraph is in the negative.
  MR. FLYNN: Does not the cost in respect of appeal exceed the entire amount of valuations dealt with? Will the Land Bill to be introduced deal with that question?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I cannot discuss the Irish Land Bill now. The expenses of litigation are very heavy in Ireland.

  Judge O'Connor Morris.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the Address of Judge O'Connor Morris to the Sligo Grand Jury, on the 24th instant, in the course of which the Government as well as the United Irish League were censured for their encouragement of agrarian agitation in the West; and, seeing that the Grand Jury, composed of fifteen Unionists and five Nationlists, unanimously adopted a resolution dissenting from his Honour's observations, and advocating compulsory land purchase, whether any steps can be taken in the matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have seen a newspaper report of the observations of the learned Judge on the occasion referred to. The Government has on many occasions repudiated the policy of compulsory purchase, and to that repudiation it adheres.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the Irish Government take any steps to prevent political harangues being delivered from the bench?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Irish Government never criticises any remarks made by Irish Judges.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: But will the Government take action to prevent a course unknown in England of the judges

  1343
  delivering political speeches from the bench?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I repeat that the Irish Government never takes action in respect of the speeches or addresses made by judges. The only course is to proceed against the judge by Addresses in both Houses of Parliament.
  MR. SPEAKERintimated that notice must be given of any further Question.

  Longford Land Tenancies.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of the tenants whose tenancies were determined pursuant to section 7 of the Land Act in the county of Longford; how many of such tenants were wholly dispossessed and how many readmitted as caretakers; and will he undertake to introduce into his promised Land Bill a clause to suspend the operation of this section.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The number of tenant's served with Notices under Section 7, from 1887 down to the end of last year, was 2,062, of whom only 243 were actually evicted, or less than 18 per annum. In the remaining cases settlements were presumably arrived at, though there is no statistical information of the relative number restored as tenants or as caretakers. As already stated. I cannot by anticipation disclose the contents of the new Bill.

  Longford Land Commission.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a recent sitting of the Head Land Commission in Longford, the rents which had on inspection been fixed by the Sub-Commission were on appeal raised in almost every case by a majority of the Court by nearly 30 per cent.; and can he hold out any hope that the new Land Bill will provide for inspection of holdings by the Head Commission before accepting the valuation of the Court valuers.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed that the fact is not correctly stated in the first part of the Question. As regards
  1344
  the second part of the Question, I can only repeat that I cannot anticipate the contents of the new Land Bill.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the actual increase in the valuation?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I will give the hon. Member the information.

  Boycotting at Blacklion.
  MR. M'GOVERN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has received a resolution from the Enniskillen Rural District Council No. 2, which was passed at a meeting held in Blacklion on the 25th instant, denying the accuracy of the information supplied to him as to the existence of intimidaor boycotting in the Blacklion district, and will he make further inquiries as to the necessity of having extra police in this district.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have received a copy of the resolution referred to. I am in frequent communication with the local officers responsible for the peace of this district, and, as already stated, the extra police will be removed as soon as the necessity for their presence has passed away.

  The High Sheriff of Dublin.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I wish to to put a question of which I have, I fear in vain, attempted to give private notice to the Chief Secretary. I wish to ask him whether it is the fact that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has refused to sanction the appointment, to the position of High Sheriff of Dublin, of the gentleman selected by the Corporation of Dublin; is it not the fact, that the statue under which the Corporation Acts was passed in the year 1876, at the instance of Mr. Butt, and that it gave power to the Corporation to select three names; has it not been the invariable practice of the Irish Government in the past to accept the first name on the list and will the right hon. Gentleman state the reason why this invariable practice has now been departed from.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have no information on the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman, but if he will give me an opportunity to acquire the information and look up precedents, I shall be able to answer him on another day, say Monday.

  Listowel and Killarney Quarter Sessions.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, what is the explanation of the Sheriff's absence from the Courts of Listowel and Killarney at recent Quarter Sessions when white gloves were presented to the Judge.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): The Chairman of Quarter Sessions permitted the Sub-Sheriff to be absent from these Sessions. On each occasion the Sub-Sheriff was represented by a deputy.
  MR. FLAVIN: How often of late have County Court Judges in Kerry been presented with white gloves?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The question does not suit him.

  Irish Land Court Valuers.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, can he state the qualification required for appointment as Court Valuer to the Head Land Commission; is the person appointed removable at the will of the Executive; and what steps the Government take to determine the fitness of persons appointed for the office.
  MR. ATKINSON: The Court Valuers are almost invariably selected by the Land Commissioners from amongst those Sub-Commissioners who have by their experience and proved capacity in that position recommended themselves to the confidence of their superiors. Like ordinary members of the Civil Service they are removable at the pleasure of the Crown.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman explain the fact that invariably the Valuers or their
  1346
  agents are gentlemen who have assisted in raising rents in the first instance?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Irish Board of Agriculture Offices.
  MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, if any steps have been taken to provide suitable offices for the Board of Agriculture and Technical Education in Ireland; and, if so, can he state where, and by whom, the plans for the proposed building are being prepared.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Provision will be made for suitable offices for the Board of Agriculture in the bill which as already announced I shall shortly introduce in connection with the erection of a new College of Science in Dublin. I must defer any further statement on the subject till the Bill is introduced.
  MR. MOONEY: Have the plans been drawn up?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is one of the matters I shall deal with in my statement.

  Rosscarbery Mail Service.
  MR. EDWARD BARRY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that letters arriving at Clonakilty by the mid day mail, instead of being forwarded directly to Rosscarbery, are allowed to remain there until the following morning, and seeing that there is daily a parcel post consignment from Rosscarbery and that tenders for the carriage of these mid-day mails have been invited from car-owners in Rosscarbery and Clonakilty, can he state when the arrangements for this mid-day service will be complete.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General is aware that there is no day mail service to Rosscarbery. The question of establishing such a service was considered last summer, but the expense involved was found not to be warranted, as explained in a letter sent to the hon. Member from the Post Office on the 11th of September last. The Postmaster General finds that the circumstances have not materially

  1347
  changed, and he regrets that he is unable at present to sanction the additional expense involved; but the matter will be kept in view should any opportunity arise for improving the service.
  MR. EDWARD BARRY: Were the expenses so high as to justify the abandonment of the project?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir, the expense was greater than the amount of business justified.

  Telephone Communication between Dublin and Belfast.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state the rate per unit for a telephone service between Dublin and Belfast; whether any arrangement is possible by which towns or main lines of railway can be put in communication with Dublin; and, if so, can he give the probable cost per unit of installation and of working of the system per annum.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is not clear what information is desired by the hon. Member in asking for "the rate per unit for a telephone service between Dublin and Belfast." The cost of a telephonic conversation of three minutes duration between those places is one shilling.

  New Clerk of the House.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any appointment has yet been made to the office of Clerk of the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir, no appointment has yet been made.

  Business of the House.
  MR. DILLON: I wish to put a question so that we may be quite clear as to the Procedure Resolution which the First Lord is going to move to-day. I understood he was to move a Resolution to the effect that the House now proceed to consider the new rules. But the only Motion on the Paper is one taking the time of the House and giving the rules precedence. Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly explain how he pro-
  1348
  poses to proceed, in view of the understanding come to that there should be a Second Reading debate next week, and that there should be no discussion immediately after he had made his statement.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has put the Question. I think I ought to apologise to the House for not having yesterday, at the conclusion of business, explained that there will be a change in form, unaccompanied by any change in substance, with regard to the procedure. After consulting the highest authorities in the House, I came to the conclusion that it would be more convenient if I were to make my statement by leave of the House, and then, on the first Motion with regard to the Rules, we could have what is called a Second Reading debate. That is the course which has usually been followed. It is in itself, I know, an irregular and illogical proceeding. But there are precedents for it, and on the whole it seems to those best qualified to speak a more convenient method of proceeding than the one originally suggested. I shall make my statement to-day, and next week we shall proceed with the Second Reading discussion.
  MR. DILLON: Is it clearly understood that the House will have the same rights under this procedure as it would have had under the procedure which the right hon. Gentleman announced to us two days ago? In the case of a Second Reading debate on the first Resolution, it might be held that the discussion could not go beyond that particular Resolution.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not know how far the right hon. Gentleman's method of procedure meets this case. Suppose there is a desire, on what we are calling the Second Reading debate, to move an Amendment, not rejecting the whole scheme, and still less rejecting the first proposal of the Government, but a general Amendment expressing a certain judgment of the House, how can it be done?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will consider that point. It is one well worth attention.

  1349
  I may, however, again state that in taking the discussion upon the first rule, or rather the first Amendment—and it will be an almost verbal Amendment—it will be possible by common consent for the debate to range over the whole area of the proposed new rules. In doing so we shall be exactly following precedent. I do not remember whether in the case of Mr. Gladstone or Mr. W. H. Smith, when they brought forward their proposals, there was any idea of moving a general Amendment.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to make some general Motion such as "That the House do now take the rules into consideration," or some similar form of words? I may suggest one thing that occurs to me, viz., that there may be Members in the House who, having heard what the right hon. Gentleman proposes, may think the plan to be of so extensive a nature that it ought to be considered by a Committee.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that point, too, is worth very serious consideration, and I will undertake to consider it, with a view, of course, to meeting the general convenience of the House. The plan proposed by the right hon. Gentleman originally occurred to myself, and I sketched it out to the House, but there seemed to be some objection, and I therefore substituted for it a plan which has undoubtedly the merit of being more strictly in accordance with precedent.
  MR. DILLON: Of course, we all trust the right hon. Gentleman not to adopt any course that would leave us less rights than we would have enjoyed under his original plan.
  MR. BROADHURST: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what will be the business for Monday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I propose to take to-day the right to put down the rules on any day except Wednesdays, and it may be convenient that I should defer any statement with regard to the course of business until such time as I move my resolution, taking the time of the House.

  Mr. Balfour and the Sun Newspaper.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Before I make my statement I want to make some little explanation on a matter which has just been brought to my notice. I am informed, though I have not seen the passage myself, that there has appeared in a newspaper—in the Sun—an account of an interview with me on the subject of the negotiations from Holland. I do not usually refer to things that take place in the newspapers, but still, this is an important matter, and I only desire to say that it is a fabrication from beginning to end.
EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND BILL).
Order for Second Reading [28th May] read, and discharged: Bill withdrawn.
CONGESTED DISTRICTS (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading [14th May] read, and discharged: Bill withdrawn.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Walter Runciman, esquire, for the Borough of Dewsbury.

NEW PROCEDURE RULES.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I rise by leave of the House to explain as well as I am able the proposals which the Government intend to lay on the table of the House for the amending our rules. It is not the first time by many that those who have occupied my place have had to rise to ask the leave of the House to pursue a similar course. Indeed, since 1832 I believe there have been no less than eighteen committees on Parliamentary procedure, and a very great variety of changes have been introduced since that epoc making date into the rules under which we conduct our business. There are those who think that this entails criticism and commentary on the House of Commons itself and the methods by which we pursue our business. I do not take that view. I think that, in the first place, for an assembly like the present, in an age as changing as the

1351
present, itself to remain unchanged would show that we are not fitted to adapt ourselves to the necessities of the country; and in the second place, I think that the frequency with which these changes have been made is an indication of the caution with which they have been made,. There is no single instance, so far as my memory goes, in which the House has taken the step of adapting any Standing Order in simplification and improvement of its rules, where it has had reason to regret the course it has pursued. In the proposals I have to make I hope it will be seen that this caution has animated the Government in framing their scheme.
The changes are not inconsiderable. I do not desire to minimise them. I think on the contrary that they are schemes important. Nevertheless I think if they receive the candid consideration of the House, and I do not doubt they will, it will be recognised that we have proceeded in the steps traced out for us by our predecessors, and have not attempted any violent revolution which we may see subsequently cause to regret. If it be asked why these constant changes are required in the rules let it be remembered that we always work on a substractum of rules of very ancient date, and which were originally framed to meet a condition of things long passed away. I am not going back to the old history of this House, in which its most important proceedings consisted in a contest with the Crown. I am talking of a period long after Parliamentary supremacy was established, and even then the conditions prevailing in the House was, and consequently the rules laid down were so utterly different from the conditions now prevailing and the rules now laid down that an easy explanation may be given of the many changes which we have carried out. In the middle of the eighteenth century, and indeed to a very much later period, the difficulty was not to check the flow of oratory but to induce it to flow at all. The makers of the rules exhausted their ingenuity in finding opportunities for Gentlemen to speak, and offering them temptations to air their opinions or to deal with the case of their constituents. If anybody will read the Parliamentary history of the eighteenth century, he will see that many as were the opportunities given by this procedure, and anxious as
1352
those gentlemen who framed these rules were to encourage debate, debate was by no means always encouraged. There is a very interesting passage in the recently published journal of Henry Fox, which I daresay most of those who are interested in the political history of the country have already seen, and from which it appears that towards the end of the Seven Years War, when the House was voting for warlike purposes sums beyond anything ever voted before, Henry Fox complained of the extreme difficulty of getting a quorum to vote the money. There was no question of opposing the vote, or of criticising it, the difficulty was, to get Members to attend here in order to have the requisite number actually to vote the money.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): Hear, hear.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is cheered by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War, and I am not surprised that he should consider that that would be a very agreable state of things so far as he is concerned, if it could be repeated at the present time. But those days have long gone by, and gone by also is the time when no less than eighteen separate questions had to be put from the chair with respect to every Bill, irrespective of proceedings in Committee, and irrespective of any proceedings in a Preliminary Committee, supposing the Bill was of a national character, which had to be debated before such Committee. Well, eighteen separate questions put from the Chair with regard to a Bill would fill any modern leader of the House with absolute dismay, and the surprise I feel is not that we have had to adapt our rules, but that it was found possible for 658 gentlemen, however well disposed, to carry on under such conditions as these the business of the country.
Let me just ask the House—and this will conclude my preliminary statement—to compare, in three features, the years 1800 and 1901. In 1800 the House sat on portions of 72 days. Unfortunately the records of Hansard do not enable us to tell how long the sittings were. In 1901 the House sat 115 days, and these sittings, as hon. Gentlemen know to their cost, were in many cases

1353
extremely prolonged. In 1800 Supply took one day; in 1901 it took 26 days. In 1800 not a single Question was put during the whole course of Parliament. In 1901, including Supplementary Questions, it has been calculated for me that 7,180 Questions were asked. These 7,180 Questions occupied 119 hours; in other words, they occupied close upon 15 eight-hour Parliamentary days, or three weeks of Government time. Finally, though this is of less importance, the Address in 1800, and for very many years after that, down to my own memory, was voted in one day. Last year it could only be voted in nine. The truth is that, with the changing circumstances of the House, in itself revolutionary, our rules, which were originally framed as it were to promote a fertilising and irrigating flow of eloquence, are now, it appears, required to dam up its vast and destructive floods, and keep them within reasonable limits.
In attempting to describe the contribution which the Government hope to make to the reform of our procedure, I shall not follow the order in which the new rules and the Amendments of the old rules will appear upon the Paper, which I trust will be in the Vote Office in the course of an hour. It will be more convenient if I begin with the more miscellaneous and in some respects less important proposals, reserving to the last the general scheme with regard to business to which I know a great deal of interest and attention has been devoted.
The first of our proposals changes the rule relating to divisions. It is evidently impossible that the time occupied in divisions can be very seriously limited; I, at any rate, have not discovered any method by which that could be attained. The House must be allowed to express its opinion, and that expression necessarily occupies a considerable amount of time. But do not let us suppose that the evil is a small one. Last year there were 482 divisions, at the rate of five divisions an hour, which I think is a good average, that would amount to 12 days, so that we were 12 eight-hour days walking through the lobbies of this House to record our opinions on the various proposals put forward. I do not pretend that I could diminish that amount
1354
very seriously by anything I can suggest, but it is a great evil, and I think that Members who frivolously and unnecessarily challenge divisions ought to feel that they really are wasting the time of the House in a manner which in its cumulative effect is really serious.
The proposals I have to make on this subject are threefold. I propose to abolish the power of dividing upon the Question now put by the Chairman, that he report these Resolutions to the House. It is admittedly a subject which ought not to be divided upon, and though I believe there was an attempt to debate it last year, I cannot think that anybody regards it as an essential or important part of our procedure. I propose that that privilege, if privilege it be, should be withdrawn in the future. My second proposal is that when a Bill is being discussed on the Second Reading, or the Third Reading, if a time Amendment is proposed—that is to say, if an Amendment that the Bill be read this day six months or this day three months is rejected on a division, no second division can be claimed. Let the House mark that if it be a reasonable Amendment, on which a man might be reasonably supposed to be able to vote one way while he would not vote for the Second Reading of the Bill, I do not propose to forbid this, though I am not sure that I am right even in that; I am not sure that I am not too moderate. But at all events as regards a time Amendment—that a Bill be read this day, say three or six months, everybody agrees that when the House have given their decision it is merely a waste of time to ask them to repeat it. The third proposal I have to make may possibly be the most important of those I have to make with regard to divisions. The House is aware there was a standing order passed by the late Mr. Smith according to which if divisions were frivolously claimed, the Speaker might call upon those who challenged them to stand up in their places. [An HON. MEMBER, "Those who agreed."] Yes, those who agreed were asked to stand up in their places. That was well designed, the intention was good, but it was rendered utterly nugatory by the fact that the clerk had to go and take down the names of each person who did so stand up. The

1355
process took long, and in most cases led to more confusion than if a division had been taken in the ordinary way. Our suggestion is that we should restore this proposal to its original shape and remove the conditions which both rendered it nugatory and inoperative. I am reading the words of the Standing Order under which Mr. Speaker or the Chairman may, after the lapse of two minutes, take a vote of the House, or Committee, by calling on the Members who challenged the division to rise in their places; and that their names shall be taken down in the House and printed in the list of divisions. I propose to omit these last words. On that subject I may tell the House, that I am laying a Blue-book on the Table which contains the results of the investigations which I have been making in regard to the practice of Foreign Assemblies in respect to divisions; and I hope that it will be in the hands of Members in a few days.
I pass to the second group of reforms to be proposed, which have for their intention the lightening of the existing stages of our Bills. The first of these, I have to suggest to the House, is one which will be more in favour of private Members than of the Government. At present if a private Member, or indeed if any gentleman, whether he be a Minister of the Crown or not, desires to move a Bill to a Grand Committee, he has to do it by a Motion after the Second Reading is passed. We propose that it shall be in his power to give notice, before the Second Reading, of his intention to do so, and that that shall be discussed along with the Second Reading. And after the Second Reading is carried, if it be carried, then the Motion that the Bill should go to the Standing Committee or any form of Committee, shall be put without further debate.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: And put separately?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, put separately, but no further debate is to be taken. In that rule we have included a provision which, I think, gives a very necessary elasticity to our proceedings. At present it is possible to send a Bill, first to a Select Committee and then to a Grand
1356
Committee. I cannot imagine why the fact that a Bill has been sent to a Select Committee is a sufficient reason for its being again considered by the House in its collective capacity. If it is a reason for anything at all, it is a reason for adopting the opposite practice; and we propose to give absolute liberty to send a Bill to the Grand Committee, after it has gone to a Select Committee, a Hybrid Committee, or a Joint Committee of the two Houses.
An HON. MEMBER: Would it be possible to take the second division after the interruption of business?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes. As I understand the hon. Gentleman's question it is that supposing a division on the seading takes place and there is an interruption of business, would it be possible to have a division afterwards on the Motion to send the Bill to a Grand or Select Committee. Yes, Sir, it would. The proposal I have to make refers to Resolutions in Committee on Money Bills, which as the House knows, cannot be read a first time in the ordinary way, but have to be brought in in Committee of the whole House. I have personally a leaning towards assimilating the practice in this case to the practice followed in the case of all other Bills. Our present procedure dates from an early period, and is a rather antiquated and rusty method—but we do not propose to go the length. We propose to leave the Committee stage of these Money Resolutions exactly as it is, but we propose that the Report stage should not be debated, although it may be divided upon. We propose to diminish, by one stage, these preliminary stages on Money Bills. Then we make an alteration in regard to the First Reading of ordinary Bills. We do not propose to interfere with either of the two methods by which Bills may be at present introduced—namely, what is known, conveniently but improperly, as introduction under the "Ten Minute Rule;" and the older procedure under which there was an unlimited debate on the First Reading. We do not propose to alter either of these, because there are circumstances in which these proceedings are proper. For instance, there are many Govern-

1357
ment Bills on which a brief explanation is very desirable; and there are many other Government Bills on which it is proper that the Minister in charge should make an extended statement in regard to their contents. And the Minister can hardly be permitted to make that extended statement without allowing debate after what he has said; so that if an answer be required, it should go forth to the country at the same time as the speech. We leave, therefore, the existing procedure in the same state as it is; but in our opinion with regard to the great mass of Bills the House of Lords procedure is far the best, under which no leave to introduce is required at all, but every Member has a right to have a Bill printed and read a first time, as a matter of course.
Now I come to the fourth element in this group of our changes, and it is the most drastic and important of all. It relates to the report stage of ordinary Bills. There is one important omission which I have made, and which the House will perhaps allow me to correct. The House will remember that we do not allow debate on the Report of the Resolution of the Money Bill Committee. That is so in a general way, but we especially except the Budget and Supply. Then I come to the Report stage of ordinary Bills; and here, I say, our proposals are more drastic than those I have so far made. I cannot get any full or satisfactory history of the Report stages in this House, but there can be no reason to doubt that the Report stages existed and exists in order to give the House an opportunity of surveying the work of its Committees—whether a Committee upstairs, as it used to be in old times, or a Committee of the whole House as at present. And if anyone wants proof of that, he will find that no Report stage is required if the Committee has done nothing. When a Committee passes a Bill without Amendment there is no Report stage; the Committee has done no work, and it is not necessary to survey it. I do not think that the system is a good one at present. We oscillate between two extremes, both of which were objectionable. If an Amendment has been introduced in Committee, the Report stage is often used as an opportunity for the repetition of the Amendments which had been rejected in Committee,
1358
That is a modern practice, an inconvenient practice, and involves a great waste of public time. But if, on the other hand, no Amendment is introduced, then the House, on the Report stage, can do nothing, and thus, as the House knows, there is a great temptation to the Government to try to get a Bill through Committee without any change at all being made in it. Nobody denies that as long as one part of the House abuses the rules in one direction there will be an attempt to stretch them in another; I do not think that is a temptation that ought to be placed in the way of any Government, or of any private Member. It is perfectly certain that no Government ever will consent to leave the Report stage, in every particular as it stands, and only remove this single anomaly. I venture to say that our proposal, which is to greatly limit what the House will do on the Report stage is the best which the House will adopt. What we propose is that the House on the Report stage shall only be allowed to deal with changes made in Committee, except that the Member in charge of the Bill may introduce Amendments. This last is a necessary provision, because, as the House well knows, pledges are constantly given to the great convenience of every body concerned, that such or such an Amendment, will be introduced on Report by the Member in charge of the Bill; and it is clear that this is a very necessary elasticity in the stringency of the rule. Everything consequential on what has been done in Committee is open, as at present, to full discussion.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Does this apply to Bills sent to a Standing Committee upstairs?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am obliged to my right hon. friend. We do limit it to the Bills which have undergone the ordeal of the Committee of the whole House. It is in order to avoid the whole House having to go twice over the discussion of the details of the same Bill that we ask for this rule.
There are two other proposals in this group of our suggestions. One is the revival of an old plan of my own, to allow a Member in charge of a Bill, after debate, to drop certain portions of the Bill, instead of having to go through every

1359
amendment. The second proposal is one to facilitate the passage of Consolidation Bills. Consolidation Bills are really most important, although not a very glorious part of our present labour; and we have placed upon the table of the House a plan by which we think the House will be enabled to deal with this most necessary class of legal reform.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an outline of the proposal?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, I can do so; but I did not, because I was so afraid of trespassing on the patience of the House. But as my hon. friend is anxious to hear what is the general outline, it is that there should be a Committee appointed by the House to consider those Bills; and if anyone suggests that they are not Consolidation Bills, but that they carry out some change in the law, they should be referred back to the Committee which would consider the point, and if the Bills contain no change they will not be open to discussion in Committee or on Report stage; but if they do contain a change in the law, discussion in Committee or on Report stage shall be confined to that change. I think that ought to be a not unworkable plan.
Now I come to two proposals which cannot be classed under either of the two heads with which I have so far been dealing, two detached proposals. One relates to the difficulty in which this House has found itself in the past, and may again find itself in the future, if the Chairman of Committees is prevented by indisposition from attending to his duties. That produces, or may produce, two different kinds of evil. In the first place, inasmuch as a substitute is not endowed with his full powers, business is constantly delayed during the tenure of office of the temporary chairman, to the inconvenience, I think, of all parties in the House. Then there is a second evil, which, I am glad to say, has never happened, but which very easily might happen. It is, if Mr. Speaker and the Chairman of Committees shall be both indisposed at the same time; in that case this House would lose all power of carrying on public business at all—it could not sit. The only man who can take Mr. Speaker's place at
1360
the present time is the Chairman; the Deputy Chairman cannot take it; and we have proposed several plans by which in the event of the Chairman being ill, or in the extreme case of both the Chairman and Mr. Speaker being ill, the House shall not be actually deprived of all power of carrying on its functions.
Then there is one other proposal of a miscellaneous class, and that relates to questions of privilege. Everybody who has sat through the last two or three Parliaments must have had brought home to them the extreme inconvenience of a question of privilege being suddenly, without notice, started on the House immediately after Questions, and a very important decision being taken by the House without any power of looking into precedents and of considering in cold blood the circumstances of the case. The result of that has been, not only, as I think, a considerable waste of public time, but also some decisions of which this House has, in my opinion, no very great reason to be proud. Now, we appoint a Committee on Privileges at the beginning of every session; it is the very first thing we do; we do it before the King's Speech has begun; but we never name, it never goes further, it is a purely formal proceeding which, I think, happens at the same time as that hardy annual of my right hon. friend connected with the interference of Peers at elections. We think that Committee ought to be appointed; and we propose that, whenever any question of privilege not relating to a controversy between the two Houses—which are questions of a rather different character—is raised, it should on the Motion of a Minister of the Crown be referred, without further debate, to this Committee for report. I cannot help thinking that that would add much to the dignity of the House when placed in the very difficult circumstances in which we occasionally find ourselves.
Then I come to two proposals connected with order in the House. The first of these is for strengthening the hands of the House and of Mr. Speaker, who is responsible for order in the House to us, by increasing the penalties under Standing Order 21. It will be remembered that there are two Standing Orders at present which deal with disorderly con-

1361
duct. One is Standing Order 27, under which Mr. Speaker acts on his own authority and without calling for the formal intervention of the House; the other is Standing Order 21, in which Mr. Speaker names the disorderly Member and the House thereupon by vote proceeds to pronounce upon him, proceeds to endorse the action of Mr. Speaker. We do not propose to touch the first of these rules at all; Rule 27 we mean to leave as it is. But we think that Rule 21 should be strengthened, and also made more reasonable and systematic in its provisions. We propose that the penalty for the first offence, instead of being a week, should be 20 days, for the second offence 40 days, and for the third 80 days; and we also think that a Member who has been guilty of gross disorderly conduct should not be permitted to take his ordinary place among us until he has communicated to Mr. Speaker his regret for the action which he had taken, a regret which I am sure, which I hope, he always feels. It is only necessary for me further to say upon this subject that these 20 days in our rule, unlike the existing rule, are 20 days on which the House sits; they run, that is to say, irrespective of holidays, irrespective of adjournments, and irrespective of prorogations. I am sure everybody will feel that there is neither sense nor justice in imposing a heavy penalty upon some gentleman who is guilty of disorderly conduct at the beginning of the session, and inflicting no penalty, on the same gentleman perhaps, if he errs from the paths of virtue on the last day but one of the session. I feel confident the House will accept this view, and I think this is the proper time to deal with it. We are now, I am glad to think, living in an atmosphere of calm; it is an anticyclone, and that is the time to legislate with regard to these, I am glad to think, rare cases. It is a great pity to be driven, as we were driven last session, to legislate immediately and in the heat of the moment upon some matter which the House could not possibly ignore. Let us make our code now adequate to any necessities that are likely to arise, and in our attempts to do so I hope we shall receive assistance from every quarter of the House.
There is one other point connected
1362
with order to which I must call the attention of the House. We think that circumstances may arise, conceivably under which it would be desirable in the interests of order that Mr. Speaker should suspend the sitting for such time as he thinks necessary. I well remember, and I daresay most of the members now present will remember, that very painful scenes took place during the debates on the Home Rule Bill in 1893, with the Chairman of Committees in the chair. On the eve of a division Mr. Speaker Peel was sent for and came in, and proceeded to ask Mr. Gladstone, who was then leading the House, and myself, who was in the position of Leader of the Opposition, to give him an account of what had occurred. Well, from that moment the thing passed off smoothly and quietly, and with dignity; but I can well imagine that, if such a scene, or anything like it, should occur again, Mr. Speaker might think it extremely desirable to have some opportunity of finding out, not in the theatre of heated debate around him what had really occurred. And there is another reason which makes me anxious to pass this rule; it is that there is, as the House is aware, a period now—and that period will be further augmented as I shall point out—during which no opposed business is allowed to be taken. After 12 at night, for instance; during that period no division can be taken, and it is quite possible that the Members left in the House might be in no sense representative of the House. I am quite sure that as long as Members in this House are in any way representative the Chair would of course be respected, but every Member of that Front Bench might quite rightly be away when opposed business is at an end. I certainly do not always stay, and the great bulk of private Members do not think it necessary to stay. It is very unlikely that any difficulty should arise at that time, but if it did the House would hardly be in a position to deal with it; and it is proper to give power to Mr. Speaker, if there is any disorder, to suspend the sitting.
Now I come to the last, perhaps the most interesting, and certainly the most complicated part of the task which I have set myself—the task I mean of describing our proposals for the general rearrangement of business. Now there are two objects which we have in view, the first my be described, roughly, as the

1363
object of increasing the convenience of Parliamentary life. It is not the most important of the two objects; but it is an important one; and for my own part I have never been able to understand why of all his Majesty's subjects a Member of Parliament should be the one who never knows when he is to dine or when he is to sleep. That convenience depends partly on the method in which we arrange our day, and partly on the method in which we arrange our week. The second general object we have in view is what I may call the certainty of public business. At present we are pursued by two kinds of uncertainty, the uncertainty on a given day whether the work put down on the Order-book is the work we shall have to do. The second kind of uncertainty is in not being able to look ahead. This is a matter which chiefly concerns private Members, who ask themselves, "Can we put down such and such a Resolution, or such and such a Bill, without finding ourselves at the last moment deprived by the Government of the opportunity of taking it?" I feel this very strongly. As regards the arrangement of business, we hope to lay down such a general plan as should relieve us from the necessity of constantly coming to the House and asking the House to give us further facilities for business.
At present, by our standing orders, the Government have Mondays and Thursdays, and nothing else. No Government can, or for years has, conducted the public business entrusted to it on that very limited asset. It must come for more time; and the result is that the arrangements of private Members as regards their Motions and Bills are thoroughly upset. I have felt acutely not only having to appeal to the House for these further facilities, but that I am constantly made the butt of charges of so arranging my demands for time as to interfere with these Motions or private Bills. Those who hate a Bill urge me take the day for which that Bill is set down, while those who love a Bill wish me not to interrupt the ordinary course of public buusiness by having an exception made in its favour. That is an intolerable position, and I for one am perfectly sick of such debates. I know all the speeches that are made upon them. I am bored with them all, including my own. There is my hon. friend behind me (Mr. Gibson Bowles,) who always comes down and denounces the Govern-
1364
ment for their tyrannical seizure of private Members' time. Then he is followed by the hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Irish Party, who always makes an eloquent speech, in which he explains that, after all, it is not entirely the fault of the Government, but of the system; and, before you know where you are, you find yourself listening to an eloquent peroration about Home Rule! And then there is the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, of whom I make no complaint—because when I was in his place I did exactly the same, and when I am in his place again, unless my rules are adopted, I shall do exactly the same again—we all know that he grudgingly admits that the Government must have time, that after all the necessity is very disagreeable, and that if a little dexterity, a little more tact, a little more amiability on the part of the Leader of the House had been displayed, the painful necessity would never have arisen. Cannot we try to arrange our general programme more in accordance with what experience has shown to be necessary, not for this Government or that Government, but for all Governments; and then having laid it down, interfere with it as little as we possibly can? I need not say that the principle we have laid down is one incomparably less favourable to private Members than the existing one under the standing orders; but the existing one is never, and has never been, adhered to; and I do not think when I state what our proposals are that private Members will have much reason to complain.
Now, let me briefly give a diary of a Parliamentary day and a journal of a Parliamentary week under our new rules. We propose that every day, except the day of morning sitting, when private Members' Bills are taken shall consist of two sittings, and in addition to the obvious advantages of two sittings there is one which I feel bound to insist upon very strongly and which I do not think will occur to all members. At present it is hardly possible to do justice to those small Bills which are not matters of controversy between the two sides the House, which are not opposed, by on which, perhaps, one or two gentle-

1365
men have a legitimate desire to comment. They want some difficulties smoothed away, some statement of opinion they want to make, and therefore they naturally say, "We do not want much time, but some time you must give us." It is almost impossible under the present system to find that time; because, if you putdown the Bill at the beginning of public business on a Government night, it is talked on at great length, not by gentlemen who have any objection to the particular Bill but by gentlemen who have a great objection to the Bill immediately following. On the other hand, if you try to stop a controversial Bill, a Bill about which there is general excitement, say at 10 or 10.30, in order to bring on the small and uncontroversial Bill, the difficulties in your way are almost insuperable, and I do not think that any having experience of Government will deny it. Therefore, an evening sitting, which would not necessarily be a continuation of the afternoon sitting, but at which some entirely separate business may be taken, will be an enormous convenience, and the existence of this double set of rails will greatly facilitate useful legislation. In Supply, it will be an immense advantage. We propose, of course, that the day given to Supply shall consist of both an afternoon and an evening sitting; but it by no means follows that the first Vote to be taken at the evening sitting shall be a continuation of the Vote taken at the morning sitting; there will be an opportunity for discussing those smaller Votes which now very often are left wholly undiscussed, and vanish in the ruck at the end of the session.
Having thus described some of the advantages of the double sitting, let me give a time-table. The House under our plan will meet at 2 o'clock. Private business will be taken, as now, immediately after prayers; but we have arranged that non-controversial shall have precedence over controversial private business. At 25 minutes past 2 private business, if not concluded, will stand over till the evening sitting; so that, so far as private business is concerned, the scandal under which we have constantly suffered of
1366
having the whole of our public debate upset and brought into confusion by some controversy on a private Bill, will be rendered impossible. At 2.25 any member who desires to ask an urgent Question about the business of the House will be at liberty to do so, and, of course, the Leader of the House will be in his place to answer it. I do not imagine that these Questions, restricted as they are to questions of business—"What are you going to take next Monday, or what is to be the Supply on such and such a day?"—will take more time than five minutes; and, therefore, we may count that under this new system public business will begin at 2.30. Beginning at 2.30 it will go on without interruption until 7.15, when opposed business at the morning sitting comes to an end; and if there is not a division before 7.15, there can be no division after that hour, and therefore any member who desires to leave the House at 7.15 will be able to do so without any fear of missing a division. At 7.15 Questions come on, and may go on, if there are enough of them, till 8 o'clock. No other business is to be taken at the afternoon sitting after questions. Questions will be the last business at the morning sitting. The House will resume at nine o'clock; and, if there be private business carried over and put down for that day, that private business will come on. After that, public business will go on till 12 o'clock, and we do not interfere with the operation of the rule between 12 and 1. That is my first rough sketch of a Parliamentary day, which I shall have to fill in by further detail of what we mean to do about questions and a further account of what we mean to do about adjournments of the House.
In the meanwhile, let me leave my diary, and come to my journal. In each week before Easter there will be one whole day—under our plan, Thursday—given to Supply. By a whole day I mean an afternoon and an evening sitting. The other three afternoon sittings would be taken throughout the whole session for Government business. Before Easter the Government would, in addition, ask for one evening sitting. [An HON. MEMBER: In each week?] One evening sitting in the

1367
week, which would be Monday. After Easter the Government would ask for two evening sittings in each week, leaving one for private Members. After Whitsuntide they would take the time of the House, with the exception of two Wednesdays, which have for a long time now been devoted to Private Bills. In passing, let me say that an hon. friend of mine below the gangway has made a suggestion of what I think an extremely good change in procedure. At present the rule is that the two Wednesdays after the Whitsuntide holidays are taken for Private Bills. The result of the time being so taken immediately after Whitsuntide is that there is a great deal of anxiety to know when the Whitsuntide holidays are to end, and those controversies about the Government's taking Wednesdays, which are so intolerable, come on every year. I propose that the two Wednesdays that are given to private Members should be the third and fourth after Whitsunday. That must be beyond the limit of the Whitsuntide holidays. Therefore there can be no quarrel about it. The whole thing would work automatically, and there cannot be favouritism or the suspicion of favouritism.
I return to the journal the week:—Monday—afternoon sitting, Government; evening sitting, Government. Before Easter:—Tuesday—afternoon, Government; evening, private Members. Wednesday—afternoon, Government; evening, private Members. Thursday—afternoon and evening, Supply. Friday—private Members' Bills as at present on Wednesday.
An HON. MEMBER: No evening sitting?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There will be no evening sitting at all on Friday.
An HON. MEMBER: Meet at 12 o'clock?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes. It will be exactly the same as Wednesday; Wednesday is transferred, as it were, bodily to Friday. I believe that the Government ought to be content with that amount of time through the session, and that these private Members' nights—two before Easter and one between Easter
1368
and Whitsuntide—can be left with reasonable security from session to session and from year to year. I also feel that the alteration or the interchange between Wednesday and Friday will be a very great boon to a large class of Members who have business out of London. There will be private Members' Motions on the evening sittings that are left—Motions and Bills, but Motions will have precedence, to put it that way.
I promised that I would tell the House what course we intended to pursue with regard to adjournments. Our object is certainly—that Members shall know with absolute certainty that on such and such a day business begins at half-past 2; but if you leave the present rule about adjournments unaltered, that certainty vanishes like smoke. We have therefore made this alteration, and only this alteration, in the adjournment rule. Members may ask for an adjournment and obtain leave to move the adjournment exactly as they do now and at the same time as they do now, at half-past 2, just before public business; but if they obtain leave to move the adjournment they will have to do it at the evening sitting, at the beginning of public business. I think that has many advantages. It leaves the afternoon sitting absolutely untouched, and it enables some notice to be given to the House, and, it may be, even to the Minister concerned, of what is coming on. After all, a more irrational procedure than the present, which allows a complicated discussion to be started, in which the fate of the Government may be involved, without any notice whatever, either to the Minister concerned or to the House, is quite illogical.
MR. LABOUCHERE: How will the right hon. Gentleman meet the question of adjournment on a question in consequence of an answer received?
MR. A, J. BALFOUR: I am afraid the hon. Member would have to move the adjournment next day or at the earliest opportunity. But Mr. Speaker could give a ruling upon that. Under he existing rule you may move the adjournment on a Monday for a thing

1369
that has happened on a Saturday. I suppose if there was no earlier opportunity it would be moved next day.
MR. BARTLEY: Are only forty Members still required to give an hon. Member leave to move?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no alteration proposed there. I may say that, in my opinion, the forty Member rule has been abused, but you cannot ask Mr. Speaker to count more than forty; he never has counted more than forty. [Laughter.] Perhaps I should say he has never been asked by our rules to count beyond forty. You would have to have a division; and that I think would not be convenient.
Then I should say a word about "counts" of the House at the evening sitting. It will be remembered that controversial private Bill business comes on at 9 o'clock. It will be hard on promoters if it is in the power of any hon. Member to call attention to the fact that forty Members are not present; and the plan we have suggested is that no "count" shall be allowed before ten o'clock, but if before ten o'clock there be a division in which less than forty Members are present, the House will at once proceed to the next business on the Paper, and that division will not be regarded as a decision of the House. I think that will be found a better rule than the Wednesday rule; it will be less wasteful of private time, and it will be more convenient for those concerned with private business.
Now I come to Questions. I think every one must admit with regard to Questions two or three propositions which I will venture to lay before the House. In the first place, that the number of Questions has for many years been excessive. In the second place, that a very large number of those Questions are not improper Questions to put, but they are really more of a parochial than of an Imperial character. They concern the interests of small localities rather than the general interests of the country at large. But while I lay down those two propositions, hostile to our present proposal, I would lay down a third, which is that we ought to be very careful how we curtail the liberty of putting Ques-
1370
tions. That liberty may be abused; in my judgment it has often been abused; but I think that the liberty itself is a very important one. It may sometimes have the effect of keeping an erring Government in order; in any case, it is quite right if an important local interest is touched that the truth should be elicited by a Question put to the responsible Minister, is possible. While eliciting information is a most legitimate object, I do not regard with any great favour on general grounds, though I rather like them myself, those Questions which are intended to be merely the foundation of the cross-examination of a Minister. They are lively and agreeable, especially if you think you have a good case, but I do not think it is a proper use to which to put the time of the House.
How do we propose to deal with the subject? Questions will begin at 7·15 and, as far as the afternoon sitting is concerned, they end at eight o'clock. We propose that only those Questions shall be asked orally and answered orally which the hon. Members asking them star on the Paper; hon. Members will have the right to star their questions, the other Questions will be answered on the Votes of the House. I venture to point out to hon. Members that that is really an advantage from their point of view over the existing system. At present there is no authoritative record of answers at all. The answers are sent up very often by the Ministers to the newspapers or a copy of them is given to Members. Any hon. Member who does not star his Question will have that authoritative answer printed and circulated with the Votes, and it will remain there on permanent record. Only one supplementary Question should be asked with regard to any Question of which notice has been given, and that supplementary Question should be asked for the purpose of obtaining a necessary explanation, and asked only by the original questioner—the Member, in other words, who has put his Question on the Paper. We are sanguine enough to believe that, if this system be adopted, the time which elapses between 7.15 and 8 o'clock will be as a rule ample sufficient to deal with the Questions which have to be orally answered. Questions

1371
which are not answered before 8 o'clock, and which are starred, will stand over and be answered at 12 o'clock, at the interruption of business.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I ask a question, which I am sure will interest the House? In these circumstances, will the Questions addressed to the First Lord of the Treasury always be last on the list?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Most Questions addressed to me, at least the most important, relate to the business of the House, and these will always be asked at the beginning of the afternoon sitting.
I have now only to mention what we propose to do about Supply. In the first place, we mean to make the Supply rule a Standing Order; in the second place, we mean to adopt it in the form to which it was finally brought in August last, with these three alterations. We think it would be convenient to put on the face of the. Standing Order, what has always been the intention, that the Vote on Account shall be a night's business, not more. I will not stop to argue why, but I think it desirable that the Report of the Vote on Account shall not be more than one of two Sittings into which the Parliamentary day is divided. What is more important yet, we propose to make it part of the rule that no opposed business should be taken on a Supply night before 12 o'clock, when Supply is concluded. We have in the past had all sorts of tangles by controversial business coming on unexpectedly: and we have had to put down a Government Bill after Supply in order that, if, by a fortunate accident, the Supply which had been put down should be concluded, some quite unexpected private Member's Bill should not come on. We lay down therefore, that no controversial business shall come on after Supply before 12 o'clock. A third change, which will commend itself to all private Members, is this—we say that each of the allotted days for Supply is always to end at 12 o'clock, whether it be Report or Committee of Supply, and whether the 12 o'clock rule shall be generally suspended or not. There can be no greater absurity than the course which we were driven to last year—namely the necessity of suspending the
1372
12 o'clock rule for general legislation, and then having to spend the time after 12 o'clock on Votes of Supply. We do not think it right that Members should be expected to go through the wearisome task of discussing Report of Supply each week after 12 o'clock. No discussions have been less profitable or have led to less good results, and none have been less satisfactory to those who engaged in them or more thoroughly unpleasant to those who listened to them. Nothing in the new rules will do more to add to the general comfort of Members than the fact that a Supply night is a night which, throughout the session, and irrespective of the chances and changes of the session, or whether Supply is being discussed in Committee or on Report, shall always end at 12 o'clock at night.
If the House will do me the honour to survey the proposals with regard to the new arrangements which I have laid before it, Members will see that they carry out the great objects, as regards the convenience and certainty, which I think are those which ought to animate us in regulating our procedure. If that be so, and if a further examination shows that these changes conduce, as much as I think they will, to the convenience of Members, I am sure hon. Gentlemen will not be so unreasonable as to suppose that they can have their cake and eat it also—that they can enjoy every privilege which they enjoyed under the old system and possess in addition all the advantages of the new system. I do not for a moment pretend that the scheme which I have laid before the House exhausts the possibilities of Parliamentary reform. On the contrary, I myself should like very much to see something done in regard to the King's Speech, with regard to private Bill legislation, and with regard to that aspect of Supply which consists in the discussion not of questions of policy but of details of expenditure. But we have no proposals to make on those points. I think it probable that the House would like to see some of them referred to a Select Committee for consideration; but at all events we have not been able sufficiently to persuade ourselves that we had a good scheme to propose which would justify

1373
us in dealing with these matters on the present occasion.
May I conclude, Sir, by deprecating criticism from two quarters. I hope that nobody will criticise that part of our scheme which his intended to meet the convenience of Members, who does not himself suffer from the inconvenience which Members who attend are now suffering from. I hope, for example, that no man will sneer at our arrangement for a dinner hour unless he can show to the satisfaction of the House that he has dined here at least once a week during his Parliamentary career. I hope, in the second place, that no man will meet us by saying that we are abandoning the old traditions of this House and throwing away safeguards which were once found necessary in our constitution. After all, Charles I. is not knocking at our door now, and our business now is not to fight with the Crown. The dangers that we have to fear are not the dangers which our ancestors had to fear; and the fact that we put our bows and arrows in a museum does not at all show that we are insensible of the real practical necessities of the age. Let us endeavour to face the facts of Parliamentary life as we find them. Let every man sitting on this side of the House contemplate these rules as if he were to-morrow going to sit on the other side of the House. And, per contra, let every Gentleman on the opposite side of the House remember that the time may come when he may sit on this side. [Cries from the Nationalist Benches, "We will never sit there."] I do not know whether my appeal has fallen short of hon. Members below the gangway; but at any rate it has its significance with regard to Gentlemen sitting in all other parts of the House. We do not pretend that this is a complete scheme or a final scheme; and we do not believe in finality in these matters. But we do believe that these reforms will add enormously to the convenience of the House, and shorten some unnecessary opportunities for debate; and that they will yet leave this House what it always has been and ought to be—not merely a machine for passing legislation, but a free arena in which questions interesting to the country may be freely discussed.
MR. A. J. BALFOURthen rose to move the Resolution on the Paper.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: On this Motion I rise to a point of order. My right hon. friend is about to move a Motion which stands in his name, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will read it:—
"That the consideration of the Rules of Procedure prososed by the Government whenever set down have precedence on every day except on Wednesday, and that the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to Tuesday and Friday." I submit that that Motion sins against the rules of the House, for it contains two distinct, separate and unconnected propositions. The first is that precedence should be given to the rules of procedure, and the second relates to an entirely different subject, and proposes to apply the rule now applying to Supply to two other days. Those are separate and distinct propositions, and I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that they are propositions which should be put separately, and we ought to have the opportunity of voting upon them separately.
MR. SPEAKER: That is so, and the right hon. Gentleman should therefore move the two parts of the Resolution separately. The first part will cease to be operative as soon as the new rules have been disposed of; but the effect of the second part will endure for the whole session.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall, Mr. Speaker, of course at once obey your ruling and move the first part of the Resolution relating to the rules of procedure. I do not mean to justify this proposal, because the necessity for such a Motion is obvious. I will take the opportunity to make a suggestion with regard to next week. Hon. Members on both sides are properly anxious that a full opportunity should be given to what was called the Second Reading debate on the new rules. It will be admitted that the Government, if anxious, to meet them, have a right to say that the Second Reading debate shall end next week. Assuming that the debate were to end on the Friday, the day on which that debate could begin must

1375
depend on how many days were to be given to it. If only two days are necessary, the Government will put down the Order for Thursday, but if three days are required the Order must be put down for Tuesday. It will then be possible to start the discussion of the rules one by one on the Monday following.
(6.15.) Motion made and Resolution put "That the consideration of the Rules of Procedure proposed by the Government whenever set down have precedence on every day except on Wednesday."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour)
The House divided:—Ayes, 289; Noes, 98. (Division List No. 9.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Groves, James Grimble

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Aird, Sir John

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hall, Edward Marshall

Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud)

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Craig Robert Hunter

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Mid

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Cremer, William Randal

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

Arrol, Sir William

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

Asher, Alexander

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Hrbt. Henry

Cross, Herb, Shepherd (Bolton.

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Crossley, Sir Savile

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Dalkeith, Earl of

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Harwood, George

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Denny, Colonel

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Balcarres, Lord

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

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

Dewar, T. R.(T'rH'mlets, S. Geo

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

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

Dickson, Charles Scott

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Banbury, Frederick George

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

Bartley, George C. T.

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Heaton, John Henniker

Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. Hicks

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Helder, Augustus

Bell, Richard

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Helme, Norval Watson

Bignold, Arthur

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Henderson, Alexander

Bigwood, James

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Bond, Edward

Elliott, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Emmott, Alfred

Horner, Frederick William

Boulnois, Edmund

Evans, Sir Francis H. (M'dstone

Horniman, Frederick John

Bousfield, William Robert

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Brassey, Albert

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Brigg, John

Fenwick, Charles

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Broadhurst, Henry

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (M'nc'r

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Brown, Alexander H (Shropsh)

Finch, George H.

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Fisher, William Hayes

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Bull, William James

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Forster, Henry William

Keswick, William

Butcher, John George

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Furness, Sir Christopher

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Caine, William Sproston

Galloway, William Johnson

Law, Andrew Bonar

Caldwell, James

Garfit, William

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

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

Lawson, John Grant

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Causton, Richard Knight

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbt. John

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Cavendish, R. F (N. Lancs.

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Leveson-Gower, Fredck. N.S.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Gordon, Maj. Evans- (T. Hmlts

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Chamberlain Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S)

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Grant, Corrie

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Chapman, Edward

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Lowe, Francis William

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Greene, Sir E. W. (B'ry S Ed'nds

Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

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

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Lyttleton, Hon Alfred

Macartney, Rt. Hon. W. G. E.

Purvis, Robert

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Macdona, John Cumming

Pym, C. Guy

Stone, Sir Benjamin

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Randles, John S.

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Maconochie, A. W.

Rankin, Sir James

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

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

Ratcliff, R. F.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Rea, Russell

Tennant, Harold John

Majendie, James A. H.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Remnant, James Farquharson

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Thornton, Percy M.

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Rickett, J. Compton

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfries-sh

Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Stalybridge)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John Wm.

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Ure, Alexander

Middlemore, John T.

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Valentia, Viscount

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Shef'ld

Milvain, Thomas

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Mitchell, William

Round, James

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Welby, Lt.-Cl. A. C. E. (Taunton

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Welby, Sir Charles G.E. (Notts.

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Ed. J.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Morrison, James Archibald

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Morton, Arthur H.A.(Deptford

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Wilson, A Stanley (York, E.R.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

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

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Paulton, James Mellor

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Smith, H. C. (N'th'mb. Tyneside

Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (H'dersf'd.

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Percy, Earl

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

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

Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

Soares, Ernest J.

Wylie, Alexander

Pirie, Duncan V.

Spencer, Rt. H. C. R. (Northants

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Plummer, Walter R.

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Sir William Walrond and Mr Anstruther.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Stevenson, Francis S.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

NOES.

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

Ffrench, Peter

Murphy, John

Abraham, Wm. (Rhondda)

Field, William

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Ambrose, Robert

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Newnes, Sir George

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Flynn, James Christopher

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Gilhooly, James

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hammond, John

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

Blake, Edward

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Boland, John

Hobhouse, C.E.H. (Bristol, E.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Boyle, James

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Burt, Thomas

Jacoby, James Alfred

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

Carew, James Laurence

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Dowd, John

Cawley, Frederick

Joyce, Michael

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

Channing, Francis Allston

Kennedy, Patrick James

O'Malley, William

Clancy, John Joseph

Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

O'Mara James

Cogan, Denis J.

Lambert, George

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lewis, John Herbert

Pickard, Benjamin

Crean, Eugene

Lloyd-George, David

Power, Patrick Joseph

Crombie, John William

Lundon, W.

Price, Robert John

Cullinan, J;

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Reddy, M.

Dalziel, James Henry

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

M'Cann, James

Robson, William Snowdon

Delany, William

M'Govern, T.

Roche, John

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Schwann, Charles E.

Dillon, John

M'Kenna, Reginald

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Doogan, P. C.

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Shaw Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Dunn, Sir William

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Edwards, Frank

Mooney, John J.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Farrell, James Patrick

Murnaghan, George

Sullivan, Donal

1378

1379

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Yoxall, James Henry

Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Question put and agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
(6.25.) Motion made and Question proposed "That the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to Tuesday and Friday."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
MR. GIBSON BOWLESpointed out to the First Lord of the Treasury that this Resolution, if passed as it stood, would become a Sessional Order. He thought that was hardly what the right hon. Gentleman desired. He imagined that what the First Lord wanted was the opportunity of putting down Supply on Friday until the new rules he proposed were passed and enabled him to take Supply on Thursday. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to make it a Sessional Order. Inconvenience would arise from passing the Resolution in its present form and making it a Sessional Order, because the new rules would come into operation, and it would be necessary to bring in another Resolution to rescind the Sessional Order, and consequently the right hon. Gentleman would, as it were, have an inconvenient obstacle in the way to get rid of, before bringing the new rules into force. He (Mr. Bowles) suggested the insertion of words limiting the Resolution to the time during which the rule would be in operation. He proposed after the word "that" to introduce the words "until the House shall otherwise order."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I accept that.
Amendment made, by inserting after the word "That," the words "until the House otherwise order."
Main Question, as amended, again proposed.
MR. DALZIELasked the First Lord of the Treasury the exact meaning he attached to the words. He understood the right hon. Gentleman only wished the proposal to apply until the procedure rules had
1380
been disposed of. If the right hon. Gentleman intended it to apply to the whole of the session, he submitted that the hon. Member for King's Lynn had got nothing at all by the acceptance of his Amendment. The House would never order unless the right hon. Gentleman ordered the House, so that by accepting the Amendment he was giving nothing away at all. He proposed that the words proposed by the hon. Member for King's Lynn should be left out, and that the following words should be added at the end of the resolution "until the consideration of the new procedure rules have been completed." The House ought not to give away something to-night which might affect the discussions of the new procedure rules. He suggested that the right hon. gentleman ought not to determine this question for the whole of the session, or to take the Motion in regard to Standing Order 56 until the new rules of procedure were complete.
MR. DILLON: There is one question I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman. Would his proposal as now moved enable him to put down Supply for Tuesday next?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I confess that I thought I had given a distinct understanding that I do not propose to take Supply on Tuesday next. The case stands thus. I did not mention in that very long speech I made just now, but I do propose—as hon. Members will see if they have the proposed new Standing Orders and look at the last but one on page 8—I propose to make the rule general as regards Supply, and that, I think, will be in accordance with general convenience. In any case I do not think that the suggestion of the hon. Member is really very practical. What I mean to do is this. There is a whole group of rules dealing with the arrangement of business; but these are so connected and interlaced, that none of them should, I think, come fnto operation until the whole of them have been dealt with. But directly they are passed they should at once come into

1381
operation, and Members should have their full right over Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and the Supply rule would come into operation for Thursday. Therefore, I think the hon. Member will be delaying too long if he waits until we have disposed of all the rules. If we pass this block of rules, a resolution would give assent to this block and terminate a temporary arrangement.
Ordered, That until the House otherwise order, the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to Tuesday and Friday.

LONDON WATER SUPPLY.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I beg to ask leave to introduce a—
"Bill for establishing a Water Board to manage the supply of water within London and certain adjoining Districts; for transferring to the Water Board the undertakings of the Metropolitan Water Companies; and for other purposes connected therewith."
I am conscious that I have undertaken a task of considerable difficulty, one which has been essayed by others before me obviously without success, or it would not fall to the present Government to propose legislation on the subject. But I am hopeful that we will be able to deal successfully with the question, not merely because I am confident of the justice of the proposals I am about to make, but also because I believe that, generally speaking, among all those concerned with the question, whether in the interests of London consumers and ratepayers or those interested in water companies, or indeed of any who take an interest in it from any point of view, there is a general consensus of opinion that the time has come when the question ought to be finally settled. There is a general and widespread desire that some reasonable scheme should be produced which will remove this question of the administration of the London water supply from the region of political controversy,
I will not trouble the House with an historical retrospect, but I feel bound briefly to state why legislation on the subject is proposed. When the provision of a water supply in a district is
1382
the duty of the sanitary authority of that district, as a rule the work is done by the municipal authority; but when the London County Council was established in 1888 they were not empowered as the water authority for the metropolis. They were created a County Council very similar to other administrative bodies in the counties of England and Wales, and in their case, as in others, it was not thought necessary to entrust them with the administration of the powers of water supply. But following on an investigation by a Committee of this House, the necessary powers were conferred upon the London County Council to enable them to apply for legislation which would make them the water authority. Without wishing to raise any controversy between the London County Council and the Government, or any other local authority, I will at once say that, in the proposals I have to make on behalf of the Government, there 's no feeling of hostility to the London County Council. At the same time I feel bound to say that, if the Council felt aggrieved because they had not by this time become the water authority, they must blame themselves rather than the Government or Parliament. If they had made a better use of the opportunities which they hold, I believe they might have before now been the water authority. They decided—rightly or wrongly I will not say—to deal with this question in a way which certainly did not secure the confidence of the community or of the House and they were unable to pass the, legislation they applied for. Their last application to Parliament failed last year; and on that occasion I, speaking on behalf of the Government, said it would be impossible to continue session after session rejecting these proposals, and that it would be necessary to make proposals fairly as between the interests concerned; and now I propose to redeem the pledge then given.
We have had the advantage of a very exhaustive and able inquiry into this question by a Royal Commission, and, whatever may be the opinion upon the conclusions they arrived at, it will be allowed that the Commissioners were extremely able men, who gave most

1383
laborious and anxious attention to their inquiry, and that their Report is well worthy of the close consideration of any one who wants to know what the history of the facts of the case are, and that it is also a very useful guide for any one proposing to legislate upon it. The area comprised within what is called "Water London" is very large. The area of the county of London is 117 square miles, with a population of 4,536,000, and a rateable value of £39,769,000. The outside area is 449 square miles, the population 1,362,000, and the rateable value £7,303,000. The total area is 566 square miles, the population 5,398,000, and the rateable value £47,720,000. These figures show that the area which will be affected by the legislation is a very large one; the population is very great, and the rateable value enormous. And in the Report of the Commission presided over by Lord Balfour it was clearly pointed out that, as the population of "Water London" grew, it will be in the outside areas that the great increase will take place. As a matter of fact, already there is a tendency on the part of the population of London to spread outwards, and it is in the outer part of this great district that the future increase in the population will probably take place. Therefore it cannot be wondered at that when the proposals of the London County Council were to put the control of the water supply entirely into the hands of the Council, aided only by some co-opted members acting on the committee, they failed to secure the support of London in this House, and that they also failed to command the sympathy and secure the support of the representatives of the outside areas, who felt that altogether insufficient importance was being attached to their position, to their numbers, and to their requirements. Therefore, upon the authority of the Royal Commission, upon the authority of the Committee of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth was a distinguished member—indeed, upon all recommendations that had been made in reference to this subject—it is, I think, quite clear that any body which is to administer the water supply of "Water London" must be representative of the whole area con-
1384
cerned. It has been suggested that that body would be found in the London County Council; but I submit that while the London County Council represents; inner London, it did not represent, and could not be held to represent, that large outer London which is so vitally concerned in the proper and wise settlement of this question. It is, therefore clear that we must find a new body who will represent the whole area; and suggestions have been made in some quarters that unless the body which was to do this work is elected for the purpose the proposal will not be satisfactory.
I think hon. Gentlemen and people outside this House who take an interest in Local Government, and particularly in Local Government in London, will do well to study the statistics dealing with elections in London for various local proposes. Hon. Gentlemen very often express a desire that more interest should be taken in Local Government, and they express profound regret that so few are ready to take part either as electors or elected in the Local Government of their own area. These are "pious opinions" but they have a bad effect, and they do not bring about the results which those who indulge in them desire. It is interesting to find that, while in the Parliamentary elections in London in 1900 the percentage of electors who voted was 65, in the municipal boroughs it was 45, in the London County Council it fell to 40, while, in regard to the London School Board, in some districts it was 17, 22, and 14. That does not look at if it is probable that if we were to create a new area altogether, with a separate constituency and with a separate election, our proposal would be any more warmly welcomed by London, or that they would get any greater interest taken in the new elections than is taken in those which have to be held already. I believe it is only by limiting the number of elections, and by securing that the duties shall be concentrated in the hands of two or three bodies, and that their work should therefore be of a responsible character, that they will give that real life to Local Government in London and elsewhere which we all desire to see it possess, and without which it could not be as attractive to

1385
the general community as we should like to see it. I have said that the Government undertook this task because they felt last year, and feel now, that it is impossible to allow a controversy of this kind to continue, and as the local bodies of London have failed to find a settlement, it has become the duty of the Government to deal with the question.
I will endeavour, Sir, to explain, as briefly but as clearly as I can, what is the system which His Majesty's Government propose to substitute for the existing control of the London water supply. Clearly, some new authority must be found; and there are certain principles upon which the Government feel the creation of this new authority must rest. In the first place, it must represent the whole area covered by "Water London." It must rest, originally, upon the principle of popular election; and, clearly, as inner London has the larger population and rateable value, there must be a considerable majority representing inner London on the new body, though, at the same time, there must be a fair representation given to the outside areas whose interests are also very great. The Government plan has been to take the sanitary authorities of "Water London" and make it their duty to select representatives, who will form the Water Board in future for London. The sanitary authorities which we selected are the metropolitan boroughs and the City, the urban sanitary districts of the outside areas, the London County Council, and the county councils of the adjoining metropolitan counties. Those are the areas which the existing eight companies were authorised by their powers to supply. There are 28 metropolitan boroughs. Basing the representation as nearly as we can upon population and rateable value, there are six of the metropolitan boroughs—Islington, Kensington, Lambeth, St. Pancras, Stepney, and Westminster—each of which will have two members on the new body. The London County Council will have ten; the Common Council of the city two, the councils of all the other metropolitan boroughs one each, the council of the borough of West Ham two, the councils of East Ham, Leyton, and Walthamstow one each, the county councils of Kent,
1386
Middlesex, Surrey, Hertfordshire, and the Conservancies of the Thames and the Lee, one each. The outside urban districts will be grouped, and each group will be represented by one member of the Water Board. There will be a total membership of 67, with, in addition, the chairman and deputy-chairman, who can be elected from outside the body and paid. These figures give to London, as represented by the metropolitan boroughs, the City, and the County Council, a majority of two-thirds of the representation on the new body. The qualification for a member of the board is that he must be a member of the council of the borough which appoints him and, in the case of a group of urban districts, a member of one of the district councils composing the group. The board will be elected for three years, the whole of the members retiring at the end of that period. But the first board appointed, under the Bill will be elected for four years so as to give an extra year for the work which will have to be done in, getting possession of the undertakings, in making a start, and in commencing the work of administration and supply. It will be the duty of the metropolitan, councils and other local bodies to appoint members of their bodies as their representatives upon the Water Board, but there would be no election in the ordinary sense. It would be the duty of the metropolitan councils and other local bodies to appoint members of their bodies as their representatives upon the Water Board, but there will be no election in the ordinary sense. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman will be elected to the Water Board itself, and can be elected from outside their own body. Power is taken to the Local Government Board to vary the constitution of the Water Board as time goes on, if, owing to alterations either in population or any of the circumstances of the area concerned, it is necessary that the numbers should be altered; and this cannot be done by the Local Government Board through provisional order. That, I think, will be seen is a wise and necessary provision, as obviously the great part of the area may alter materially in coming years, and it will seem to be very desirable that there

1387
should be power for the Local Government Board to make such alterations as are necessary from time to time.
Then it is made the duty of this Water Board to purchase the London water companies, within an appointed time, by agreement, or failing agreement by arbitration; and to them on the appointed day will be transferred all the powers, duties, obligations, liabilities, and works of the existing companies that does not apply to where there is a large amount of real estate held by a company apart from their water supply. Where there are other estates apart from the water supply, the board will only be charged with the duty to take over that portion of the property of the company, which was their source of water supply and means of distribution. The Water Board will not only be charged with the duty of taking over all existing obligations and liabilities of the Company, but will, of course, be given power to promote legislation and power to appoint Committees to whom they can delegate any of the necessary work that has to be done in different parts of the Metropolis. The appointed day fixed in the Bill is January 1, 1903, but power is taken by the Local Government Board to extend that appointed day for a period not exceeding one year where it is found necessary and desirable in the interests of both parties that this should be done. The Bill provides that, if the settlement as between the companies and the Water Board is still continuing when the appointed day arrives, dividends shall be paid to the shareholders of the existing water companies until the purchase shall have been concluded. It makes provision for the costs of the water companies in the prosecution of their case, as before the arbitrators, for instance, to be advanced to them by the Water Board; and it preserves and gives to the water companies right of access to their works, offices, books, and anything else they may require in the event of the negotiations between themselves and the Water Board, not being entirely completed when the appointed day has arrived.
The purchase being by agreement, or failing agreement by arbitration, it becomes necessary to consider whether, in the case of arbitration, that arbitration should be in the ordinary form, or
1388
whether this is not a case where the suggestions of the Royal Commission should be followed, and a special tribunal set up for the purpose. The Royal Commission contemplated that this would be so large an affair, and one that could hardly be guided by precedent, that some special tribunal would in all probability be established by Parliament, and that is the view which the Government adopts. We propose to establish a special Court of arbitration composed of three gentlemen; and I am happy to say that, whatever may be thought of some of our proposals, I am sure the House will agree as to the complete qualification of the three gentlemen whose services we have definitely secured. They are the Right Hon. Sir Edward Fry, late a Lord Justice of Appeal, Sir Hugh Owen, late Permanent Secretary to the Local Government Board; and Sir John Wolfe-Barry, K.C.B., a very distinguished and well known engineer. I think the House will agree that we have been extremely fortunate in securing the services of these three gentlemen for work of such a very important character. The arbitration clause is an open clause giving full powers to the arbitrators; but we have adopted the recommendation of the Royal Commission, who expressly stated that in this case the usual practice of arbitrators of allowing 10 per cent. for compulsory purchase ought not to be permitted, and that, while the companies should be bought out upon a fair and just basis, a special allowance of 10 per cent. ought not to be made. Therefore, in the arbitration clause, appointing the Court of Arbitration this 10 per cent. is expressly prohibited. Further, there are words inserted in the clause that in arriving at the price of the undertaking the price is not to be enhanced or depreciated by the consequences of the introduction of a Bill in that House. It was felt that, whatever might be the effect on the property of the introduction of the Bill, it would be unfair to the companies themselves to depreciate their price if the effect was a bad one, and, on the other hand, that it would be unfair to the new authority—that was to say the people of London—if by the introduction of the Bill the price was driven up to enhance the price

1389
they would have to pay. Further, the expenses of the companies incurred by arbitration are provided for in this clause, subject, however, to the discretion of the arbitrators as to the reasonable and proper character of the expenditure. The decision of the Court of Arbitration will be final, in regard to all matters of fact while an appeal will lie to the Court of Appeal in regard to questions of law. I say the Court of Appeal because, Sir Edward Fry having himself been quite lately a distinguished Member of the Court of Appeal, it was felt to be fair and right that should there be any necessity for appeal from a tribunal of this kind the appeal should lie, in the first place, direct to the Court of Appeal, and should not go to the Court below. This will facilitate matters besides somewhat reducing the expense. The arbitrators are given full powers to hold such inquiries as they may think necessary themselves, or by a sub-commission, to arrive at what they believe to be the true value of the undertakings, and to fix the price, and they are given full power also with regard to any expense incurred in connection with the transfer. To the Water Board will be transferred the powers and the liabilities of the existing Companies, but I ought to say, that in one respect there will be a change. In regard to borrowing, the existing powers of the companies are repeated, and the Water Board will be given borrowing powers in the ordinary way, such as are conferred on local authorities. The Water Board will represent, control and administer the whole area which is now governed by eight different companies. The Water Board issue stock at 3 per cent. per annum, which will be their water stock. If the income of the year was not sufficient for the expenditure of the year they are given the power to rate. If the water income of the year is not sufficient for the expenditure of the years in the case of inner London they will issue their precept to the metropolitan boroughs, and in the case of outside districts to the overseers in the ordinary way for there venue which they may require, and which will have to be provided by the rates. I ought perhaps to say that in regard to outside areas there may be some little difficulty in respect of the incidence of rating, because they are
1390
not all of them supplied over the whole of their area by the water companies to be purchased, and the suggestion is that they should pay not upon their whole rateable value, but upon the rateable value of that portion of the area which was supplied by the water company, and that, while that should be the basis upon which they would be charged, the sum will be levied over the whole area.
I now come to what is, perhaps, in one sense, the most important part of the Water Board's duties—the way in which they will pay the companies whose properties they will take over. From the recommendations of the Royal Commission it does not appear to be quite clear what they had in their minds. They suggested that in the event of the water company's being paid by somebody appointed in this way they might be paid in water stock or in cash, and that if they were paid in cash it would be necessary to make an allowance in respect of any loss which the shareholder might incur in their investments owing to the period of time which would elapse between their investment and the time when the next investment would begin to bear fruit. The Government feel in this matter that there is no precedent to which they can refer with any confidence as to what ought to be done. In all other cases the difficulties have been so much less serious than they are in this case that no precedent drawn from municipal history in the rest of the country seems to help. We have therefore had to consider what would be the general effect of the issue of a very large amount of water stock in order that the companies may be paid out in cash. We have had to consider whether it would not be desirable to adopt the suggestion made in more than one quarter to authorise and enable the Water Board to pay the companies in water stock at a rate of interest of 3 per cent.; and, believing as we do, that we have given a tribunal in the form of an Arbitration Court, which is competent and must be satisfactory, and believing, also, that the water companies are offering good and sound properties, we do not think there is any hardship or injustice done in making it the duty of the Water Board to purchase

1391
the companies at a fair price, which would be decided by the Court of Arbitration, and to pay for them in the water stock of London. That certainly can not be a worse security than any thing the shareholders hold now, for it will have behind it the property of the eight companies, and, in addition, of course, the rates of Water London. That is a proposal which we feel can be made with justice to the companies, and in the interests of London as a whole. If a loss is in any way incurred by the new board it is upon London and the ratepayers of London that the burden will fall, and while it is certain that nothing less than justice should be done to the water companies at the same time regard must be paid to the ratepayers of London who pay, and any loss that may be made, or for any mistakes that may be made. Therefore, it seems reasonable that the water companies shall be paid in water stock. In regard to the sinking fund, the Royal Commission recommended that at all events a longer period than usual should be given before the Water Board began to create a sinking fund. We have adopted that suggestion, and for all the money borrowed either for purchase or for redemption of stock we give the ordinary period of 60 years, but postpone the commencement of the fund for 20 years. In other words, we give a period of 80 years. Where the sinking fund is required for any other purposes it will come undor the ordinary time of 60 years.
I do not think I need say anything except in regard to the rural districts. There is a large part of London which is purely rural. The Government scheme has left that part of Water London very much as it is now, the only difference being that these districts can require to be supplied in bulk, and they will then have to distribute themselves, ceasing to be that part of London supplied by the Water Board. If they do not so supply themselves they will go on as they are now, and no change will he made. Then, a special provision will be made in regard to places like Croydon. There is also a provision in the Bill which I hope will meet the case of such places as Finchley and others, which have a water supply of their own, a supply which, not being quite sufficient for the purpose, is augmented by supplies
1392
given by existing companies. Provisions are also inserted with regard to the servants of the existing companies, with regard to the dissolution of the companies after the purchases are complete, with regard to the regulations which are to be issued by the Local Government Board in reference to the issue of stock, and, further, with regard to the distribution of the moneys which these companies will receive for their property as between their shareholders. In regard to this, a schedule is put in the Bill which will be filled in after the companies have made their own proposals, and the money will be distributed by the companies to the shareholders on a plan arranged by themselves.
I can assure the House that, whether they like the Bill or not, it is an honest attempt to deal with a very difficult question. Hon. Gentlemen who have only approached it from the critic's point of view can not realise in the smallest degree how great and numerous are the difficulties connected with the London Water Companies. The Government has been animated by no feeling of hostility to the London County Council or any other local body; we have striven honestly to find a practical solution of this long-vexed question. I hope and believe the Bill will receive fair consideration from the House, and I am confident that if passed into law it will be found to be a satisfactory solution of this great problem.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman did not use language of exaggeration when he spoke of the great complexity as well as the great importance of this question; but he has laid his proposals before the House with the most admirable clearness—perhaps I may say, with his invariable clearness. In one respect it seems to me that those who have hitherto taken an interest in this large question will recognise the important concessions made by the Government as compared with the proposals or sketches with which we have been favoured on previous occasions. For instance, with regard to the valuation of the property of the Water Companies, although without examination of the actual terms it would be difficult and dangerous to commit one's self to any positive opinion, but we recognise that

1393
the general scope and idea of the proposals of the Government are a very distinct advance on what has sometimes been conjectured. The right hon. Gentleman has been fortunate—as he said himself—to secure the services of three so eminent persons as those whom he named, and, if the terms of reference are suitable and safe, I think he has suggested a satisfactory method of dealing with the very important side of the subject. Of the whole question, that was one of the most thorny points.
The other, I venture to say, was the question of the constitution of the Board, and here, I am afraid, I must part company with the right hon. Gentleman. The proposed constitution of the Board appears to me to be a most extraordinary one. Supposing we were engaged in forming a water authority for some great municipal town: Where should we go for it? Where is the mystery or difficulty about it? We should go to the municipality to which the water was to be supplied. For many years London was destitute of any proper Municipal Government. The right hon. Gentleman and his friends conferred upon it a Municipal Government, and, although, at first the body was exposed to strong animadversions and met with a good deal of opposition, it has lived down the calumnies to which it was subjected. The right hon. Gentleman himself now, if he goes to a public dinner at which the body is in any degree represented, will make the most effusive speeches in praise of the extraordinary ability and success with which the London County Council conduct their business. Yet when it comes to a question of actual work, giving them a responsibility, then His Majesty's Government and hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to forget all the nice things they say in after-dinners speeches, and show themselves to be distrustful—almost contemptuous of the very body they themselves created.
The right hon. Gentleman said the County Council had been meddling with this matter, had had various schemes on hand for dealing with the water supply, but had always failed to gain the support of the London people in this House. Yes, but they have had the support of the London people out of this House.
1394
It is because they were elected on purpose to deal with this matter, and the electors, who are certainly the best judges, show their confidence in them by continually increasing the majority, which was given to the more active party in that body. And because, forsooth, those in this House, who represent London, and were elected for other purposes altogether, are opposed to the London County Council, the right hon. Gentleman thinks that is a sufficient reason for passing by this great and active useful body, and trying to scramble together some kind of heterogeneous board.
MR. WALTER LONG: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken, for I did not give that as the reason for the action of the Government. I stated it as a fact that whether the London County Council had been wise or unwise, they had failed to deal with this question, and as it had not been dealt with by any other body, we were compelled to act.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: But whose support did the County Council obtain? They obtained the support of the population of London, and a better testimony could not be given to the efficiency of a public body. But because London was unfortunate enough to be represented by hon. Gentlemen sent to this House for some other purpose altogether, the County Council are to be passed over in this way. It is not reasonable, and it is not common sense. I believe the right hon. Gentleman has tried to dazzle us with figures and other matters involved in this huge area, such as the valuation, the population, and so forth. It may be different in this case, in degree and extent, from the case which occurs in every other municipal borough in the kingdom, but it is only in degree and extent, and even other municipalities have often to go beyond their own limits for a water supply, and there is no difficulty in the matter. But here, forsooth, we are to have all these elaborate arrangements to constitute an authority something like the old Metropolitan Board of Works, consisting of men appointed by bodies elected for another purpose, and having no knowledge of the matter with

1395
which they have to deal. What have the new municipal boroughs in the Metropolis to do with water, what do they know about water, as compared with the County Council, which is in a position to deal with the wants of London on a large scale? It is not arguable, and the only object which there could have been was to flout the County Council, and I cannot see what else can have been their intention. The right hon. Gentleman has made some of those somewhat reactionary observations to which the House is not unaccustomed from that Bench regarding representative institutions. He has said that the bodies in London and that part of England which depends upon popular election, attract very little interest in the community. Sometimes one gains a little by presenting a negative. But if the right hon. Gentleman does not like this system, what would he suggest? Would he suggest nomination?
MR. WALTER LONG: No, certainly not.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANYour must therefore have election.
MR. WALTER LONG: Certainly.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am in favour of direct election with the fullest powers, and not this sort of secondary election by the appointment of one or two members of a number of public bodies to work together for by such a system the responsibility is frittered away in a scrambled authority which is certain, unless our experience is to go for nothing, to end in mismanagement and extravagant expenditure. We have already to hand a body which is showing more and more every day how efficiently it can do its work. But instead of making use of it, the Government take only ten of its representatives and gather together from the by ways and hedges—[Ministerial cries of "Oh"]—I do not mean any slur, but the Government gather together persons originally elected for disjointed purposes, and I do not think this is a course likely to result in an efficient and economical administrative body. That is the principal objection I conceive to the hon. Gentleman's proposal, and though this is not time to develop it, I think
1396
the right hon. Gentleman will find that it will be developed when the Bill reaches later stages. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to modify his scheme materially in this respect or to give some better reason for this feature of it than he has done hitherto.
Mr. BOULNOIS: If those of us who represent the enormous interests dealt with in the proposed Bill do not now criticise the details, it must not be taken that we acquiesce in the Bill. It is impossible at this stage to go into the details which have been so lucidly and ably propounded to the House by my right hon. friend. The proposals, especially in reference to the exceptional treatment which it is proposed to mete out to the shareholders of the water companies, both with regard to arbitration and mode of payment will, of course, require very serious consideration. I can only say at this stage that we, who represent the water interests in this House—[Opposition cries of "Hear, hear"]—I am not at all ashamed to say I that, because I stand up here as the representative of an interest which is extremely large, and which will require protection, not only in this House but outside, when we come to deal with the way in which they shall receive their proper dues. I hope at this stage and at all times, when this matter is under consideration, it will not be thought that I am in any way personally interested in the matter, and I am only looking after those who cannot look after themselves. As far as we are concerned, we shall give the most careful investigation into the Bill in all its details, into which we shall be prepared to go at the proper time.
MR. JOHN BURNS: This is not the time or opportunity to make any lengthened observations upon a Bill such as that which has just been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman, and I shall confine what I have to say to that portion of the Bill which takes away from the chief sanitary authority of London, as the London County Council undoubtedly is, a duty and function which ought to be conferred upon it, and which is similarly conferred upon every

1397
sanitary authority throughout Great Britain and Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government had recognised the neeessity of the water supply of the community being in the hands of the local authorities. The County Council of the Metropolis is recognised by the Borough Councils of the Metropolis as being the chief sanitary authority, therefore it cannot be the local sanitary authority in the Borough Council interpretation of the term, simply because the extraordinary size of London prevents the central body attending to the detailed duties of each of the districts now looked after by the Borough Councils. When the Sanitary authority is to have charge of the water supply, it does seem to me that the water supply ought to be in the hands of the metropolitan body, and not detached and handed over to irresponsible bodies known as the Borough Councils. The right hon. Gentleman said that the London County Council was not created for this particular purpose. That is not the fault of the London County Council, but it was the fault of the stepmother who brought it into existence, and has rather been ashamed of its baby ever since. It is not our fault that the parentage of this baby has been claimed by both sides of the House. The right hon. Gentleman said he had no hostility to the London County Council. To that I have only to say—
"Perhaps it was right to dissemble your love,
But why did you kick me downstairs?"
That is the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman has adopted to-night. If I wanted an excuse for the attitude the London County Ceuncil has taken, we have it in the speech of the President of the Local Government Board, because he admits that this is a difficult question, a question of great complexity, and one which will have to be permanently settled, not in the interests of the water companie's shareholders, nor of the water company directors. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that the ratepayers will have to provide this enormous amount of money out of which the present shareholders will not get I hope a too extravagant compensation When we see that the right hon. Gentleman has himself been compelled to abandon both the spirit and
1398
the strict letter of the Lands Clauses Act, as he does, that in itself is a justification for all the sums of money spent by the Council upon all the Bills which the London County Council have been compelled to introduce for the benefit of the ratepayers of London. I am surprised at the action of the right hon. Gentleman who, I think, ought to know better, and he really does know better, because he has a competent Department to advise him, and he ought not to urge the largeness of the water area of London as a reason for exceptional treatment. Large as London is, and large as the amount of money is which is to be spent buying the companies out, it is not relatively larger than Glasgow, Bradford, Birmingham, Liverpool and other large areas where the council is the sanitary authority, and where they have relegated to them the control and administration of the large water supplies which they have in their hands. If the London area is exceptionally large so the price to be paid will be exceptionally large, and the largeness of its area is all the greater reason why it should be placed under the control of an efficient experienced and centralised body such as the London County Council, is with a Water Committee of not more than 15 or 20 at the very outside. Such a body would manage the affairs of Water London better than this mob of 67 or 69 men, gathered from all corners of the earth, who know as much about London as I do about the Zimbabwee Temples north of Rhodesia.
What is the reason that the right hon. Gentleman gave for this exceptional treatment of London? It is not in accordance with the County Council's attitude to the local bodies. I heard one member opposite, who certainly ought to have known better, state that he was under the impression that the Council ought not to look after the water supply because the Council did not go everywhere. But what does the Council do? The County Council is not only the sanitary authority exercising the duties pertaining to that department, but it goes to West Ham and does its drainage, and does it to the advantage of that place. It goes to Hornsey, Tottenham, Acton, Willesden, Penge, and several other places where the necessities of the drainage of London

1399
have insisted on the carrying out of this important sanitary function, and it does this to the satisfaction of everybody on agreed terms, The Council does it better than the outside area could do it for themselves. My answer to those who object to the Council having control of the water is that if the Council is energetic and capable enough to keep down disease by doing this particular drainage work, if we are good enough to empty the slops, I see no reason why we should not drink pure water. I object to the County Council becoming the drudge of all those outside authorities with unremunerative work, while the remunerative work of the water supply is given to another body, though it could be equally given to the Council in precisely the same way as Glasgow and Birmingham, who distribute the remunerative water, and who lower the rate of the outside community in proportion to the advantage which they themselves reap. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have ignored the Council to the extent he has. What is this new authority? Inner London, out of the 67 or 69 members, is to have 10 members.
MR. WALTER LONG: No, there are Borough Councils represented.
MR. JOHN BURNS: I know what is to happen to them. I am going to prove that that is not representation worthy of the name. I know what the Borough Council representation will be. It is not at all improbable that the water shareholders will see that the members of the Borough Council do not go to the water council but that the Aldermen are nominated or selected, thus making up 34, a very material factor in determining the price and the influence that must be brought to bear on this question between now and the appointment of the arbitrator The London County Council is to have 10 of the 69 members, though the area administered by the Council contains about 70 per cent of the population and has to provide 82 per cent of the cash. [Cries of "Oh."] Yes, the right hon. Gentleman may differ from me about a matter of opinion; he has a perfect right to do so, but if he wants confirmation of facts Sir
1400
Hugh Owen will uphold the statement I have made. The County Council has 70 per cent of the population, and is to provide from 80 to 82 per cent of the cash. I say it is imposing an insult and a burden which a big city like London has no right to sustain, and it is because I have taken an active part in promoting the County Council Bills, and because I believe the County Council by its experience is the best qualified body for this particular work that I resent on behalf of those ratepayers who sent me to Parliament and to the County Council this slight that has been put on the Council by its exclusion.
There is one satisfaction about this proposal. This body will not work. It is irresponsible, and I believe it will prove to be incompetent. It will rely on the chairman and the deputy chairman for much advice and guidance, and they, poor fellows, would probably break down in eighteen months or two years. This will be a more difficult problem for them to manage than they probably think when they are nominated from the Borough Councils. When they come to the London ratepayers in the last resort for the large sums of money for compensation for the extraordinary expenditure of money which will be necessary to get a new water shed instead of the Thames, then this body will prove its incapacity to do the work, and Parliament at a later stage will come as it should have done at first to the London County Council, whose credit is good. Look how our £3,000,000 loan was snapped up this morning. [An HON, MEMBER: "You gave it away."] Gave it away! We get our money cheaper than the Government does for its war, and it is because we spend it on better objects. The experience of the County Council is better than that of those floating particles of persons who are nominated at the direction of the water shareholders. I am convinced that the proposed body is too large, that it is unwieldly and unpractical, that it will be extravagant, and that within two years it will break down. The right hon, Gentleman will be compelled as a last resource perhaps to come to the County Council after all this money has been wasted or, at all events, badly spent, and we shall be asked to undertake a duty and responsibility which even then we would not

1401
hesitate to undertake—a duty which we should not be asked to undertake when we are denied the opportunity in the beginning of the settlement of this question. I cannot understand the right hon. Gentleman or his Department. The Secretary for India, the Under Secretary for the Colonies, and above all the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, of whose work I have always been an appreciative admirer, when they come in contact with the Council's work have nothing but praise for it. Whenever they come to our banquets—which I am sorry to say I do not attend, for I object to sacrifice my digestion on the altar of friendship—they have nothing but praise for the administrative capacity and probity of the London County Council. If these be true statements which they give forth, as they really are, why should they deny to us the elementary duty of a sanitary authority, namely the right to manage our own water supply? It is because not once nor twice, nor for the twentieth time in the history of the Governments of this country, Governments have been the pliant instruments of the water directors and shsreholders. They have too often neglected their collective responsibility to the ratepayers who will have to pay the twenty, thirty, or thirty-five millions of compensation. But if the Government have made up their minds to take their marching orders from the water directors and shareholders. I prefer to take mine from the ratepayers. It is because the County Council has proved itself constant to the London rate-payers and has been trusted up to the hilt by them that I object very strongly to that portion of the Bill which prevents the Council from being the water authority, and for purely political, and in some cases commercial reasons, denies to what is perhaps the best municipality in the world, the elementary duty of owning, purchasing, compensating and controling the water supply which it has been too long prevented from securing under its management. I have this word of advice for the right hon. Gentleman. When his Board breaks down, and when like a lame dog he wants to be helped over the stile, we shall forget and forgive him for all his mistakes, and we shall be delighted to take over the responsibility and
1402
undertake the management of London's water supply in the interest of the rate payers.
MR. HUDSON: As one of the representatives of the outside areas I should like to say a few words on this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has not told us to what extent the areas outside of the London district are to be taken in, and that is a material point. I understand that part of the county of Essex and Kent are to the taken in.
MR. WALTER LONG: It has all been included.
MR. HUDSON: The whole county?
MR. WALTER LONG: —No there are eight companies that have statutory powers for what is known as the water supply of London. I could not tell my hon. friend without a map in my hand, but they take in portions of each of these counties.
MR. HUDSON: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. At the same time I understood that if the water is supplied in any part of the area, so included in the water district, then the rate would be levied by the County Council not on that district but on the whole county. If that were so it would be a very hard case for those who might be twenty miles away from the district.
MR. WALTER LONG: I am sorry if I did not make the matter clear. What I intended to convey was exactly the reverse. What I said was that in certain of those urban districts outside London a portion only of the districts is supplied by the water companies at present, and that portion presumably will be supplied by the Water Board in the future. Then came the question how the contribution was to be made in those districts to the general fund, assuming that a general rate was levied. If levied over the whole area on the gross rateable value they would probably pay more than they received, but the principle we adopted was the general one of taking the here ditaments supplied with water to see

1403
what is the proportionate area of the whole area, and then we levy the charge proportionately on the urban districts, and not over the county.
MR. HUDSON: There is just one other point to which I wish to refer. The new Water Board will be able to sink any number of wells in the district, For four or five years discussions have taken place in the House, and we have opposed the London County Council Bills because they were anxious to sink fresh wells. They generally gave way towards the end when we opposed them upstairs. If this new board is able to do that, I am speaking honestly and truly when I say that we shall not have a single drop of water left in Kent. At the present moment there are rivers as dry as the floor of this House, and we cannot afford you one single drop of water. We think it extremely hard that people should take away our water into another area, when we want it ourselves.
MR. LOUGH: said the interesting altercation which had taken place on the other side of the House, showed the difficulties into which the Government were stumbling in this matter. He wanted to give one or two objections to the proposed authority, the constitution of which had not been stated, though it ought not to be kept back from the House for a single moment. The right hon. Gentleman told them that it was the areas which the water companies were authorised to supply that were to become the new water area. In reply to a question the right hon. Gentleman said that outside of London the water area was 449 square miles. There could not be any more deceptive figure offered to the House than that. He believed if they took the actual area of supply, and not the authorised area, they would not find outside the county of London, that it amounted to more than 70 or 80 square miles. By way of illustration he mentioned that the New River Company had the right to supply the whole of the county of Hertford, but as a matter of fact it had only about twelve supplies in that county. Every single water authority ever constituted in any city
1404
in the Kingdom, had had to grapple with these difficulties. The proportion of the outer to the inner water areas in Birmingham, Manchester and Bradford, was greater than in the London area, but on no pretext had the outer areas been able to obtain the right to be represented on the local water authority. The right hon. Gentleman had been unjust to the London County Council, when he said that the London County Council had not succeeded in securing the confidence of the community in regard to this water question. There never was a representative body based on a democratic franchise, that had secured such commanding support as the London County Council, although they had never concealed their views in regard to water or any other matter which they took up. The Metropolitan Borough Councils performed no duties analogous to those relating to the water question. Their duties were confined to matters relating to their own locality, while all the central duties such as main sewers, tramways, open spaces, &c., were entrusted to the London County Council. The London County Council was a trained body, ready for such work. Where as the local boroughs had no experience of it. He maintained that the experience they had had of the futility and costliness of the multiplicity of administrative bodies encroaching on one another's duties should have preserved the Government from repeating the mistake; and the result of the Government proposal would be that there would be a practical restoration of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He admitted that there were one or two good points in the Bill; but if the right hon. Gentleman had carefully studied the attempts of the London County Council to deal with this matter, and had had regard to the history of the whole question, he would have assumed quite a different tone than he had done. The right hon. Gentleman had adopted the London County Council's plan as to the price to be paid to the Water Companies for their undertakings, although that was the single ground on which the London County Council had been defeated in their measure in the past. The London County Council had been told that they wanted to rob the Water Companies when they asked that the question of

1405
price should be referred to arbitration, but now the Government had adopted the scheme, and it was wrong for them to deprive the London County Council of the fruits of victory. He wanted to know whether the Bill was to be referred to a Hybrid Committee, and what would be the course adopted with regard to the subsequent stages of the Bill. (8.10.)
MR. HARRY SAMUEL: As one who, ever since he became a Member of this House, has taken the deepest interest in the solution of the water question, and as the representative of a portion of the area which suffered more severely than any others from the want of sufficient water and various other things—some of which I am glad to say have been remedied, but others remain—I desire to take the earliest opportunity of thanking my right hon. friend for redeeming the pledge he gave last year that the present session should not be allowed to pass without an endeavour, at all events, on the part of His Majesty's Government to settle once for all this vexed question. What has been the object of my right hon. friend in the efforts he has made? Firstly, I think he has tried to draw the mean between the two sides, viz., those who purchase the Water Companies and the Water Companies who are to be purchased. He has endeavoured to deal absolutely impartially with them, and I think, though it is difficult to form an opinion on a Bill which has merely been expounded by the Minister in charge, we may say, without undue criticism, that he has dealt fairly as between the two opposing parties. The right hon. Gentleman is anxious to deal perfectly fairly with the Water Companies, to give them nothing to which they are not entitled, and to withhold nothing that is justly their due. On the other hand, he desires, and I think he has successfully carried out that desire, to form the best possible Board to manage the water supply of London, for both the inside and the outside areas of Water London. I have been somewhat astonished to find that almost the sole criticism from the benches opposite has been directed to one point, and that is as to who shall be the water authority. But, after all, we knew there would be considerable discontent expressed, for the County Council have not got what they have so much desired—the control of the London water supply.
1406
It is curious to note that the hon. Member for Battersea, and those who think with him, entirely ignore, because they wish to ignore, the finding of the Royal Commission specially appointed to deal with this question. That Commission strongly urges that these eight water companies should be purchased, but that the London County Council should not be the water authority. It is strange that a Royal Commission should be appointed for a special object, and then, that one side of the House—I will not say for what particular purpose, but the House will perfectly understand why—should choose to ignore one of its chief findings. We knew the line that would be taken by hon. Members opposite, but that does not alter the fact. You have to deal with the findings of the Royal Commission, and you cannot get away from them. His Majesty's Government had naturally followed the finding of the Commission, and in keeping with that finding they have decided that the London Council Council should not be the purchasing authority. What authority do the Government propose to set up? They propose to have representatives from the London Borough Councils, the Corporation of the City of London, the London County Council, and the outside areas. It has been said that the London County Council is the chief sanitary authority. If it is, though I do not allow the contention, it has been recognised as such by my right hon. friend, because it has five times as many representatives on the Board as any other authority. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has stated that this Board is to be composed of the tag-rag and bob-tail. Who are to constitute the Board? Whence are the representatives to come? The "tag-rag and bob-tail" are to come from the City Corporation, the 28 Metropolitan Corporations, and the outside areas. I sincerely trust the 28 Municipal Corporations of London will recollect the term in which they have been referred to by the Leader of the Opposition.
But let us consider for a moment who the members of these 28 Corporations are and how they are elected. First of all, they are infinitely more directly representatives of the people than are the members of any other body, either municipal or political. The members of the Corporation of London have absolute-

1407
ly to be ratepayers in the districts in which they are candidates before they can be elected—nobody can say, for one moment, that the present London County Council has been elected to be the water authority. It has never been elected by the people of London for that purpose ["Oh".] There has not been an election of any kind on the question of who should be the water authority in London, nor has the question been brought before the electors.
MR. CORRIE GRANT: Surely the hon. Member is aware that at the last two County Council Elections the water question was brought very prominently to the front in London.
MR. HARRY SAMUEL: I am perfect cognisant of the fact that the London water question was in a certain manner and for certain purposes brought before the electors, but the question has never been whether the London County Council should be the water authority. Then, how many electors voted at those elections? Only 40 per cent. of the whole electorate. Surely you cannot take that as a test of the feeling of London.
MR. CORRIE GRANT: And how many voted in the Borough Council Elections?
MR. HARRY SAMUEL: Forty-five per cent.—a larger proportion than in the County Council Elections. So there, again, the contention of the hon. Member entirely fails. As to indirect election, there is such a body as the Metropolitan Asylums Hoard, which, I believe, does its work uncommonly well. That body is elected in much the same way as the Water Board will be. Then there is the Technical Education Board. That also does its work extremely well.
MR. JOHN BURNS: It co-opts.
MR. HARRY SAMUEL: It co-opts? It has the same constitution as the Water Board.
MR. JOHN BURNS: There is no co-option here.
MR. HARRY SAMUEL: The Water Board will have the power of co-opting its Chairman and
1408
Vice-Chairman. ["Oh, oh."] Well, wherever it co-opts, it is co-option. Then the hon. Member for Battersea spoke of the possibility of the purchase of the members of the Board. I am surprised he should for a moment suggest that members of the Corporations of London could be purchased by anybody for any purpose. I should have thought the hon. Member would understand the people among whom he lives too well to suggest such a thing.
MR. JOHN BURNS: I know the Water Company Directors in this House.
MR. HARRY SAMUEL: The hon. Member may have the worst possible opinion of the Water Company Directors, but I must confess I am astonished that he should extend that opinion to the people among whom he lives and whom he represents. These Corporations have not been long in existence, but my opinion is that one is far more entitled to look to these 28 Corporations and their great model the Corporation of the City of London, as representing London, than the London County Council. It has been said that the Corporations of other cities, where the Water Companies have been bought out for the benefit of the people, have always had the control of the water supply. I agree, and my right hon. friend is carrying out the theory. He is taking representatives of the Corporation of London and giving to them the management of the water supply. This is exactly the line that one would expect a logical man to take. The general features of the Bill we shall have an opportunity of discussing on the second reading, and I have no wish to make a Second Reading speech; as far as I can see the Bill is a sound, just, and honest attempt to deal with this vexed question. I recognise the enormous amount of good work that has been done by the Water Companies in days gone by. When no Corporation would step in to supply the people of London, the Water Companies, gave them all they could desire. If at times there has been a defective supply, I am not at all sure it has been entirely the fault of the Water Companies. I recollect such occurrences in the House as the stoppage of Bills, and therfore I think that hon. Members opposite are as much to blame as the Companies for the defective supply. In bringing forward

1409
this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman is doing a service to London, and I believe it will be found that the local men representing the people on the Board will show that they can look after the interests of their own localities, and that they will be representatives to whom the localities will be grateful for the work they do.
MR CORRIE GRANT: I am glad to hear the hon. Member's acceptance of the findings of Royal Commisions. He told us that once a Royal Commission has presented a Report, it ought to be accepted as final. Another Bill is to be introduced presently, and I hope we shall then find the hon. Member adhering to the opinion he has expressed. Then, too, there was once a Bill dealing with the education of children. A Royal Commission reported on the age of children, but the hon. Member and his party, instead of accepting the recommendation of the Royal Commission, lowered the age from sixteen to fourteen years. These of us who take an interest in the votes of London Members will carefully notice how the hon. Member carries out the declaration he has so vigorously made. But I would make one suggestion, and that is that this full-handed acceptance of the Bill as a sound and just measure should be deferred, at any rate, until hon. Members have seen the Bill. Bills frequently have a very different complexion when you come to consider the clauses as they stand, and you see how the whole scheme works, than they appear to have when introduced by the Minister in charge. There is one thing very clear. The representation, as far as the outer area is concerned, is worth nothing at all. The district where I live is within the area of an urban district council, and these urban district councils are to be grouped together to appoint one member on the Water Board. Under these circumstances what representation should we have?
MR. WALTER LONG: But the London County Council would give you no representation at all.
MR. CORRIE GRANT: That is perfectly true. There are, however, some proposals of the London County Council which will deal much more fairly
1410
with the outer areas because one of their Bills gave the outer areas an opportunity of purchasing at an arbitration price water in bulk to supply their own district, and then taking the profit upon it. There are many of the areas outside London who would prefer to have their water in bulk in this way.
MR. WALTER LONG: The hon. Member must abide by the latest proposals of the London County Council, in which they have given up that idea altogether, because they have found such a scheme to be absolutely impracticable, and they accepted the general opinion that any proposal of the kind was impossible.
MR. CORRIE GRANT: I am quite ready to accept this correction, and perhaps the right hon. gentleman will now allow me to correct him. The London County Council has never been able to present its whole scheme to the House of Commons because it has had to put in modified proposals in order to secure support from some hon. Members of this House. The Bill upon this subject, which once got into Committee, would have become the law of the land but for the cordite division. These very clauses were under discussion at the time, and in two days more that Bill would have been through the House, and it was not the fault of the London members but the fault of the cordite division which threw out that measure. I was suggesting that between the two schemes that of supplying water in bulk to the outer authorities would probably be more popular with the district council where I live than the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman, under which my district will have one-third or one-fourth a member representing them on a board of 69. I rose merely to put one two questions to the right hon. Gentleman in order to make it a little more clear what the proposals of the measure are. The right hon. Gentleman's explanation will be read widely the people of London to-morrow and I want to ask him what is the nature of the agreement which the new Water Board is entitled to conclude with the water companies. I wish to know also whether the agreement with the companies is afterwards to be ratified by

1411
the Board of Arbitration, or when the agreement has been once made is it to binding. Is there to be any supervision beyond the Water Board itself? Can the Water Board purchase the undertaking of one of the water companies if it comes to an agreement as to price?
MR. WALTER LONG: The Water Board is given power to purchase any, or all of, the undertakings of the water companies by agreement, and failing agreement the question can be settled by arbitration.
MR. CORRIE GRANT: Would the Water Board be entitled to give 10 per cent. on compulsory purchase?
MR. WALTER LONG: The question is put to me in rather an extraordinary way. The hon. Member asks me if the Water Board would be entitled to give 10 per cent. on compulsory purchase, but the Water Board is only given power to purchase by agreement and not by compulsory purchase. Therefore, the price would be an agreed price between the Water Board and the company. The 10 per cent. on compulsory purchase only comes in when the proceedings go before the arbitrators. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite is better acquainted with legal matters than I am, but 10 per cent. is not provided for, or contained in, the Lands Clauses Act. It is an expression which has grown out of administration of those Acts, and it is adopted by arbitrators to cover difficulties that they have otherwise been unable to deal with. The Water Board can make any agreement they think fit to make with the Water Company, and they can give what price they like. If I they come to an agreement then they settle the matter themselves, and if they do not agree, then they go to arbitration.
MR. CORRIE GRANT: Perhaps mine was rather a technical point, but it is a fact that even where prices are settled between the householder and a local authority taking property, and where the price is settled by agreement they then add 10 per cent for compulsory sale.
MR. WALTER LONG: Yes, if it is part of the agreement.
MR. CORRIE GRANT: I understand, then, that this 10 per cent may be a part of the settlement.
MR. WALTER LONG: Of course I cannot dispute the hon. and learned Gentleman's deductions, and he may draw whatever conclusions he thinks fit. The Governmment propose in the Bill to prohibit the addition of the ordinary 10 per cent. in respect of compulsory purchase, but they give to the new authority power to arrange by agreement whatever price they choose. The hon. and learned Gentleman's description of the way they would do this does not agree with what I have always understood to be the manner in which voluntary arrangements are arrived at. The hon. Member's proposition does seem to be an extraordinary one, although I do not dispute the fact.
MR. CORRIE GRANT: I want to get the fact clear from the right hon. Gentleman, and now I have it clear. As I understand the right hon. Gentleman, the new authority will be entitled to purchase either one or the whole of the eight water companies by agreement, and they have a perfectly free hand in settling the price. Will the Water Board have any power to alter the charges made for supplying water? The right hon. Gentleman knows that they are levied by assessment, and I want to know if the Water Board will have any power to alter or vary those charges. Also how will this Board deal with any profits upon these undertakings?
SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: This is, of course, an early stage at which to express any definite opinion about this Bill. At the same time I think all of us will say that this measure, apart from details, and with many reservations commends itself to our favourabe consideration. What influences me most is that, at any rate, the Bill gives to London what to my knowledge the provinces have long enjoyed with advantage, and that is a public authority for dealing with the water supply, which will cease to be in private hands. In the debate on the King's Speech I ventured to make a general proposition, and a purely impersonal one, which I will repeat, namely, that it is desirable

1413
to remove the temptation to prefer dividends, with the chances of disease and death, in dealing with the prime necessities of life to the people. I speak impersonally, and I would not impute for a moment any intention on the part of those who direct our Water Companies in London of knowingly doing anything opposed to the principle I have laid down. I therefore take this opportunity of saying that since I made the remark I have been rather deluged by libellous post cards informing me that my statement was a lie and a reflection even upon my colleagues in this House. I desire to say that my remark had no such application. It was merely a general remark not applicable alone to the particular thing with which we were dealing. These postcards have been directed to me by shareholders in the Water Companies, and I can promise them that they will not prejudice me from doing justice in dealing with them, although I think I was not dealt with fairly in these libellous and open postcards.
In the provinces the administration by the municipalities of their water supplies has been in every sense of the term a vast benefit to the people, and the surprise of those who come from the provinces to London is that London could have been content to allow things to remain as they have been for so many years. It is that reason which leads me to welcome this Bill. In the provinces the water consumers are well cared for, the prices are very moderate and the ratepayers have nevertheless enjoyed a substantial benefit in the reduction of rates from undertaking their own water supplies. Some of our very greatest municipalities like Glasgow, Liverpool, and Hull, and other places have been very successful in this respect. I think every one will agree from the experience of a great town like Hull that the expenditure upon its water supply has been its redemption from cholera and other forms of diseases. The fears in this case seem to be whether in London the undertaking would be conducted on principles of prudence and economy, but parsimony in matters touching the health and strength, and so the wealth, of the people is certainly not economy. I
1414
hope the Board entrusted with those duties will have full powers to do what it thinks is best in the interests of the people. If it should be necessary to go to Wales for a water supply we ought to do so. This question I understand will be left to the new authority because they are not compelled to buy and they may go to other sources. Upon Royal Commissions I must say that I have frequently heard, with some surprise, testimony paid to the high quality of water supplied to London, with which my observation of the Upper Thames is not always consistent. These conditions have always led me to vote for the Water Bills of the London County Council. The Government took no action and made no counter proposals, and apparently the subject was being submerged under Royal Commissions. I remember the long water famines that have been endured, and the highly oppressive water regulations, especially on the poor who had not a full opportunity of asserting their rights, and I wish to see the water supply of London in the hands of a public authority. But now the Government propose a measure which will establish such a public authority; and I fear that if this proposal is not accepted there may be another long postponement of the question. Whether the representation on the authority is in due proportion may be argued; and I fear that its chief defect will be its unwieldy character, owing to the largeness, perhaps the necessary largeness, of the number of representatives.
But at first there will be a great deal of organising work to do on the part of the new authority, and therefore there will be need for a time at least for greater numerical strength. I shall be told that the representative body is not representative. For my own part I should have preferred a municipal authority directly elected; still, the Board proposed is distinctly municipal in its general character. It will have on it representatives of the County Council and the London boroughs, and of the latter it is a great mistake to speak in the same breath as of the old vestries. I know of nothing more striking than the local municipal feeling which they have developed in London, and to sug-

1415
gest, as I have heard it suggested, that we are going to have a new Metropolitan Board of Works is not giving justice to the new corporations. Some of the very best men in the various localities have been attracted, and I think the boroughs have a future before them which will bring municipal London into line with the feeling which prevails in the provinces. Local feeling now makes itself heard, and centres round the new municipal bodies. Mill speaks of two forms of representation—direct and indirect. Although I prefer direct, I think this will be a form of indirect representation which will serve its purpose for the transfer of the authority, and it will secure what I want, namely, the public and responsible administration of the water supply of London. There are precedents in the country for the form of authority which the Bill proposes to set up; and in these cases of joint water boards, the work has been very well done. Take such a place as Blackpool, where a large borough like Blackpool, a town like Lytham, and large slices of the county are all amalgamated in one Water Board for the district. While reserving my freedom to criticise details I shall be careful before I become a party to rejecting a proposal which has the force of a Government behind and to secure its passing it, which is well considered, and which will place in the hands of those who represent the people the supply in purity and plenty of one of the prime necessities of life.
DR. MACNAMARA: I shall wait with interest to hear the opinions on this Bill of the elected representatives of the London County Council; but it is a happy circumstance; as the last speaker said, that we have got thus far, that we are all agreed here and throughout London that the undertakings of the water companies must be transferred to a public authority. That controversy no longer remains. But there are involved in this Bill two acute propositions about which a considerable amount of controversy is bound to arise. There is first of all the question who shall be the purchaser, and, secondly, what price shall be paid for the undertakings. It was suggested by the hon. Member for
1416
Limehouse that the people of London have never had these issues submitted to them. I challenge that statement at once. The people of London had these two propositions submitted conspicuously to them at the last County Council election. I have here the two party manifestos which were put before the electors. Those known as the Moderates, who correspond to the Conservatives and Unionists, said that their policy was the purchase and management of the water supply by a single public authority, upon which London and the other districts surrounding shall have a fair share of representation. The policy of the Progressives was the purchase and control by the London County Council only. These were the two issues and what was the result? There were 118 members elected, and of these 86 were in favour of the Progressive policy, 29 in favour of the Moderate policy, and 3 were elected as Independents. If he put the the 3 Independents with the whole Moderates he got a majority on the London County Council of 54 out of 118. He wished to look for a moment at the Government scheme which had been so lucidly placed before the House by the President of the Local Government Board. He suggested first of all that the right hon. Gentleman had rather fallen into the attitude of making a fetish of the phrase "Water London." They had often heard of "Telephone London," and they were yet no doubt to hear of "Electric London." They were hearing more and more of "Water London." What did that phrase mean? Ever since 1810 private companies had come to Parliament and had obtained powers to supply water to certain areas; and they put all these together in 1902 and got "Water London!" He should like to hear less of "Water London," "Telephone London" and "Electric London," and more of "Municipal London." The scheme for the control of the Water Supply gave them a composite body of 69 persons, some of them to be directly elected for this specific purpose by the London County Council, and some indirectly elected, while others were not to be representative at all of the ratepayers who were to find the money. Did the right hon. Gentleman imagine that the representatives of the Lea Conser-

1417
vancy and the Thames Conservancy were representative in any respect of the London ratepayers? There were representative of the water sellers and therefore ought not to be on the Board at all. The principle was bad of having water sellers on a Board which was going to purchase their undertaking. In regard to the Borough Councils he did not wish to say half a syllable against the personnel of these Councils; but he did not understand the principle of going to the 28 Borough Councils and asking them to send representatives to a general Board for furnishing water to the water area. Was he to understand that they were going to indent on the Local Boroughs rateable values for the amount of money which, in each case, these Boroughs would have to pay? If they did that it would be monstrously unjust towards many parts of London, but it would be the only legitimate ground on which to ask for Borough Council representation. Who was responsible for the whole county rate? The London County Council, and he objected to the inclusion of representatives of the Borough Councils on the Water Board, not on the ground of personal unfitness, or that they would be any more likely to be got at than County Councillors, but on the principle that they would have to deal with matters involving a ratable value with which they had no concern. No doubt the London County Council would consult the Borough Councils in all these matters of water regulation. It had been said that that Bill did not provide for the representation of the outside areas; but the clause 24 provided that
"The Council shall appoint for the management of the water supply a Committee which may comprise, as members, representatives of other bodies."
MR. WALTER LONG: Does the hon. Gentleman ask the House to believe that a clause which says that the Committee of Management "may" comprise representatives of other bodies, is a sufficient provision for the representation of the outside areas?
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he was not a Constitutionalist, but he always understood that "may" in those cases meant "shall" He did not press that point.
1418
But he might urge that in Committee the right hon. Gentleman and his friends could have substistuted "shall" for "may." If the clause he had quoted had been put into the Bill for any purpose at all, it was in order to give persons in the outside area representation. There were other provisions in the Bill which showed that the London County Council was not the selfish and inconsiderate body set forth by the Government. For instance, there was a clause that the outside area should be served on terms not more onerous than before, and another clause that the outside area might have their water supplied in bulk. In fact, he found in the Bill a spirit of sweet reasonableness. It had been stated that night that this House had never agreed to the London County Council Bill, but that was not the fact, because the Second Reading had been passed by a substantial majority, and therefore they must take it that the House had approved of the principle of the Bill. In all the great provincial Boroughs which served large areas, nobody ever suggested that these outside areas should be represented on the municipal Board of Management. In Bradford the population of the inside area was 230,000, and of the outside area 235,000, but nobody said there that the outside area should be represented on the Board. Manchester served a population of 537,000 in the inside area and a population of 357,000 in the outside area; but nobody had suggested that Manchester should not have the full control of the water supply. The case of Bolton was even more striking. The population of the inside area was 120,000, and of the outside area 130,000, and the people of the outside area were served with water at a greater cost than those in the inside area, yet it had never been suggested that the outside area should be represented on the Board. There was one other point on which he wished to touch, viz., the question of the price to be paid. When he heard the right hon. Gentleman describe the terms of purchase by agreement or arbitration, it was with pleasure he learned that the Government would not insist on the ratepayers of London paying ten per cent. solatium for compulsory purchase under the Lands Clauses Act which would make a differ-

1419
ence of from £5,000,000 to £7,000,000 to the London ratepayers. He thought, however, that the Government scheme of control was unwieldy, grotesque, and unworkable, and that it was likely to break down from the point of view of management.
Mr. W. F. D. SMITH: I cannot agree with the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition, supported by hon. Members on the other side of the House, that the London Unionist Members returned were bound to vote for any measure which the London County Council send to this House. The great majority of them have consistently voted against the Purchase Bill introduced by the London County Council, and if the electors of London had seriously objected to the course the Unionist Members have pursued they had every opportunity of challenging them, yet the proportion of London Unionist Members in the House has increased since 1891. There is also this point which has not, I think, been sufficiently brought out, that the majority now sitting on the London County Council have been returned by a small proportion of the electors. My right hon. friend when introducing this Bill referred to the percentage of electors voting in the various elections; as a matter of fact the majority of the London County Council was returned by only22 per cent. I quite agree with the statement made that for some time past we have been under the disadvantage in not having a scheme in any concrete form to deal with this water question. In my opinion, it is one of the greatest reasons we have to thank my right hon. friend that he has to-night presented to the House a scheme in a concrete form and thus justifying the action which some of us took in opposing the London County Council's Bill last year. The Bill before the House exhibits the principle, if not all the details, of the Water Commissioners' Report—a Report which did a very great deal to convert a considerable number of Members on this side of the House to the policy of purchase. Of course it must be admitted that the great majority of the London representatives are at present in favour of the policy of purchase, and therefore it is obviously desirable, the area dealt with being so large and so complicated
1420
in its form, and the increase of population during the next 40 or 50 years so important a matter, that the whole question can, necessarily, be more efficiently dealt with by a central body than by the various water companies, who at present manage the matter. Not that I agree with those who say that the water companies have grossly neglected their duties in supplying these areas; I say that having regard to the difficulties which will have to be met in the future, a central authority is absolutely necessary. But we have always been opposed to the London County Council being selected as the authority, and in that opinion we have been amply supported by the Royal Commission. The right hon. Gentlemen also spoke of the urban companies outside these areas which had a supply of water. I do not think it is possible to find an area so complicated as this, because in those areas that have been mentioned as having their own supply, the service has not been efficient enough to supply water at a profit; in fact the charges are higher than they were when the water company supplied the same districts. They have had to raise a rate to meet the cost. I believe at the present moment the London County Council is still pledged to the arrangements which have been come to with several metropolitan suburbs with regard to the supply to those suburbs, and to my mind nothing is more conclusive than the conclusion they came to when the arrangements were made, namely that the water supply had been most inefficient.
Before I sit down, I would just like to say a word about representation. It is true that the Board which my right hon. friend proposes would appear, as has been stated, to be one of a rather unwieldly size; but at the same time we must remember how great the area is, and how difficult it is and will be, when we come to deal with the details, to satisfy these areas; but I cannot conceive that the representatives of the areas other than the London County Council are also representatives of the area for the purposes of this Bill. The London County Council does not seem to me to be any more competent to manage the water than the representatives of other boroughs. The details of this Bill will no doubt be discussed, and I

1421
can only hope that after the honesty and energy my right hon. friend has brought to bear upon it, he will have no difficulty in passing it into law.
Mr. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he would have welcomed with acclamation a Bill dealing with this difficult and complicated question if it had been based on broad and popular lines. And it was because the Bill before the House was not upon such a basis that it would meet with his strongest opposition. There were however, points on which we recognised the great advance had been made. One was the question of purchase which had been opposed in this House for many years, and he was glad to see that the report of the Royal Commission had converted those who opposed it. The other was the very important question of price and the basis upon which the price should be fixed; the reference in fact to the Court of Arbitration. He was quite sure the House would have the fullest confidence in the gentlemen who had been named to form that Court, and that they, upon their instructions, would do justice in the matter. What the instructions to the Arbitration Court should be was, however, a very important matter. For his part, he and those who sat with him had always contended that the Land Clauses Acts should not apply in their entirety in this matter, and that not only should there be no ten per cent. for compulsory purchase, but that in fixing the price, not only the present profits should be taken into account, but also the liabilities of the future. He had understood that the reference would be a full and open reference, and that it would cover all the circumstances of the case, past, present, and future liabilities. But when the hon. Member for West Islington said that this had been the proposal of the London County Council for years past the right hon. Gentleman said he had not accepted the views of the London County Council in regard to the matter.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he could not admit the interpretation which had been put upon them by the hon. Gentleman. What he understood the hon. Member for West Islington to say was that the Government had introduced the Arbi-
1422
tration Clause of the London County Council, and that was worse.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that it was not the actual words, but the spirit and principle he contended for. He would like to know whether the arbitrators would have full power to go into all the circumstances of the case, not only with regard to the present profits of the companies but the unremunerative expenditure they might be compelled to undertake. If that was so everyone would be completely satisfied with regard to that.
The point, however, to which he and his friends objected, and to which he desired to enter an emphatic protest, was the mode in which the question of the purchasing Authority was going to be dealt with. He had always thought and said in the House that in any solution of the question involving the creation of a water body, the outside areas were entitled to have some other representation, but the right hon. Gentleman had stated that while he gave the outside areas representation he had given London a large majority. But even assuming that the48 members were representatives of London, as such that was too small a proportion; it only represented 55 per cent. of the representation against a ratable value of something like 84 per cent., and a population of 80 per cent. He did not desire to throw any reflection on the ability, public spirit, and administrative capacity of the Borough Councils, but he contended that they had never asked for this representation, which the Government were thrusting upon them without any consultation, but the proposals made by the Bill were entirely contrary to the principle upon which a question of this kind ought to be dealt with. The right hon. Gentleman had not advanced a single argument in favor of these powers being put into the hands of these Borough Councils rather than in the hands of the natural authority, the London County Council. The whole object of Purchase was to place the water supply in the hands of a central authority and to take it out of the hands of the public companies, not because they had not managed their business well; but in

1423
order to secure that there should be one body distributing water over the whole of the Metropolis, and that there should be an uniform assessment and uniform rates. This was surely a tremendous argument in favour of putting the preponderating influence in the hands of the central rating representative authority rather than in the hands of the different local authorities, the result of which would inevitably be that all the local authorities would be working against each other in favor of their district. He did not see the object of amalgamation if it only led to increased local jealousies and friction. He quite agreed that the proposed authority was of a somewhat unwieldy size. It was to have 69 members. The water directors of the present companies were a less number, and if these companies were so well managed by a less number of directors, it was a great mistake to make a public body of this sort of such an unwieldy size. It would not, in his opinion, contain the administrative power that it would if confined to the London County Council, and, being non-representative, it would probably prove to be a very extravagant body, and the margin of profits to the ratepayers would be very small. The action of the Governrnment in delaying this matter for six years, and meanwhile allowing the water companies to spend millions, without proper control or system, had much prejudiced the question of profit; and now, if they were to have a body of this sort, they would not see much reduction in the water rate. Unless the right hon. Gentleman could give some reason why he had put this slight on the London County Council, and given the Local Authorities the dominant voice, he should always think pressure had been brought to bear on the right hon. Gentleman by hon. Members behind him. While recognising that the right hon. Gentleman had made an honest attempt to deal with a difficult question, and while recognising that some material advance had been made in his opinions, he should be compelled to oppose the Bill, unless the body to which it was to be handed over, was made of a more central and representative character.
Mr. DAVID MORGAN: I must ask the indulgence
1424
of the House while addressing it for the first time. I represent 200,000 people, who provide a large amount of this water and who also consume it, and who have therefore some justification for letting their voice be heard. We have heard this evening a great many Members on the opposite side of the House who have told us that the only authority to be intrusted with the water regulations of London is the London County Council. We in Essex certainly accept the representation which is given us by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board as a fair representation, and we object to the Bill of the London County Council, because it gave us no guarantee that we should be represented, all we ask is fair treatment. We have had great difficulty with the existing company and we hope and feel that we may, with the new Bill, get not only a fair representation, but that our interests will be fully safeguarded. Therefore on behalf of those I represent I welcome this Bill as an evident attempt on the part of the Government to right a grievous wrong, and to put on a fair basis the water supply of London.
MR. CREMER: I listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to-night who introduced this Bill, and I listened to the few observations addressed to the House by the Leader of the Opposition as soon as the Minister sat down. It occurred to me at the time that the Leader of the Opposition had "spotted" the weak point in the Bill; and it is to that point I wish to address myself. The Minister had the chance of handing the control of the water suppply to the London County Council, a body which, like Cæsar's wife, is above suspicion. Attempts have been made by gentlemen connected with the so-called Moderate party, whom I prefer to call the old Tory party, to convict of jobbery and corruption, but they have been absolutely unable to point to a single blot on the escutcheon of the London County Council. But the right hon. Gentleman has preferred to build up a new body on the model of the old Metropolitan Board of Works. In the speech of the hon. Member for South Islington I failed to gather any difference

1425
between the constitution of the proposed new Board and that of the old Metropolitan Board of Works.
SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: One was elected by the vestries, and the other is to be elected by the Corporation, which are very different bodies.
MR. CREMER: In many respects I think the old vestries were preferable to the new Corporation. There were no mayors or aldermen, and there was no scrambling for offices. The old vestry of Shore ditch was an infinitely better body than is the new Corporation. It devoted itself to studying the interests of the ratepayers, while ever since the present body came into existence, its members have been quarrelling and scrambling for offices, trying to get elected as aldermen or mayor. Having had some little experience of the old Metropolitan Board of Works, it is because the Government propose to set up a new authority based on that model that I should oppose this Bill. The Metropolitan Board of Works was elected not by the popular vote, but by the vestries, in exactly the form and fashion now proposed for the water authority. What happened? The doings of that body became such a public scandal that, on the proposition not of a Radical Member, but of the good Conservative Lord Randolph Churchill, a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the matter. That Commission was presided over by a distinguished Law Lord, Lord Herschell, and, after taking a considerable amount of evidence, presented an interim Report. Members desirous of knowing what took place in connection with a body elected in the fashion now proposed should read the evidence presented to and the verdict arrived at by that Commission. It is very singular that that Commission, like the Jameson Raid Inquiry, presented an interim report and promised, at no distant date, to resume its investigations, but also, as in the case of the Jameson Raid, the inquiry was never resumed, and the matter allowed to drop. We are apt to point to foreign countries and to exclaim in pious horror, "Thank God we are not as other men," but my impression, after reading about and watching the career of the Metropolitan Board of Works, from the time it was constituted until it expired in infamy, is that Tammany, of which we hear so much, never did anything worse than did that body.
SIR GEORGE FARDELL: Would the hon. Member have the kindness to quote the Report of the Royal Commission, because my recollection is that there was a general acquittal of the members, although undoubtedly some persons were guilty of malfeasance.
MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that this discussion of the past history of the Metropolitan Board of Works has nothing to do with the subject before the House.
MR. CREMER: I made reference to it merely because it occurred to me from the right hon. Gentleman's speech that he was proposing to create a new metropolitan authority on precisely the same lines as the body which was guilty of so much jobbery, corruption and—
SIR GEORGE FARDELL: I hope the House will forgive me, but the Metropolitan Board of Works—
MR. SPEAKER: A discussion of the Metropolitan Board of Works would not be in order.
MR. CREMER: If the hon. Member had permitted me to finish my sentence—
MR. SPEAKER: If it were in order, of course the hon. Member could finish his sentence and be answered afterwards by a Member on the other side; but I have already said that the question of the past history of the Metropolitan Board of Works is not material to the merits of the Bill before the House.
MR. CREMER: I was only going to say that I had said sufficient to justify my statements without further continuing the subject. I frankly admit that in my opinion there are some excellent points in the Bill as shadowed forth by the right hon. Gentleman. I should be glad, however, if he could see his way to reconstruct the authority by which the water supply of London is to be managed in the future. The management should be handed over either to the London County Council or a body directly elected by the popular suffrage. Why does the right hon. Gentleman propose to increase the authorities, of which there are already too many in London? Considering that we have an excellent body with all the

1427
necessary machinery at hand, a body that has worked excellently during the ten or fifteen years of its existence, we are justified in asking why the right hon. Gentleman has lost confidence in the authority set up at the instigation of one of his own colleagues, to whom we are all grateful for the excellent machinery he placed at our disposal. If the right hon. Gentleman could make the change I have indicated I think we might all give him our cordial support in passing the Bill without difficulty.
MR. COHEN: The right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have spoken against this Bill have all asserted that we on this side—who, at any rate, are anxious to see the measure before it is condemned—do not represent the constituents who sent us to this House, because, forsooth, at the London County Council election, members were returned pledged to support that body as the water authority. I am perhaps in an exceptional position in that respect. At the last Parliamentary election I had the honour of being opposed by the present Chairman, and, at the previous election, by a former Chairman of the London County Council, and those distinguished friends of mine based their attacks on what they described as my "iniquitous votes" at the London County Council. I was attacked before my constituents because I had consistently opposed the proposal that the London County Council should be the water authority for London. Notwithstanding those powerful attacks, my constituents returned me each time by a larger majority. Therefore, I think I may fairly claim that my constituents, at any rate, do not regard my consistent opposition to that proposal as being any reason for depriving me of the authority which I then exercised. Let me say further that, having been a member of the London County Council from its creation until the last election, I should be the last to join in any outcry against the excellent work which, with great public spirit, that distinguished body has done. I have never joined in any such attacks; on the contrary, I have always defended the Council against such attacks, but I have done that consistently with my firm belief that it was not the proper, and should not become the water authority for London.
1428
I think we all ought to recognise that my right hon. friend has approached a very difficult and complicated question with a large amount of industry, and has made a sincere and honest attempt to do justice to the various interests concerned. If we sincerely and honestly desire to solve a question which is necessarily complicated and surrounded with controversy, and to put an end to a matter which has too long engaged the attention of the House of Commons, retarding the solution of other urgent questions, we must approach it among ourselves, at any rate, with a conciliatory disposition one towards another, and we must sometimes give up a little of the ideas to which we are more or less attached. The hon. Member for Poplar in his speech paid a tribute to the President of the Local Government Board, but he and his friends, before they had seen this Bill in print, announced that they intended to give the measure their strenuous opposition. Such a declaration was calculated to stimulate the cohesion and energy of hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House to do all in their power to assist the right hon. Gentleman in his endeavour to find a solution of this question. Lasting honour will be conferred upon the Minister who has the satisfaction—the approximate satisfaction—of solving this problem. I have no doubt whatever that no man exists who will do it to the perfect satisfaction of all the interests involved. The very speech of my hon. friends the Member for Poplar and the hon. Member for Battersea, confirms my statement when they indulge in this censure and condemnation of a Bill which they have not seen.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Only certain parts of it.
MR. COHEN: When hen. Members opposite say that they are going to oppose certain parts of a Bill which they have not seen, that ought to be an additional stimulus to us to assist the right hon. Gentleman to solve this difficult question. I was pleased to hear the speech of my hon. friend the Member for the Strand Division, because I know that some time ago he was not in favour of the purchase of the water companies' undertakings I always have been in favour of

1429
the purchase of these undertakings. I have always advocated that the administration of the water supply of London should be taken out of the hands of these eight companies, and I shall be glad if my expectations are realised by this measure. I hope that the result of this transfer of the water supply to a public authority will be that we shall get as pure a supply as that which the eight water companies, to their honour, have hitherto given to London. It has always seemed to me somewhat anomalous that the water of London should be supplied by private companies at different prices in different districts. Let me here say that I have not any interest whatever in any water company, for I am neither a director or a shareholder; but I desire that these water companies should have justice done to them. Let me say that I do not think that my right hon. friend does the companies justice when he asks them to take water stock at par.
MR. WALTER LONG: That is not so. What I said in regard to that part of the Bill was that the water companies should be paid in water stock which bears interest at 3 per cent. When my hon. friend puts the water stock at par he is passing out of my jurisdiction to that of the arbitrator.
MR. COHEN: I think that correction which the right hon. Gentleman has made will be very much welcomed by a very large body of persons who are entitled to receive 20s. for a sovereign. I agree with the criticism that the Water Board suggested will be found to be too large, but surely that is no reason to oppose this Bill, for this proposal may be modified, and the Water Board may be reduced to its proper size. If it remains as at present proposed, then the London County Council is entitled to a much larger representation. My right hon. friend suggests that this Water Board, after the first four years, should be re-elected every three years. I do not want to trouble the House with these details at this stage, but I want to impress upon the House that, having regard to the opposition which has been threatened to this Bill, we ought to do everything in our power to help the right hon. Gentleman in his industrious,
1430
sincere, and honest effort to solve one of the most urgent, and at the same time one of the most difficult questions which has confronted London for the last ten or fifteen years.
MR. GRANT LAWSON: As hon. Members are no doubt anxious to get to the Bill to be introduced by the Home Secretary, I will not detain the House at any length, but there are one or two questions which perhaps I had better answer. My hon. friend the Member for the Rugby Division spoke of the profits made by the Water Board. I may say that the profits will go towards the general working of the undertaking. I think, on the whole, my right hon. friend has reason to congratulate himself upon the reception which has been given to this Bill, to which he has devoted so much attention. Three points and three alone have been made against the measure. The first point is that the number on the Board is too large. That is really only a matter of comparison, and when I remind the House that the Board which is doing the best work in London to-day—I mean the Metropolitan Asylums Board—has no less than 70 members, I think hon. Members will see some justification for the number we have suggested. The Corporation of Liverpool has 112 members, and the London County Council—the model of all that is good and proper—has, I believe, 137 members. The functions of this Water Board will, of course, be very large. The work is now carried on by eight Boards of Directors, and I should think that they contain altogether a good deal more than 69 men. No doubt a good deal of the work will have to be done by committees in various parts of the water area, and therefore it is very desirable that there should be a considerable number of persons forming this Board.
The two main points of attack, however, have been that the representation of the Board is indirect, and that the London County Council has been slighted. As regards indirect representation, I think I heard an hon. Member reading just now a clause from the London County Council Water Bill. In that clause it was suggested that if the London County

1431
Council got control of the matter they would refer the question to a committee. Now what is that but indirect representation? I cannot understand myself this morbid appetite for popular election in a matter of this kind which is displayed on the opposite side of the House. We have endless elections now. [An. HON MEMBER: "That is just what you are doing."] I understand that hon. Members opposite desire that the representation should not indirect by selection, but that it should be a direct election of representatives. That I gather from the arguments which have been used in this debate by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It appears to me that indirect representation is not deserving of the slighting things which have said about it. The electors choose the best men they can get for all purposes. Those gentlemen meet together and choose the best men they can get for water purposes.
The next point made is that the London County Council has been slighted I do not think that the Government ever expected to satisfy the extreme advocates of the London County Council. We have had to decide not whether we shall please the London County Council by our proposals but how to do what is best for the whole of the London water area. In the area with which we have to deal there are 95 local authorities, including 56 urban districts and four boroughs outside London, six county councils, the Metropolitan borough councils, and last but not least there is the Corporation of the City of London. It is said that we ought to pass over 93 of these bodies, and place all the powers into the hands of the two remaining authorities, with of course a very large majority to the London County Council. Now I ask the House would that have been right and proper? Had we any right to think of passing over these new metropolitan boroughs who, after all, are the sanitary authorities? These boroughs hold the position which is held by all those great Corporations in the north which have been quoted as having provided so successfully their own water supply. I am told that Bradford supplies an outside district, and that the local authority in the district are not represented on the water body. But in this case the outside district never asked to be represented on the water authority. Have these outside author-
1432
ities faith and confidence in the London County Council? The Council brought in a Bill in 1895 to make itself the authority and the whole of the local authorities having jurisdiction in the areas proposed to be included petitioned against the bill. I think there were petitions from 5 County Councils, 4 Corporations, and 17 District Councils affected by the bill under discussion, and every one petitioned against the London County Council. The outside districts would sooner do anything than fall under the London County Council. It is stated that the County Council has recently arrived at terms of arrangement with the outside districts. The Royal Commission reported at the end of 1899 on the subject of severance as follows:—
"The conclusion we arrived at on this subject is that, although severance of the works and sources of the supply of the several companies and the division thereof between the six counties within the limits of supply are not actually impracticable, they would be very difficult and highly undesirable."
The only terms of peace between the outside authorities and the London County Council were terms which the Royal Commission declared to be extravagant and wholly undesirable. Then it comes to this, that we are either to neglect the interest of everybody except the London County Council, or else hand it over to them and allow the outside authorities to make terms with them such as are described by the Royal Commission in the words I have read. The hon. Member for Battersea suggests that the Goverment have been got at by the directors and shareholders of the water companies. It would have made no difference to them if we had given the control to the London County Council. Once a purchase has been effected the shareholders will have nothing to do with the board. I do not think it is at all necessary to say anything further on this Bill. There are points which hon. Members can only consider when they have the actual words in their hands. The Bill cannot be rushed through even if we desired to do so. It is a hybrid Bill, and it must go to a Committee where counsel can appear and argue the points, and it must also pass through Committee of this House.

1433
Bill for establishing a Water Board to manage the supply of water within London and certain adjoining districts, for transferring to the Water Board the undertakings of the Metropolitan Water Companies; and for other purposes connected therewith, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long, Mr. Secretary Ritchie, Mr. Grant Lawson, and Mr. Attorney General.

LONDON WATER BILL.
"For establishing a Water Board to manage the supply of water within London and adjoining districts; for transferring to the Water Board the undertakings of the Metropolitan Water Companies; and for other purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 72.]

LICENSING.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): I rise to ask the House to divert its attention from the interesting subject of water to the much more fascinating subject of liquor, and to move for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors and to drunkenness, and to provide for the registration of clubs. Some observations were made in the debate just closed as to the Reports of Royal Commissions, and we were asked whether the Government was going to show their zeal for the decisions of a Royal Commission by introducing a Bill to carry out all its recommendations. I say at once, that as regards the licensing laws. We have no such intention. We do not at present intend to ask the House to take up all the subjects connected with this question—someof them of extreme difficulty—which were dealt with by the Royal Commission. If we were to attempt to deal at large with all the various matters no one knows better than those associated with temperance reform that it would undoubtedly end in failure, and we should be unable to obtain any measure at all this session. I think, therefore, that were those who are most desirous of seeing carried a very extreme measure of licensing reform will agree that we are taking a more prudent
1434
course in asking the House to deal with some of the important subjects reported on by the Commission, leaving the others for the present. We do not propose to attempt to deal this session with large licensing reforms, or to ask the House for increased powers to refuse the renewal of licenses. We do not propose to deal with the reduction of the number of licensed houses or with the great question of compensation which has wrecked so many proposals before. But there are other branches of the subject which are of importance, and which are dealt with in the Bill which I will proceed to explain.
This Bill is in three parts, and deals with three branches of the question. The first part of the Bill deals with the law relating to drunkenness, and I think it will be admitted by all sane temperance reformers that although they may desire to see the sale of intoxicants abolished altogether, the great evil of which they and we complain is not due to the moderate consumption of liquor, but to the excessive consumption of it. For my own part I am amazed to see what a large number of the crimes of violence which have come before me since I have been at the Home Office may be attributed to drunkenness. I do not think I am going beyond the mark when I say that nine-tenths of them have been in the main caused by drink. Therefore we propose to ask the House to strengthen the law with regard to this particular matter. We first of all propose to strengthen the law with regard to the individual drunkard. As the House knows, if a person is found in a public place drunk and incapable he is taken charge of by the police until he is sober, with the view of subsequently serving a summons on him. We propose that the person instead of being summoned may be arrested and charged, and further that, if he or she be found in charge of a child under seven years of age, which sometimes unfortunately occurs, that shall be a specific offence rendering the offender liable to a penalty of 40s. or one month's hard labour. We propose also that this offence shall be one of those rendering a person liable to be committed to an Inebriate Reformatory. We also propose to strengthen the law with regard to one of the worst grievances of married couples. If a married man becomes an

1435
habitual drunkard his wife is to be able to apply for a separation order under the Summary Jurisdiction (Women) Act. She may obtain this order for several offences now, but habitual drunkenness is not specifically one of them, and we propose to add it to the other causes which entitle a wife to this protection. We are also making a new provision by which a married man may obtain similar protection against a drunken wife. At present the law affords him no remedy in what is often an extremely hard case. We further propose that, when a man is convicted of an offence of which drunkenness is either a part or an accompaniment, and being an habitual drunkard, is liable to be committed to a Reformatory, the police shall be notified, and if he attempts to purchase liquor at any time within three years he shall be on conviction liable to a penalty. This cannot be done unless the man comes within the terms of the Habitual Inebriates Act, 1898, that is, unless a certain number of convictions shall have been recorded against him within a certain time. That being so he would, under the Bill, be bound under a penalty not to purchase drink at licensed premises for a period of three years. Any license-holder who knowingly, that is to say knowing him to be under that prohibition, supplied him with any liquor, would also be liable to a penalty. Every care will be taken to notify to the publican, by means of the police in the district, the fact that a certain person is under this disability, and if, after having been notified, he defies the law and knowingly sells or allows to be sold intoxicating liquor to that individual he is liable to a penalty. [An HON. MEMBER: What as to grocers?] I will deal with that question in a moment. Let me mention some other points as to drunkenness. If a licensed person is charged with permitting drunkenness on his premises, and it is proved that any person was drunk on his premises, we propose that it shall lie on the licensed person to prove that he and the persons employed by him took all reasonable steps to prevent the drunkenness. It is quite clear that we are justified in strengthening the law as far as we reasonably can in a matter of this kind, because if it is
1436
true that the crimes of violence to which I have referred above are in nine cases out of ten committed by persons who are more or less in a state of drunkenness, it is also perfectly clear that those persons must have been supplied by license-holders with drink when they were in a state of drunkenness. I believe these provisions will be acceptable to the licensed persons as a whole, because they are wise enough to know that there are no greater enemies to their trade than persons who are turned out on the streets in a drunken condition. I believe that the immense majority of publicans take every precaution they can to prevent this happening, but there is a small class of license-holders who take no such precaution, and it is against them that we desire to strengthen the law.
In Part II. of the Bill we propose some amendments of what may be called the machinery of the licensing law. At present, if a licensed person is convicted of an offence against the law a justice may or may not order the conviction to be endorsed on his license. The law further provides that if there are three convictions endorsed on the license that very fact prevents him being able to obtain a renewal of his license. That seems rather a drastic mode of dealing with this particular point. But, as a matter of fact, it has completely broken down, because the justices will not exercise the power given them of endorsing licenses, the effect of which, on the third endorsement, would be to deprive a man of the value of his license. And it is for that reason, I imagine, in the main that this power is practically not used. What we propose is that, instead of endorsing on the license, the clerk to the justices shall keep a record of all the convictions, and that that record shall be produced at every Licensing Sessions so that the Justices may see if there is any record against the applicant; and we enact that where a record shows five convictions against an individual in five years and the justices renew that man's license or grant him a new license, they shall give their reasons for doing so in writing, and that the police authorities shall have the power, which they have not at present in regard to renewals,

1437
to appeal against the decision of the justices. We believe that that change will act much more effectively than the existing law does.
This part of the Bill also deals with off retail licenses. At present, as the House knows, grocers may obtain a wholesale wine dealer's excise license at £10, and if they can obtain that license they can sell liquor retail without any certificate or license from the justices. They do not have to go to the justices at all. Or if they do not choose to pay £10 and prefer the retail excise license at £2 10s. they have to go to the justices, but the justices have no power to refuse the certificates asked for except upon certain specified grounds. Our proposal is to put all these licenses under the absolute control of the justices. There are certain other smaller amendments of the law which we propose in this part of the Bill. We propose to give justices much greater power with regard to structural alterations than they at present have. We propose to disqualify justices' clerks from acting privately in respect of any license in the districts for which they are clerks. We propose a small amendment which has been much asked for, namely to make an alteration in the date of the annual licensing meeting—to make it uniform throughout the country, the same, in fact, practically as it is now in London. We propose also that application for an occasional license, instead of being made to one justice with but little publicity, shall in future have to be obtained from two justices in open court. There is one little reform which we also propose, and that is to remove the disqualification of justices who happen to be interested in railways which carry on their own refreshment bars. There are some other minor alterations in this part of the Bill with which I need not trouble the House.
The third part of the Bill is that dealing with clubs. I am sure all of us will agree that the present state of the law with regard to clubs is a very unsatisfactory one. No one who has read the evidence given before the Royal Commission can doubt that a great number of these clubs are a source of very great evil and danger, and that they are, in fact, not clubs at all, but mere drinking shops. There are many instances given in which a license-holder,
1438
having by misconduct or otherwise lost his license, immediately turns what was his public house into what it pleases him to call a club. I believe there is some power in the law by which some check may be exercised over these institutions. I am not sure that the Excise would not have a locus standi in the court, and if they could prove that these clubs were only clubs in name, the proprietor or manager of these bogus clubs would be open to the penalties of the law. If, however, the law could be enforced with regard to that it would only touch a small portion of the evil, and, therefore, we propose to remedy it by a different method. It must be apparent to everybody that in dealing with clubs we must treat alike the clubs of St. George's, Hanover Square, and those of St. George's-in-the-East. There can be no distinction whatever drawn between them, and I do not for an instant believe that fair and reasonable proposals, framed with a view to getting rid of what all admit to be a great evil, is in the least degree likely to be objected to by any class of club whatever. At the same time, whilst endeavouring to deal with the evil we must be careful not to draw our law so stringently as to make it very difficult for real genuine clubs to be carried on. We must remember, I submit, that clubs are laudable institutions. I think it is a good thing that to whatever class of life a man may belong he should have a place like a club, which is properly conducted, to go to where he can meet his fellow men, talk over the affairs of the day, see the newspapers, read books, and spend a quiet evening. None of us would desire to place the slightest impediment in the way of genuine clubs, whether honest working men's or West End clubs, and therefore in striking at an undoubted evil we must be careful that we do not injure or stop the growth and development of really well-conducted clubs. Two different plans have been suggested. One is that there should be registration, and that before a club can claim registration it shall give evidence to the registering authorities in a great many different ways, by producing evidence of a great many things, in great detail, that the club is a really bonâ fide, genuine, well-conducted club; and until that has been done, registration ought not to be given.

1439
If we proceeded on those lines we should not be going on right lines. I do not think it would be right at all to say that the registration should not take place until the registering authority was convinced by much inspection, and many returns, that the club was a club conducted in all respects as the registering authority would desire. It would, indeed, be almost giving to that club a license, which is not what we exactly desire to give. We proceed on a different plan in this Bill. We first of all say that all clubs must be registered, and that no club that is not registered can be allowed to keep or to provide for anyone any intoxicating liquor whatever. The penalty for a breach of the provision will be very heavy, not merely nominal, £50 or a month's imprisonment, or both together. That is with regard to a club which is not registered, and which keeps its premises open for the sale of intoxicating liquors. But we do not make it difficult for clubs to register. We regard registration as almost purely ministerial, and we think the registrar should be the clerk to the Justices. It has been suggested that it would have been better to have some central authority like the registrar of friendly societies, but we do not think that that would be nearly so satisfactory as having a local registrar. We think that in every way and in all instances it would be better that the register should be local rather than central, and therefore we propose to make the clerk to the Justices the registering office. We also provide that any club which furnishes to the registration authority particulars in the form prescribed by the secretary of State, and containing the name and objects of the club, the address of the club, the name of the secretary, the rules for the election of members and the admission of guests, the terms of subscription, and the number of members shall be entitled to registration, and that every year the secretary of the club shall in the month of January furnish to the clerk of the Justices a return signed by the secretary giving the particulars I have mentioned up to date. We do not in this Bill ask the clubs to undergo all the detail of application and of obtaining registration every year, but once registered they must furnish all
1440
these particulars annually to the registrar. What happens then? It is then within the power of the police or anyone to make a representation to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction that a club has either ceased to exist or is not conducted in good faith as a club, or that there is frequent drunkenness on the club premises, and if the Court of Summary Jurisdiction is satisfied that the club offends in any of these three particulars, it may order its name to be taken off the register, and after that, if it is continued as a club, it will be liable to the penalties of which I have spoken. Then there is the great question of police supervision. I believe myself that there is nothing that clubs of all kinds would more resent than to be put under police supervision, to the extent of allowing a police officer at any time to enter the premises for the purpose of making an investigation into the affairs of the club. I believe that that would be resented, and rightly resented by members of all clubs. But we do think that there ought to be some provision for entering a club where there is reason to believe that it is not being conducted in good faith as a club, and, therefore, we provide that anyone may apply to a magistrate on sworn information that, in his opinion, the club is not properly carried on, and we empower the magistrate to grant a search warrant, and on that warrant the police could enter the club. I think it is desirable that such an order should not be granted until good reason had been shown that the club was not properly conducted.
This is, shortly, a description of the main provisions of the Bill. I said at the outset that we do not profess to deal with all the various great and important problems which are in the minds of many temperance reformers. I believe there was a time when, if a Bill of this moderate character had been proposed, it would have been met at once by what I may, without offence, call the extreme Temperance Party, with strong, dissatisfaction. I believe, however, that the minds of temperance reformers have undergone, in late years, some change in that respect, and that, although they do not depart from the opinions which they hold as to what they think ought to be carried out in the way of temperance legislation, they are, nevertheless, ready

1441
to assist the Government in passing a measure which has temperance for its object, and which, they believe, is framed on such lines as to secure, at least, some advance in the direction they desire. It would be very easy for the extreme temperance reformers to prevent this Bill becoming law this session, but it would also be very easy for them to secure that it should become law. I hope that, guided by the moderate views they now hold, they will adopt the latter course, and, while reserving their opinions with regard to other proposals, they will regard this Bill as an honest attempt to deal with some of the evils which they recognise, and that they will assist the Government in passing it into law.
SIR MARK STEWART: Will this Bill apply to Scotland?
MR. RITCHIE: No, sir; I believe my noble friend has a Bill in print with reference to Scotland. The law in Scotland is different, and we found it impossible to include the two countries in one Bill.
Mr. CAINE: With regard to the suggestion of the Secretary of State that there has been a change lately with regard to the attitude of temperance reformers in this House, I may say that we have always been guided by the reasonable frame of mind which he has described, and which has always characterised us. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can mention any case in which extreme temperance reformers have ever obstructed any reasonable proposal which went in any way in the direction we have so long advocated. I am sure the whole House has listened with interest and attention to the exposition of this measure. I am not proposing to discuss it in detail, but so far as the limited information we have goes, it appears to be a measure which will certainly receive a general support, at any rate, of extreme temperance reformers in this House, and of all other classes of temperance reformers. I do not say it is a great Bill, that is not claimed for it, and we do not expect heroic legislation from the present Government with regard to temperance reforms, but I sincerely trust that the Government will keep a stiff back and not give way as they did in the case of the Children's
1442
Bill. The publicans themselves—a body of men for whom I have always entertained the greatest possible respect—have shown themselves much better temperance reformers than has the Government or the House of Commons. The Children's Bill, as passed, enabled any child to get drink as long as it was in a sealed bottle, but now nearly every public house has a notice in its windows which goes a long way beyond that.
MR. RITCHIE: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not desire to misrepresent the action of the Government. It was perfectly clear that the Bill, as it stood, would have no chance of passing in the very short time that could possibly be given to it, and in order to obtain the Bill even extreme temperance reformers on the Committee were themselves desirous of making the concessions which were made, because they knew that otherwise the Bill could not be passed.
MR. CAINE: I will not labour that point farther. I simply fall back on my statement that the publicans of the country have shown themselves better temperance reformers than either the House of Commons or the Goverment. As regards the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's measure, that relating to drunkenness, none of us will object to anything that strengthens the law or tends to get rid of the habitual drunkard. That is all to the good. With regard to the second part of the Bill, that also travels in the right direction. There is no doubt whatever about that. What interested me most, however, was the latter part of the Bill, with reference to clubs. That is a matter to which I have given a great deal of attention. I myself introduced a Bill on the subject in 1893, and it was referred to a Select Committee before which a great mass of information was given, which I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman has availed himself of. I do hope, however, that when we come to the club clauses the Government will approach them with an elastic mind. It is an extremely difficult and intricate question, and one which ought not to be approached in any extreme sense, but with a sincere desire to get rid of bogus clubs. I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would, at all events, have given us a clause which would prevent liquor shops, which get into trouble

1443
with the law, being turned into clubs.
MR. RITCHIE: I omitted to say that we provide that when a Court of Summary Jurisdiction orders a club to be taken off the register, it may also order that the premises occupied by that club shall not be used in any way by a club which sells drink for five years.
MR. CAINE: What I want to get at is that no premises used as a public-house shall be turned into a club. A great deal of evidence on that point was brought before the Royal Commission. I will give a single instance. A country brewer had thirteen tied houses, one of which had been notorious for a long time as the resort of fruit thieves and poachers. Finally it was refused a renewal of its license, whereupon the brewer called together the thieves and the poachers, and formed a club, consisting of 44 of these excellent gentlemen, and all went merrily along, except that the public-house was no longer under police supervision, and the poachers could wait until the moon rose and the thieves until Sunrise.
MR. RITCHIE: Our provision will meet the very case the hon. Gentleman supposes, namely the case of licensed premises which have been refused a license and afterwards have been opened as a bogus club. The club could be struck off the register, and the premises could not be used for the same purpose for five years if the Justices so decided.
MR. CAINE: I do not want such premises opened as clubs under any circumstances; it is a clear evasion of the law. The magistrates decide that liquor shall not be sold there and yet it continues to be sold. I would ask the Home Secretary whether he would not consider the desirability of enacting that any public house whose license has been withdrawn for misconduct shall not be used as a club for a certain number of years. That would go to the root of the bogus club question. What temperance reformers aim at is to get eventually some measure by which the control of the sale of intoxicating liquor shall be administered locally. What will be the use of this prohibition if the
1444
result is that every liquor shop that is closed is to be turned into a club by complying with the very easy requirements which have been foreshadowed in this Bill? I do not wish to discuss these points further. I merely want to press on the Government to approach these matters with as elastic a mind as possible, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that every extreme and moderate temperance reformer will welcome with pleasure every proposal for the restriction of the liquor trade and the promotion of sobriety, however microscopic it may be.
MAJOR JAMESON: I have listened with some interest to the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman. May I congratulate him on the very moderate and temperate speech he has delivered, although there are some omissions which might have been included in the Bill. I congratulate him also for saying that so far as the trade is concerned their worst enemy is the habitual drunkard and the spreading of drunkenness over the country. I deny that the trade has any desire to spread intemperance, and I believe that many of the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman will be welcomed by the trade. The hon. Member for the Camborne Division has referred to the great moderation of the temperance party. They always take one line and say "This is Liberty Hall, but you must do as we tell you," and as long as anyone holds an opinion differing in the slightest degree from theirs, he is always regarded as being wrong in that opinion. I should like to say a few words with reference to some of the provisions which the right hon. Gentleman has intimated are contained in the Bill. I think it is perfectly right to introduce legislation for the habitual drunkard. I think also it is perfectly right that the intemperate husband who beats his wife should be punished. In Ireland we have not yet attained to the high civilisation of England as regards beating women and children, but every hon. Member on these Benches will welcome any Bill that proposes to punish the drunken husband for ill-treating his wife and children. I also quite agree that husbands should

1445
be protected from wives who are habitually given to drunkenness, but I fear the working of such a scheme will be almost impracticable.
With regard to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to alter the power of the present licensing authorities, I am unable to agree with him that Justices do not exercise their power when they are called upon, and I cannot see that if the Justices' clerks keep a record of the endorsements, it is more likely to make Justices do what they are of opinion should not be done. I deprecate that people who are connected with the manufacture of spirits, or merely hold a few shares in a distillery, brewery, or company connected with the liquor traffic, should be incapacitated from sitting on licensing questions, and I think that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman that it should not apply to Justices holding shares in a railway company, is only a very small step in the right direction, and I trust, that honourable men who are also Justices of the Peace will not have a stigma placed on them and be made pariahs of, because of their connection with an honourable trade. If they are unfit to sit in licensing questions, they are utterly unfit to be Justices at all, and still I note that the clerks keeping a record of the endorsements is put forward as an inducement to Justices to be more severe; yet it is proposed in other matters, namely the granting of grocers' licenses, to give these same Justices further power than they at present possess.
As regards clubs, I uphold, and I believe every member of the trade does the same, the restrictions which are now to be enforced by the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman. There are, however, two points which are not touched on by the right hon. Gentleman, and which would do more to check drunkenness than all the licensing restrictions. First, the question of adulteration, and then the question of giving greater facility for licensing to those licensed victuallers who will also provide good and cheap food for their customers. I think they should be encouraged in every possible way, both by lightening the restrictions of their licenses, and even by taking off a certain amount of taxation if they provide good and suitable food for the use of the public. The question of adulteration is at the root of the evil
1446
of drunkenness, and should be dealt with by the Government, and I trust that what I have said will be taken some notice of by the right hon. Gentleman in his Bill.
MR. TRITTON: I desire to express my thanks, and I am sure the thanks of many who are associated with me on this side of the House in temperance reform, to the right hon. Gentleman for the Bill he has asked leave to introduce. We have been much indebted to His Majesty's Government for the assistance they have given to the temperance cause. We are indebted to them for having set up the Royal Commission on the licensing laws. The two Reports published by that Commission have done more to open the eyes of the people of England and of Members of this House to the evils of intemperance, than any document ever before issued to the public. We are indebted to the Government also for the help they gave us last session in securing the passage of the Children's Bill. Without the help and facilities afforded by the Government that Bill would have come to an untimely end after its Second Reading. Now, again, we feel ourselves indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the measure he has described to us. Speaking for myself, the measure does not go so far as I should like it to go. I wish that in amending the licensing laws the right hon. Gentleman had seen fit to restrict the hours of sale of intoxicating liquors on Sundays. That I believe is one of the most important items of the temperance programme. But I accept what the gives us with the greatest pleasure. I believe the registration of clubs is a question we are all united upon and wish to see carried out. The structural alteration of public-houses is a most important question, and will tend to the diminution of intemperance. The provisions with regard to grocers' licesnes and for dealing with drunkards, will meet with general approval. The Bill will receive the support of a great number of those who are anxious to see an end put to the intemperance of the country and a better state of things brought in.
MR. BROADHURST: In one part of his Bill the right hon. Gentleman has given us a proposal that magistrates' clerks should keep a record of the convictions of license-holders. Could not the right hon. Gentleman draft an amendment to that, to prevent a magistrates' clerk, or the firm of which the magistrates' clerk is a member, taking briefs from brewers in regard to whom he may have to enter a conviction in the course of his duty as clerk to the Justices?
MR. RITCHIE: That is already done.
MR. BROADHURST: I did not hear it mentioned.
MR. RITCHIEread the clause dealing with the matter.
MR BROADHURST: The right hon. Gentleman did not read that before.
MR. RITCHIE: No, but I stated the effect of the provision.
MR. BROADHURST: I wish the right hon. Gentleman would go a step further and prohibit such a firm being engaged in the posting, delivering, or serving of notices, or having anything whatever to do with the granting of new licenses, or with the transfer of licenses. That is a matter of great importance. If the right hon. Gentleman has had any practical experience of Summary Jurisdiction Courts or Brewster Sessions in this matter he will agree that it is essential that these clerks should be entirely separated from every portion of the work connected with licenses. Another point I would urge is this. I understand that after a certain number of convictions the loss of the license of the occupying publican will be automatic. But that provision will never come into operation; it will be a dead letter. In the case of a tied house the brewer himself is a much better protector of the public than this clause will be. Immediately on conviction, a tenant is served by the brewer with a notice to quit. The brewer will not risk having difficulties with the license through the neglect, immorality,
1448
or illegality of his tenant. The only way to achieve your object is to make the clause apply to the house—that if the tenant of a house has been convicted five times (three would be better) the house (not the man) should lose its license. Unless you get at the house instead of the tenant the clause will be futile.
There is one other respect in which the Bill will be utterly impracticable, and that is with regard to the supplying of drink to habitual drunkards. It is an impracticable scheme, and will never work. As to the "knowingly supply," every magistrate knows that whenever there is a case of that kind, it is always the barman, the barmaid, or the ostler, or some other servant who has been momentarily left in charge, and who had been previously warned that they were not to supply drink to certain persons. You must make the license-holder responsible for the acts of his servants. In other trades the master is liable for the acts of his servants, and unless the same is done here the clause will be no good at all. There are several other points in regard to which the Bill will require strengthening, and my experience of the right hon. Gentleman leads me to believe that in Committee he will listen to suggestions with a view to such strengthening. As the Bill stands, there is no harm in it, but there will be very little good in its working out, and it will require all the attention and labour of my temperance friends behind me to make it into a valuable working measure. I certainly shall not raise one finger to hinder the progress of the Bill, but in Committee I shall deem it my duty—unless the Home Secretary saves me the trouble—to put down Amendments for the purpose of improving the measure in various respects.
Bill to amend the Law relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors and to drunkenness, and to provide for the registration of clubs, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary Ritchie, Mr. Attorney General, and Mr. Jesse Collings.

LICENSING BILL.
"To amend the Law relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors and to drunkenness, and to provide for the registration of clubs," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

COMPANIES CERTIFICATES BILL.
Order for Second Reading read;
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Debate arising; and, it being midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
Clause 1:—
Committee report progress; to sit again to-morrow.

HOME INDUSTRIES.
Bill for the better regulation of Home Industries, ordered to be brought in by Colonel Denny, Mr. Charles Douglas, Mr. John Burns, Mr. J. W. Wilson, Mr. Emmott, Mr. Law, and Mr. Fenwick.

HOME INDUSTRIES BILL.
"For the better regulation of Home Industries," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 19th February, and to be printed. [Bill 74.]
Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

OFFICE OF LORD GREAT CHAMBERLAIN.
Petition of Sir John James Hugh Henry Stewart Murray, Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Duke of Atholl, Marquess and Earl of Tullibardine. Earl of Strathtay and Strathardle, Viscount Glenalmond, Balquhidder and Glenlyon, Baron Murray of Tullibardine, Lord Balquhidder Balvenie and Gask in Scotland, Baron Strange of Knockyn in England, Earl Strange, Baron Percy, and Baron Murray of Stanley, county Gloucester in Great Britain, Baron Glenlyon of Glenlyon in the United Kingdom, to His Majesty, praying His Majesty to declare that he and his heirs are entitled to the office or dignity of Lord Great Chamberlain of England, and that if it should appear to His Majesty that the said office or dignity of Lord Great Chamberlain has reverted to the Crown, and is therefore at His Majesty's disposal, His Majesty will be graciously pleased to bestow upon the Petitioner the said office or dignity of Lord Great Chamberlain, as enjoyed by his ancestors, together with His Majesty's reference thereof to this House, and the aeport of the Attorney-General thereon: presented (by Command), read, and referred to the Committee for Privileges to consider and report.
Petition of George Henry Hugh Marquess of Cholmondeley to His Majesty, praying His Majesty that he may be declared entitled to and may be confirmed in the ownership, possession, and enjoyment of a moiety of the office of Hereditary Lord Great Chamberlain of England; together with His Majesty's reference thereof to this House, and the report of the Attorney General thereon: presented (by Command), read, and referred to the Committee for Privileges to consider and report.
Petition of the Right Honourable Charles Robert Earl of Carrington to His Majesty, praying His Majesty that he may be declared entitled to and may be confirmed in the ownership, possession, and enjoyment of a moiety
1294
of the office of Hereditary Lord Great Chamberlain of England, or that if (contrary to his contention) the said office is vacant or otherwise in His Majesty's disposal. His Majesty will be graciously pleased to bestow the said office upon the Petitioner and his heirs, together with His Majesty's reference thereof to this House, and the report of the Attorney General thereon: presented (by command), read, and referred to the Committee for Privileges to consider and report.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
Abercarn Urban District Gas.
Abertillery Urban District Council.
Ashton-under-Lyne and Dukinfield Corporations (Alma Bridge, &c.)
Baker Street and Waterloo Railway.
Barking Gas.
Barry Railway.
Bedford Corporation Water.
Belfast Corporation.
Birkenhead Corporation.
Birmingham Assay Office.
Birmingham Corporation Water.
Bournemouth Gas and Water.
Bradford Corporation.
Bradford on-Avon Gas.
Brighton and Rottingdean Seashore Electric Tramroad.
Bristol Corporation.
Bristol Water
Broadstairs Gas.
Bromley Gas.
Brompton and Piccadilly Circus Railway (New Lines, &c.)
Brynaman and Neath Railway.
Brynmawr and Western Valleys Railway (Vesting).
Buxton Urban District Council.
Caterham and District Gas-
Cavehill and Whitewell Tramways.
Central London Railway (New Lines).
Chard Gas.
Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway (No. 3).
Charing Cross, Hammersmith, and District Electric Railway (No. 2).
Chigwell, Loughton, and Woodford Gas.
City and Brixton Railway.
City and Brixton Railway (Abandonment).
City and Crystal Palace Railway.
City and North-East Suburban Electric Railway (No. 2).
City of Londen (Spitalfields Market).
City of London (Streets)
Clay Cross Railway.
Cleethorpes Improvement.
Colwyn Bay and Colwyn Urban District Council.
Commercial Gas.
Consett Water.
Cornwall Electric Power.
Darley Dale Water.
Dartford Improvement.
Deal and Walmer Gas.
Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Electric Power.
Devonport Corporation (General Powers).
Devonport Corporation (Water).
Devonport Water.
Donegal Railway.
Dover Harbour.
Dublin Port and Docks Board.
Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway.
Eastbourne Corporation.
East Worcestershire Water.
Edgware and Hampstead (Railway.
Erdington Tramways.
Fareham Gas.
Felixstowe and Walton Improvement.
Finchley Improvement.
Finedon Urban District Water.
Furness Railway (Steam Vessels).
Garston and District Tramways and Electric Supply (Transfer).
Gloucestershire Electric Power.
Grand Junction Water.
Great Central and Midland Railways (South Yorkshire Railways).
Great Central Railway.
Great Eastern Railway.
Great Northern and City Railway.
Great Northern and Strand Railway.
Great Northern Railway (No. 1).
Great Northern Railway (No. 2).
Great Western Railway.
Great Western Railway (Crumlin Viaduct).
Hastings Harbour District Railway (Extension of Time).
Herne Bay Improvement.
Higham Ferrers and Rushden Water Board.
Huddersfield Corporation.
Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock (South Yorkshire Extension Lines).
Isle of Wight Central Railway.
Kent Electric Power.
Kent Water.
Kingscourt, Keady, and Armagh Railway.
King's Road Railway (Putney Extension).
Knaresborough Improvement.
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Southport and Cheshire Lines Extension Railway Transfer).
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Steam Vessels).
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Various Powers).
Lancashire County (Lunatic Asylums)
Leamington Corporation.
Leicester Corporation.
Leicestershire and Warwickshire Electric Power.
Leyland and Farington Gas.
Limpsfield and Oxted Water.
Lincoln and East Coast Railway (Dock Abandonment).
Liverpool Cathedral.
Liverpool Corporation.
Liverpool Grain Storage and Transit Company.
London and India Docks Company (Lighterage Rates, &c.)
London and India Docks Company (Various Powers).
London and North-Western Railway.
London and South-Western Railway.
London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway.
London County Council (Electric Supply).
London County Council (General Powers).
London County Council (Subways and Tramways).
London School Board (Superannuation).
London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway.
London United Electric Railways.
London Water (Purchase).
Longwood Gas.
Manchester and Liverpool Electric Express Railway.
Manchester Corporation (General Powers).
Manchester Corporation Tramways.
Manchester District Telephone Board.
Manchester (Market Street Area) Improvements.
Margate Corporation Water.
Medway and Thames Canal,
Menai Bridge Urban District Council.
Metropolitan District Railway.
Metropolitan Railway.
Middlesex County Council Tramways.
Midland Counties Junction Railways (Sale) Act, 1901 (Amendment).
Midland Railway.
Midland Railway (SteamVessels).
National Telephone Company (Kingston-upon-Hull.
National Telephone Company (Manchester Area).
Newcastle and Gateshead Water.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Electric Supply.
Newport Corporation.
North and South Shields Electric Railway.
North Eastern Railway.
North-East London Railway (No. 2).
North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply.
North Metropolitan Tramways.
North Staffordshire Tramways.
Northumberland Electric Power.
North Warwickshire Water.
North-West London Railway.
Norwich Corporation (Electricity, &c.).
Nottingham and Retford Railway.
Nottingham Corporation.
Omagh Urban District Gas.
Owens College, Manchester.
Piccadilly and City Railway (No. 2.).
Plymouth, Devonport, and South-Western Junction Railway.
Preston Corporation.
Rathmines and Rathgar Urban District Council.
Reading Gas.
Rhondda Urban District Council.
Richmond Hill (Preservation of View).
Rickmansworth Gas.
Rossendale Valley Tramways.
Rusthall Manor.
Salford Corporation.
Shepton Mallet Gas.
South, Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways.
South Metropolitan Gas.
Southport and Lytham Tramroad.
South Wales Electrical Power Distribution.
Street Urban District Council Water.
Sutton Bridge Dock.
Swansea Corporation.
Swansea Corporation Water,
Swindon United Gas.
Taff Vale Railway.
Thames River Steamboat Service.
Ticehurst Water.
Tipton Urban District Council.
Tiverton Market.
Tyne Improvement Commission.
Wadhurst Gas.
Warrington Corporation (Education).
Waterford and Bishop Foy Endowed Schools.
Weardale and Shildon District Water.
West Gloucestershire Water.
West Ham Gas.
West Hampshire Water.
Whitechapel and Bow Railway.
Wigan Corporation.
Wolverhampton Corporation Water.
Wrexham Water.
York Corporation.
Ystradfellte Water.
And the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have not been complied with:
Central Argentine and Rosario Railway.
Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours.
Rhymney Railway.
West Ham Corporation.

BOARD OF TRADE (LABOUR DEPARTMENT).
Directory of Industrial Associations in the United Kingdom: presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at Four o'clock, till to-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.