Sitting of 3 March 1902

Preamble
The House met at Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz:—
  Military Lands Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time tomorrow.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the
  158
  case of the Petitions for the following Bills, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz:—
  Croydon and District Electric Tramways.
  London County Council (Tramways and Improvements).
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  GARSTON AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS AND ELECTRIC SUPPLY (TRANSFER) BILL.
  Read a second time and committed.
  METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL
  Read a second time, and committed.
  CLAY CROSS RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  CROYDON AND DISTRICT ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS.
  Petition for Bill; referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  LIMPSFIELD AND ONTED WATER BILL.
  Reported; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
PETITIONS.
  COAL MINES (EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Dowlais; Merthyr; Trimsaran; Pencoed; Pantycalin; Rhos; Glynea; Emlyn; Crynant; Ammanford; Tirydale; Pentremawr; Pendleton; Dillwyn; Seven Sisters; Merthyr Lantwit; Coegnant; Onllwyn; Wyndham; Main; Glyncorrwg; Altham Swanwick; Madeley; Norton Green; Harriseahead; Pittshill; Bucknall; Brown Edge; Talke; Kidsgrove; Audley; Butt Lane Talke; Halmer End; Kidsgrove (No. 6); Bunker's Hill; Watermills; Whitfield; Goldenhill; Great Harwood; (Pochin No. 1); and Astley Pit Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION.
  Petition from Wharfedale, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  FRESHWATER FISH (SCOTLAND) BELL.
  Petition from St. Andrews, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON WATER BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from St. Pancras; and, Westminster; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Middlesex; North Lancashire; and, Cheshire; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Felling; Barking Town; and, St. Faiths; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from Beckley, against; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Dowlais; Cross Hands; Park Colliery; Great Mountain; Glangarnant; Cawdor; Pendleton; Crynant; Dillwyn; Seven Sisters; Merthyr Lantwit; Coegnant; Onllwyn; Wyndham; Glyncorrwg; Main; Altham; Swanwick; Astley Pitt; Great Harwood; Pochin (No. 1); Cefn Brithdir; East Elliott; Whitworth (No. 2); Whitfield; Goldenhill; Watermills; Bunker's Hill; Kidsgrove (No. 18) Pit; Halmer End; Audley; Kidsgrove; Talke; Brown Edge; Bucknall; Harriseahead; Pitshill; Norton Green; and, Madeley Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PUBLIC HOUSES (HOURS OF CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BELL.
  Petitions in favour; from Blither-glen; Stonehaven; Barrhead; Buckie; and, Crail; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Somersham; and, Godmanchester; to lie upon the Table.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (JUDICIAL RENTS).
  Copy presented, of Return of Judicial; Rents fixed during the month of June, 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (ORDNANCE FACTORIES) (APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT).
  Appropriation Account presented of the sums granted by Parliament for the expense of the Ordnance Factories, the cost of the production of which have been charged to other Votes for the year ended 31st March, 1901, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 87.]
  EMIGRATION (COLONIES).
  Copy presented, of Report on the Emigrants' Information Office for the year ended 31st December, 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN.
  Copy presented, of Abstract of Accounts; of the University of Aberdeen for the year ending 15th September, 1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 88.]
  TREATY SERIES (No. 3, 1902.)
  Copy presented, of Agreement between the United Kingdom and Japan relative to China and Corea. Signed at London, 30th January, 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 2745 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House—

  BRIDLINGTON PIERS AND HARBOUR.
  Copy of Abstract of the General Annual Account for the year ending ending 26th July, 1901 [by Act].
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  (3.35.) QUESTIONS.

    South African War—Treatment of Boer Leaders—Banishment Proclamation.
    MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, with the view of removing discriminations against Boer leaders who surrender unconditionally as compared with those who surrender subject to the condition that they shall not be banished, His Majesty's Government will either proclaim the withdrawal of the Banishment Proclamation of 6th August, 1901, or at least a modification thereof to the effect of exempting from its provisions Boer leaders who surrender voluntarily.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHAMBERLAIN,): No, Sir; the Government are not prepared to adopt either of the policies suggested in the Question.

    New Zealand and the South African Meat Contract.
    MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire, South Molton): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any protest has been received from New Zealand with respect to the recent contract for meat for South Africa; and, if so, what reply was returned; and whether the Prime Minister of New Zealand has now expressed his satisfaction with the contract.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received a communication on the subject through the Governor of New Zealand, but I do not know whether it would be correct to describe it as a protest. I have replied giving full explanations, and I hope that my answer has been satisfactory to the Prime Minister, but I have not received any further communication.

    Remounts—Present Provision.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary for War a Question of which I have given him private notice, viz., whether the mobile colums in South Africa are fully supplied with horses, and can place their full-mounted strength in the field; what reserves exist to supply the wastage, and what provision has been made for an adequate supply of sound
    162
    and acclimatised horses for the continuance of the war in South Africa.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): As I have already told the House, while the demand for horses from South Africa is for 10,000 a month, 16,000 were shipped in January, and for the most part are already landed. About 14,500 were shipped in February, and on their way to South Africa, while arrangements have already been made for about 13,500 to sail in March. The supply being, therefore, to the above extent in excess of the demand should be sufficient to meet all requirements and the necessary wastage.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: Is the complement of horses at the front satisfactory and sufficient?
    MR. BRODRICK: I have every reason to think it is satisfactory. All the information I have received from Lord Kitchener points to that conclusion.
    MR. LAMBERT: Shall we be able to discuss this matter on the Estimates tomorrow?
    MR. BRODRICK: That is a Question for the Chairman of Committees and not for me.

    Horse Transport Contracts.
    MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will give the number of horses and mules carried to South Africa since 1st January, 1898, in ships chartered by Messrs. Houlder, Brothers, under Army contracts, and the total number of horses and mules carried to South Africa under Army contracts since that date.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): The total numbers of horses and mules carried to South Africa since 1st January, 1898, in ships chartered by Messrs. Houlder, Brothers, on behalf of the War Office, are 85,549 horses and 300 mules. The total number carried in all has been 293,243 horses and 96,820 mules under contracts made by the War Office. Admiralty, and Colonial Governments.

    Deficient Supply of Horses
    MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, seeing that the purchase and embarkation of horses for South Africa has been regulated by the demand since the beginning of the war, and that the supply has averaged over 10,000 horses per month, if he can explain why, during the months of October and November, 1900, the demand was only for 2,000 horses; does the responsibility for such a demand rest with the present or the late Commander-in-Chief in South Africa or with His Majesty's Government; and can he state how long the mobility of the South African force suffered in consequence of the average supply for these two months being 8,000 horses per month below the normal supply.
    MR. BRODRICK: In reply to the first two paragraphs I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave the hon. Member on this subject on Thursday last.† As regards the last paragraph, I.am not aware that the mobility of the troops was thereby affected.

    Remount Department—Lieutenant Colonel Birkbeck.
    MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the officers in charge of remounts in South Africa, if he can inform the House what was the regimental rank of Lieutenant-Colonel Birkbeck on his appointment by the General Officer Commanding, Cape Colony, as Assistant Inspector of Remounts in South Africa, October, 1899. After the return of Colonel Stevenson (Assistant Inspector of Remounts, Natal), in December, 1900, by order of Lord Roberts, was that post vacant until the appointment of Major General Viscount Downe, in December, 1901; and, if not, can he state by whom it was filled. And can he explain why it was not until over two years after the commencement of the war that the desirability of appointing an officer of the rank of Major General as officer in charge of remount operations in South Africa was realised.
    MR. BRODRICK: In reply to the first paragraph, Lieutenant-Colonel Birkbeck had then the rank of Major. In
    † See preceding Volume, p. 1273.
    164
    reply to the second paragraph, both appointments were amalgamated in Lieutenant-Colonel Birkbeck. In reply to the third paragraph, an officer was sent out for inspection duty at the request of Lord Kitchener, who at the same time expressed himself as quite satisfied with the manner in which Lieutenant Colonel Birkbeck had carried out his duties.

    The Klerksdorp Disaster.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary for War whether he has any further information to give of the attack on Von Donop's force; and whether his attention has been directed to the fact that several of the wounded officers have been in hospital some time. Can he also explain the long delay in giving particulars of that affair.
    MR. BRODRICK: The distance was very considerable, and unfortunately all the force was broken up. A considerable number of men were killed and wounded, and others were taken prisoners. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has seen the telegram which I sent to the Press three or four hours ago, and which gave such details as have reached Lord Kitchener from the commanding officer, and I cannot add anything to that information.

    General Scheepers.
    Mr. C. P. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, in the Army Orders, South Africa, dated Army Headquarters, Pretoria, 20th January, extracts are given from the proceedings of the Military Court which tried General Scheepers, and that he is there officially described as Gideon Jacobus Scheepers, a burgher of the late Orange Free State; and will he say whether Scheepers was a burgher of the Free State, as there stated.
    MR. BRODRICK: I have seen a copy of the Orders referred to. The statements made therein are accurate.

    Boer Prisoners—Alleged Deportation of Children.
    MR. C. P. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on 21st December a transport was despatched from Cape

    165
    Town for the Bermudas with about 800 Boer prisoners on board, of whom more than half were children of from ten to seventeen years of age; and whether the deportation of children and other innocent persons is sanctioned by the Government.
    MR. BRODRICK: I have no information to this effect. If the hon. Member will furnish me with information substantiating his statements, I will inquire.

    Reported Arrest of Dutch British Subjects.
    MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvon'shire, Eifion): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Mr. De Wet, a British subject, who came to this country as a minister of peace from the Graaf Reinet Congress, is now, and has been for months, confined in a military camp at Matjesfontein; whether any, and, if so, what charge has been brought against him; and whether he has been brought to trial; whether Messrs. Botha and DuPlessis, who were Mr. De Wet's colleagues and are also British subjects, are also in captivity; and, if so, will he state where and on what grounds; and whether, if he has no information on any of these matters, he will take steps to ascertain the facts.
    MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir, none of these persons have been arrested or hindered in any way.

    Wounded Officers—Promotion Prospects.
    CAPIAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether officers who have been placed upon half-pay, owing to injuries received in action, but are now doing duty at home, will thus lose their ordinary chances of promotion; and, whether, in regard to such promotion, officers upon half-pay who are doing such duty will be treated differently from officers upon half-pay who are not doing duty.
    MR. BRODRICK: There is every desire to do justice to these officers, and their position is being considered.

    National Scouts.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state what form of oath has been taken by the Burghers from whom the National Scouts are recruited; and whether arms are entrusted to any Burghers who have broken any oath of allegiance or neutrality during the South African campaign.
    MR. BRODRICK: I understand that all men serving in the National Scouts have taken the oath of allegiance to His Majesty the King, and that arms are not entrusted to men who have broken their oath of neutrality.
    MR. PIRIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how it is that men with such English names as Taylor, Monckton and Soulsby, are frequently found in the casualty lists connected with the National Scouts?
    [No answer was returned.]

    Volunteers at the Front.
    MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state how many companies and the total number of Volunteers in South Africa who could be relieved under the provisions of Army Order 29 of 1902; also, seeing that since the issue of that Order only thirty-six officers and 1,460 men have been raised, how long it will take to effect the total relief intended.
    MR. BRODRICK: There are at present in South Africa fifty-five companies and detachments of Volunteers to be relieved, amounting in all to about 4,860 men. The time for effecting their total relief depends entirely on the readiness of further recruits to come forward, or on Lord Kitchener being able to dispense with their services.

    Military Courts Martial—Case of Private Burton, 3rd Battalion, Railway Pioneers.
    MR. FENWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Joseph Flavell Burton, of the 3rd Battalion Railway Pioneers, who on the 3rd

    167
    January, 1902, was sentenced by court-martial to imprisonment for nine calendar months, on the charge of dereliction of duty when acting as a sentinel at Rietfontein on 24th December, 1901, at No. 3 Blockhouse; and, whether he will make further inquiry into this case with a view to a reduction of the sentence.
    LORD STANLEY: No proceedings of this court-martial have yet reached the War Office.

    Militia Battalions at the Front.
    MR. BILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state how many of the militia battalions which volunteered for foreign service at the end of the year 1899 and the first three months of 1900 are still serving in South Africa; and whether he can shortly arrange for the relief of these battalions, all of which will shortly have completed two full years of foreign service.
    MR. BRODRICK: Fifteen militia battalions which have been out since the beginning of 1900 are still in South Africa; of these four are due to leave in about a week. The others will be relieved as other militia battalions volunteer to relieve them.
    MR. M'KENNA: Can the right hon. Gentleman say which are leaving?
    MR. BRODRICK: I cannot.

    Army Canteens Committee.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if be can give the names of Members of the Committee about to be assembled by the Commander-in-Chief to inquire into the management and mode of supplying army canteens; and whether care will be taken that only officers having practical experience in the management and inspection of canteens will be appointed, and that no officer who is a member of or pecuniarily interested in any society, company, or firm at present doing business with canteens will be allowed to serve on the said Committee.
    MR. BRODRICK: The selection of the members of the Committee is not yet complete, but care will be taken that no officers who are members of or are pecuniarily interested in any society; company, or firm at present doing business with canteens are included therein.

    Burton Beer for Irish Canteens.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the contract for the supply of the troops in Ireland with stout has been given to the Burton breweries, although the Irish brewers quoted at a lower price; and whether he will inquire what reason induced the responsible authority to, depart from the usual custom of accepting the lowest tender, and will he take steps to secure the observance of this practice in the case of Irish manufacturers.
    LORD STANLEY: I am not aware of the matters referred to, which rest entirely with the General Officer Commanding the District.
    MR. NANNETTI: Will the noble Lord inquire?
    LORD STANLEY: No, Sir. This is a matter entirely in the discretion of the General Officer Commanding, and I am not going to interfere with his discretion.

    Transvaal Companies and Company Law.
    MAJOR EVANS-GORDON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the loss which is occasioned to the Inland Revenue by the registration of limited liability companies in Johannesburg instead of in London, without the previous issue of prospectuses, and the consequent evasion of the Company Law; whether he is aware that the shares of the companies so registered are dealt in on the London Stock Exchange at inflated values; and, whether he can see his way to put a stop to these practices.
    THE PRESIDENT OT THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): I am aware that the -shares in limited companies registered in

    169
    the Transvaal Colony and in other Colonies and foreign countries, and therefore not subject to the provisions of the English Companies Acts are dealt in on the London Stock Exchange, but whether prospectuses of such companies are or.are not previously issued, or whether the shares are dealt in at inflated values I cannot say. Probably the point which my hon. and gallant friend appears to have in his mind would be met by framing new rules for the registration of companies in the Transvaal, and I am informed that this is being done, but any question on this subject should be addressed to my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

    H.M.S. "Sunfish."
    SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucester-shire, Forest of Dean): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the "Sunfish" is one of the destroyers counted as immediately fit for service in the Mediterranean; whether she has been in dockyard hands for repairs since August, 1900; and whether it is anticipated that she will be completed for sea service by May next.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The repairs to the "Sunfish" will be completed by May next, and she will then be counted as immediately fit for service. She was laid up in August, 1900, for the re-tubing of a boiler, and it was then found necessary to effect large repairs to the bottom reservoirs. The parts of these had to be manufactured in the United Kingdom, but have been forwarded to Malta.

    Gold Remittances for India.
    SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state the value of the gold remitted from India on Government account since the end of September last, including the consignment now expected, and what is the special purpose for which the latter is intended. What is the amount of gold retained as part of the currency reserves, and in the reserves of the Government of India respectively; how much in sovereigns has been paid out from both these reserves in exchange for fifteen rupees;
    170
    what number of rupees has been coined or issued by the Mint during the same period. What were the cash balances of the Government of India here and in India at the close of last month, and what has been the average of advances per month from the Indian cash balances here to the money market in the four months ending with January last. And will he give the amount in sterling received during the present financial year up to this time in payment for council bills and telegraphic transfers.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): (1) The value of the gold remitted from India on account of Govern-merit since the end of September, 1901, is £500,000. (2) No further consignment of gold is now expected; the last consignment has been invested on account of the gold reserve fund. (3) On the 22nd of February, 1902, the amount of gold in the currency reserve was £4,644,000. (4) And in the Treasuries of the Government of India £54,000, besides £1,939,000 ill the gold reserve fund. (5) The number of sovereigns altogether paid out in exchange for rupees, is £9,290,496, of which it is estimated that about £4,000,000 are in circulation. (6) The minder of rupees coined, was in 1899–1900, 13,018,078, and in 1900–1901, 171,479,318; from April to December, 1901, the value of the silver received and coined in the Mints was Rs. 88,468,811, of which nearly half was for the coinage of British dollars, and the remainder included fractional coins, as well as rupees issued to replace old coins called in. (7) On the 31st of January, the cash balances in India were about 1,372 lakhs of rupees, and in England £4,004,088. (8) The average amount lent per month from the cash balance in London from October to January inclusive, was approximately £2,975,000. (9) The sterling amount to be received in 1901£1902, from the sale of hills and telegraphic transfers on India, to the 1st of March, is £16,460,358.

    Scinde, Punjab, and Delhi Railway.
    MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that there has been a sum of about £10,000 lying without interest at the Bank of England to the credit

    171
    of the Scinde, Punjab, and Delhi Railway, for the last twenty years; that in 1886, this undertaking was vested in the Government of India, and that Section 54 of the Act provided for the eventual dissolution of the company; is he aware that this clause has been inoperative, the company, though still in existence, being without direction, the, last surviving director having died last year; and, seeing that this deposit represents various sums distributable under Section 53 of the Act between stockholders of the company to parties who cannot be traced, will he introduce a Bill, or otherwise provide for the final dissolution of the railway company, and authorising the Bank to pay the money to the Treasury for the benefit of India, subject, within a clearly defined period, to the presentation of any cheques now in existence, signed by the late directors of the company.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: Since replying to the question put by the hon. Member on 15th July last†, I have been in communication with the Treasury, who are of opinion that nothing can be done in the matter without legislation. I am advised that the funds in question are the property of certain shareholders of the Scinde, Punjab, and Delhi Railway Company, or their representatives, and that neither the Secretary of State in Council, nor the Government of India has any interest in them. In those circumstances I do not propose to promote legislation, for the purpose of acquiring control over the money.

    New German Tariff.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information to communicate to the House with regard to the German tariff and its effect upon the export to Germany of British goods, or concerning the steel trust in the United States, or the Shipping Subsidy Bill before Congress; and can he say what steps His Majesty's Government proposes to take in the interests of British trade.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,) (for Lord CRANBORNE): The proposed new German Customs Tariff is now
    †See (4) Debates, xcvii, 428.
    172
    before a Select Committee of the Reichstag, and its probable effect upon British trade has been and is under consideration in consultation with the Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade, who have been in communication with the principal, Chambers of Commerce. There is no information in our possession which could usefully be published at the present time, with regard to the Steel Trusts in the United States. Papers with regard to Senator Frye's New Steamship Subsidy Bill will be communicated to the Select Committee on Steamship Subsidies if it is reappointed by the House. The last question is not one which can be dealt with in an answer to a Question.

    Germany and Shantung.
    MR. NORMANI beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any official reports showing that the German Government is endeavouring to secure exclusive administrative and commercial privileges in the Chinese province of Shantung; and whether any communications upon this subject have passed between the British and German Governments.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH (for Lord. CRANBORNE): We have heard that the-German Government are negotiating for certain mining concessions in Shantung, but we have heard nothing of attempts to secure exclusive administrative privileges. All concessions must to a certain extent be exclusive, and whether they assume the character of being contrary to the Treaty rights of this country and other Powers in China depends upon various considerations, and notably the area over which any exclusive rights are claimed or granted in such concessions. His Majesty's Government are not at present informed as to the extent of these concessions. No communication has passed between the two Governments on the subject.

    Preferential Treatment of Empire Products.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information in his possession showing the feeling of the Canadian Government and. people as to the results in the increase of mutual trade attending the preference of 25 per cent. given to British goods on the termination of the prohibiting treaties in

    173
    1898, and increased to 33⅓per cent. in 1900; if his attention has been called to the recent declaration on the same subject of the Premier of New Zealand; and, if it is proposed to discuss the development of trade between all parts of the British Empire on mutually advantageous terms and on a preferential basis in the conferences between himself and the representatives of the Colonies attending His Majesty's Coronation.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no official information as to the feeling of the Government and people of Canada in regard to the results of the preferential tariff accorded to British goods. My attention has been called to the declaration of the New Zealand Premier, and it is proposed to discuss the commercial relations of the Empire with the representatives of the self-governing Colonies when they come here for the Coronation.

    Watering Coal Dust in Mines.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the report by Messrs. Galloway, S. T. Evans, and L. T. Robson, together with the finding of the jury on the Universal Colliery explosion, with reference to the necessity of further measures to enforce the watering of coal dust in mines; and whether he proposes to take any action thereupon.
    THE SECRETARY of STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. As to the second, I must point out that the Coal Mines Regulation Act requires that in dusty mines the roof and sides shall be thoroughly watered within twenty yards of the place where a shot is to be fired. The lamentable explosion is question will be an additional incentive to the endeavours of the inspectors to enforce this rule and to impress on owners of dusty mines the importance of thorough watering. It is also to be noted that in the Universal Colliery where the disaster occurred the system of watering by pipes is being rapidly extended. The question of further strengthening and extending the rules by legislation will be considered.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Then I understand the right hon. Gentleman contemplates legislation on the subject?
    MR. RITCHIE: The question whether the existing rule shall be strengthened or extended by legislation will be care, fully considered

    Leamington Vaccination Case.
    MR. CORRIE GRANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now state what explanation he has received from the clerk to the Leamington Borough Magistrates of his detention of a birth certificate used in evidence on application for a vaccination exemption order on 3rd February.
    MR. RITCHIE: The clerk was under the impression that it was proper that the certificate, having been put in evidence, should be retained by the Court. I am, however, advised that the Court has no power to impound the document in such a case as the present; and I have directed the clerk to be informed that the certificate should, in my opinion, be returned to the owner.

    Battle Public Vaccinator.
    MR. CORRIE GRANT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether one of the public vaccinators of the Battle District, Sussex, has charged the guardians fees for the vaccination of certain persons after he had already charged fees to the persons vaccinated for his services; if so, can he state in how many cases this occurred, and what steps he has taken or proposes to take with regard to this public vaccinator, and to prevent the practice occurring elsewhere.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG: I understand that the officer referred to in the Question included in his register of persons vaccinated for the quarter ended June last the names of three persons for whose vaccination he was paid as their private medical attendant. He thus contravened Section 22 of the Vaccination Act, 1867. On finding this to be the case, he appears

    175
    himself to have drawn the attention of the guardians to the matter and returned to them the fees they had paid him for the three vaccinations. I have only received the officer's explanation within the last few days and I am still in communication with the guardians on the subject. I have no reason to suppose that the practice complained of prevails, and it does not seem to me necessary to take any general steps with regard to it. I may point out, however, that in any such case it is open to the guardians to terminate their contract with the public vaccinator by giving him twenty-eight days notice.

    Alleged Death from Vaccination—Case of Mr. Essex.
    MR. CORRIE GRANT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to an inquest, before Dr. Danford Thomas on 31st January, into the death of Mr. Essex after vaccination; is he aware that Mr. Essex was vaccinated on the 15th of January, and died on the 26th from blood poisoning; whether the lymph from which he was vaccinated was supplied by the Local Government Board, and whether five other gentlemen vaccinated at the same time from the same lymph were seriously ill; whether the vaccination was from calf lymph, No. 1538; and whether anything is known of the history of this lymph.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The answer as regards the first three points is in the affirmative. The jury at the inquest found that Mr. Essex died from "coma and septic meningitis, the septic condition occurring after vaccination, from some external infection, from natural causes." They added that they were "satisfied that the vaccination was duly and properly performed." By my direction one of the Medical Inspectors of the Local Government Board attended the inquest and subsequently made further inquiry into the matter, and he concurred in the view taken by the jury. I am not aware that any of the five other persons referred to were seriously ill as suggested. In only two of the cases does there appear to have been any trouble, and in both of these the inspector ascertained that the arm was
    176
    healing satisfactorily. The lymph was from calf No. 1538, and was used in the vaccination of a large number of persons besides those mentioned, but no ill effects have been reported.
    MR. CORRIE GRANT: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of the Question—whether anything is known of the history of the lymph.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I think I have given the history in answer to the Question.
    MR. COWRIE GRANT: No. The right hon. Gentleman has told us other persons were vaccinated from it, but he has not informed us of the history of the lymph.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I know nothing of the previous history of the calf. All I know is that the lymph was properly taken, and I have told the hon. Member what were the effects of the vaccination with that lymph.
    MR. CORRIE GRANT: I will put another Question down on the Paper, in order to make my meaning clear.

    London Water Bill—Constitution of Proposed Joint Committee.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board how many Members of each House would be placed on the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons to which it is proposed to refer the London Water Bill; and whether the House of Commons Members would be appointed by the House or by the Committee of Selection.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I propose that the Joint Committee shall consist of five Members of each House, and that the Members from the House of Commons shall be appointed by the Committee of Selection.
    SIR JOHN COLOMB: How will the Chairman be appointed—by the Committee?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I imagine that would be governed by the rules which I control Joint and Select Committees.
    MR. LOUGH: If a general opinion is expressed in favour of sending the Bill to a Committee of the House of Commons, will the Government persist in the proposal to send it to a Joint Committee?
    [No answer was returned.]

    Tonnage Measurement of Fishing Boats.
    CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, seeing that the Board of Trade instructions of the year 1898 relating to the tonnage measurement of fishing boats are being revised by his Department, can he state at what date it is expected that the revised regulations will be issued and brought into operation.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The revised regulations relating to the tonnage measurement of fishing boats will be issued and brought into operation as soon as the new regulations for registry of fishing boats come into force. These are now being advertised under the Rules Publication Act, and it is hoped that they will conic into force in May or June.

    Light Railways Act Amendment Bill.
    MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to bring in a Bill this session to amend the Light Railways Act; and, if so, whether he can introduce it before Easter.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A Bill to amend the Light Railways Act is in course of preparation, but I am not able to say when it will be introduced.

    Preferential Railway Rates.
    MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will cause an inquiry to be instituted by the Railway Department of the Board of Trade with the view of obliging the carrying companies to separate the sea rate from the land rate on goods so that the precise ratio of Preferential Rates granted to foreign produce may be made public.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not sure that I correctly understand the point of the hon. Member's Question; if he desires to know the amount of the railway portion of a through rate as distinct from the charge for sea carriage I gather that his point is met by sub-section 4 of section:33 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, and section 14 of the Regulation of Railways Act of 1873 therein referred to. I am not aware that there is any general system of prefeuntial rates, in existence but the Board of Trade will always be happy to inquire into any specific case under the powers of section 31 of the Act of 1888.

    Tube Railways Vibration Committee.
    SIR GEORGE FARDELL (Padding-ton, S.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has taken, or will take, any, and if so, what steps to secure compliance by the Central London Railway Company with the recommendations of the Committee appointed by the Board of Trade to inquire into the vibration produced by the working of the traffic on the Central London Railway; and, whether the Board of Trade will endeavour to prevent the passing of any Railway Bills unless they contain provisions adequately protecting frontagers and others from injury by vibration caused by working of electric traction in tube railways.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Board of Trade have been in communication with the Central London Railway Company with reference to the Report of the Committee on Vibration. When the Company have had an opportunity of further consideing the matter, I shall ask them to inform me how they propose to give effect to its recommendations. The Department will take care that the Committee or Committees to which the Bills are referred shall have their attention directed to the Report which has been made by Lord Rayleigh's Committee.

    Poultry Keeping in the United Kingdom. —Returns Wanted.
    MR. WALTER PALMER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will consent to include poultry in the Agricultural Returns of the year.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY,: The schedules for the Agricultural Returns for the present year are already printed, and it would now be too late to include poultry in them. A trial was, however, given to this proposal from 1884 to 1886 but was found to be statistically unsatisfactory, owing to the indifference of the larger occupiers and the impossibility of reaching the numerous class of poultry keepers occupying less than a quarter of an acre. Since 1892 only occupiers of upwards of one ace have been called upon to make Agricultural Returns, and were an attempt now made to obtain satisfactory Returns of all poultry within the United Kingdom, not only would an enormous amount of extra work devolve upon the Inland Revenue collectors, but the publication of the other Agricultural Returns would be seriously delayed. The difficulty is further increased by the large amount of poultry kept by the labouring classes in urban districts.

    Butter standard.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture why the evidence on which the interim Report of the Butter Standard Committee recommending a 16 per cent. limit has not been issued, and will he cause it to be circulated as soon as possible.
    MR. HANBURY: I understand that the evidence is in the hands of the printers, I hope it will be issued this week. I will do my best to have it circulated promptly.

    Halifax and Hong Kong Mails.
    MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if his attention has been called to the fact that, in the list of sailings of the Canadian Pacific Railway and Ocean Steamship services, the s.s. "Empress of China," carrying British mails, which was advertised to leave Vancouver on the 14th February, is not due to arrive at Hong Kong till 18th March, a period of thirty-two days, whilst the mail contract provides that the mails shall be conveyed between Halifax and Hong Kong within a period of thirty and a half days; and
    180
    whether the penalties in the contract for delay in fulfilling the contract will be exacted; and, if so, how much; and can he state whether it was the s.s. "Empress. of China" which actually did leave Vancouver on 14th February, and whether that ship takes, as advertised, fourteen days to perform the trip from Vancouver to Yokohama.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The date. (14th February) set down in the Schedule printed by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company as the date for the Packet "Empress of China" to leave Vancouver for Hong Kong is simply a printer's error for the 24th of February. The Postmaster General has no knowledge of any Packet having left Vancouver on the 14th, and he has no reason to doubt that the "Empress of China" which was duly despatched on the 24th, will accomplish her voyage to Yokohama within fourteen days from that date.
    MR. CALDWELLasked on what days the mails advertised to go by the "Empress of China," were sent from this country.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot answer that Question without notice; I think, however, there was an error in the Post Office Guide here, arising out of the Canadian Pacific Company's service.

    London Telegraphists—Maximum Pay and Promotion.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the. Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state the number of telegraphists stationed in London who are in receipt of the salary of £160 perannum, with the average years of service of the men so placed; and whether the number of promotions from the £160 point to the next class of operating telegraphists, the class recently termed overseers, during the year 1901, can be given.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The number of Telegraphists at the Central Telegraph Office in receipt of a salary of £160 a year is 336, with an average service of twenty-two years. The

    181
    number of promotions to the class of overseers and senior telegraphists during the year 1901 was nineteen.

    Military Drill for School Boys.
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that in the Colony of Natal it is compulsory for all boys attending Government schools to be military cadets, and that in Australian Colonies military drill is a part of the curriculum; whether he is aware what is the cost to the public of these systems; and whether he will consider the expediency of making some such system general in this country, according to the wish expressed by the present Commander-in-Chief at Pietermaritzburg, Natal, that this country would follow Natal's example, and insist on all boys joining cadet corps.
    THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,: I am not aware of the arrangements made in Natal and other Colonies, nor of their cost. A circular has recently been issued by the Board of Education in concert with the War Office making such provision as is suitable for drilling boys in the Public Elementary Schools, the great bulk of whom leave school at twelve years of age.

    Clerks of the High Court—Compulsory Retirement.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether, in view of the many representations made by the Clerks of the Central Office and the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice on the question of compulsory retirement being introduced into their respective offices, and the fact that the matter is now under consideration of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and the President of the Probate Division, any decision has been arrived at, and whether the President of the Probate Court sees any legal impediment to the application of the rules for compulsory retirement at the age of sixty-five.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs): This matter has recently been discussed
    182
    by the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the President, and is still under consideration. Under these circumstances I think my hon. friend will agree that it would be premature that the Presidents should at this stage express any individual opinion on the points involved.

    United Irish League—Ballinamore Meeting.
    An hon. MEMBER: On behalf of the right hon. Member for South Antrim I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a magistrate of Ballinamore, County Leitrim, who is the President of the Local United Irish League, presided at a meeting in that town in October or November last; has his attention been called to the terms of the Resolution urging that there should be no dealings with Protestants, which Resolution was carried unanimously, and to the fact that this justice of the peace made no remonstrance; whether this, magistrate has refused to take the Oath of Allegiance as required; and, seeing that this justice of the peace holds the post of coroner, as well as medical officer for two Royal Irish Constabulary districts, and other Government appointments, will he say what steps His Majesty's Government proposes to take, or has taken, in the matter.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,: I have no information other than that contained in the Question, that a Resolution of the nature indicated was adopted at Ballinamore. Dr. Mulcahy took the magisterial oath on his appointment in 1895, but he does not appear to have conformed to the general rule or to, have been re-sworn since the issue of the first new Commission after the demise of the Crown. In the absence of any complaint as to the way he discharges his official duties, no action will be taken.

    Tottenham Estate, Co. Leitrim.
    MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the. Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say who is responsible to the Irish Government for the management of the Tottenham Estate, Co. Leitrim; and. how many evictions have taken place on.

    183
    this estate since it came under the control of the Land Courts: and whether he can now state what progress has been made with the inspection of the estate which was ordered in July, 1899; how long has the work of inspection been in progress; and can he state approximately when the inspection is likely to be completed.
    MR. ATKINSON: No one is responsible to the Government for the management of this estate. The property is being administered by the Land Judge's Court, pending sale, and the hon. Member must be aware that the Government exercises no control over the Land Judge. Inquiry is being made as to the number of evictions that have taken place on the estate. The order for inspection was made in July of last year, not in the year 1899 as stated, and was referred by the Land Commissioners to one of the Assistant Commissioners in November last. It cannot be stated, even approximately, when the inspection of the estate, which comprises over 300 holdings, will be completed.

    Sligo District Lunatic Asylum.
    MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the amounts paid by the counties of Sligo and Leitrim respectively, towards the maintenance of Sligo District Lunatic Asylum in the years 1870, 1880, 1890, and 1900.
    MR. ATKINSON: The amounts paid by Sligo in the years mentioned are £1,311 16s. 5d., £1,488 17s. 10d., £2,486 Os. 9d., and £3,940 8s. 2d. respectively; and by Leitrim, £883 7s. 9d., £1,227 2s. 2d., £2,034 12s. ld., and £3,355 9s. 5d.

    Glenade Extra Police Force.
    MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a letter recently addressed to him by Mr. Tottenham, of Glenade, Co. Leitrim, protesting against the extra taxation about to be imposed on the people of Glenade by the introduction of extra police; is he aware that the Ballyshannon Rural District Council
    184
    and the Leitrim County Council have recently passed Resolutions against the imposition of extra police on Glenade; will he inform the House of the number and character of crimes committed in Glenade during the past nine years; and will he have the extra police withdrawn.
    MR. ATKINSON: Representations have been made, as stated, against the employment of an additional force of constabulary in this district, a moiety of the expenses of which will be charged to the locality. The force was sent for the protection of individuals who are subjected to intimidation, and for the preservation of the public peace. It will be withdrawn when no longer required. I am making inquiry as to the number of outrages committed in the district during the period mentioned.

    Callan Petty Sessions Clerkship.
    MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if any decision has yet been given by the Lord Lieutenant on the objections lodged against the election to the clerkship of petty sessions of Head Constable Kearney, Royal Irish Constabulary, which took place at Callan on the 14th February. Is a head constable serving in the force eligible for the position of clerk of petty sessions; what is the age limit in such a case; and what is the limit in the case of a retired head constable; and, will he say what age Head Constable Kearney has stated he is; and is this man still in active service in the Royal Irish Constabulary.
    MR. ATKINSON: The reply to the first paragraph is in the negative. A head constable is eligible for election, but he must retire from the Constabulary before his appointment is confirmed. The limit of age in such a case, and also the case of a head constable who retires before the election, is 50 years. The age of Head Constable Kearney is 45. He has not vet retired from the Force.

    Irish Land Commission—Third Class Clerkships.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the change recently made in the programme

    185
    of examination for third class clerkships in the Irish Land Commission, the old regulations as usual in such cases will remain in force for the two coming examinations, so that candidates above the new age limit, who have been preparing since the last examination, held over twelve months ago, may be given an opportunity of competing.
    MR. ATKINSON: My right hon. friend has been in correspondence with the Land Commission and the Civil Service Commissions in reference to this matter. It is true that there has been a recent revision of the regulations affecting examinations for third class clerkships in the former Department, and obviously no change could be made in regulations of this character, even where notice of the date from which the change shall take effect is given, without excluding or placing at a disadvantage unknown persons who are proposing to compete. There is at present no vacancy on the staff of third class clerks in the Land Commission, and, consequently, no examination is pending. Should, however, an examination be held before the 1st January, 1903, arrangements will be made for conducting it under the old Regulations of June, 1895.

    Mallaranny Foreshore—Cottiers and the Collection of Seaweed.
    DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the fact that the owner of Rosturk Castle, Co. Mayo, is attempting to prevent the cottiers in the neighbourhood of Mallaranny from gathering seaweed along the foreshore; whether he is aware that these people have to go out in boats and cut the seaweed off the rocks or drag it off; and, whether, seeing that seaweed below high-water mark is the property of the Crown, he will prevent the prosecution of these people for taking it away. The hon. Member complained that the name of the owner of Rosturk Castle had been struck out at the Table.
    MR. SPEAKER: It was struck out because it was not in order to give it.
    MR. ATKINSON: The owner of the property claims the right under grant
    186
    from the Crown to the owner of this foreshore, and has successfully asserted that right, I believe, on several occasions. The Crown cannot interfere in these prosecutions in the manner suggested.
    DR. AMBROSE: Is it not the fact that the seaweed under the low-water mark is the property of the Crown?
    MR. ATKINSON: Prima facie it is.
    DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that Sergeant McGee, of Mallaranny, Co. Mayo, has gone into the houses of several persons in that district and threatened to prosecute them if they attempted to gather seaweed along the foreshore of the estate of the owner of Rosturk Castle: will he state at whose expense and why this sergeant has been doing this duty; and, if this sergeant acted without authority, will he see that his conduct is brought under the notice of the proper authority.
    Mr. ATKINSON: Sergeant McGee while on patrol entered several houses and merely warned the parties for their own protection that they might expose themselves to the risk of proceedings at the suit of the landlord if they persisted in exercising this alleged right. He did not threaten to prosecute them or to interfere in any way with that dispute.
    DR. AMBROSE: If I give the right hon. Gentleman the name of the people on whom the police called and whom they threatened to prosecute, will he further inquire?
    MR. ATKINSON: I am informed that the police did not threaten to prosecute anybody.
    DR. AMBROSE: Has not the right hon. Gentleman got his information from a partisan source, viz., the police?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    Banbridge Post Office—Alleged Pilfering.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that four

    187
    female officials in the Banbridge Post Office have recently complained in writing to the Post Office authorities that on several occasions moneys, the property of the Postmaster General, were stolen from their several drawers in the office, which moneys they had to make good out of their salaries; and, seeing that inquiries were instituted on these complaints, whether he can give the name of the person detected taking money out of the drawer of one of the complainants, and say what connection she had with the office; whether she will be prosecuted; or, if not, what action will be taken in the matter; and will the moneys stolen from the other clerks be refunded to them.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Complaints as described have been received in regard to alleged losses at the Banbridge office, but it was only recently that the charge of pilfering could be brought home to any officer. The Postmaster General was advised that the case was not one in which he should institute a prosecution; but he has dismissed the officer in question. The circumstances are not such as to justify the losses being made good by the Department. The Postmaster General does not think it right to state the name of the dismissed officer.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is it not the fact that the detective officer who went down to investigate actually caught some one taking money out of the drawers?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: My information is not to that effect. In any case, each assistant has a key to the drawer in which she keeps cash and valuables, and she should take sufficient precautions to prevent any pilfering.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Then on what ground was one of the assistants dismissed?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have said that my information is not to the effect that the offender was actually caught pilfering.

    Bell Rock Lenticular Apparatus.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the lenticular apparatus exhibited at the Glasgow Exhibition, and described as intended to be erected at the Bell Rock Lighthouse at the close of the exhibition, was supplied by Messrs. Chance according to their contract; and, if not, how many similar apparatus have been supplied to the lighthouse authorities in contravention of that contract.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The lenticular apparatus for the Bell Rock Lighthouse was not supplied by Messrs. Chance. The apparatus being of a special design not covered by Messrs. Chance's contract, tenders were invited by open competition. I am informed by the Lighthouse authorities that no similar apparatus has been obtained since the date of Messrs. Chance's contract.

    Irish Gold Ornaments.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can say out of what fund the legal expenses of the British Museum, in the case for the recovery of the Irish gold ornaments are being defrayed; and, in view of the fact that the Irish and the English law officers of the Crown are unanimous in the opinion that these ornaments are illegally retained by the British Museum, and that a demand has been addressed by the Crown to the British Museum to deliver up these ornaments, whether he will see that the legal expenses of the British Museum in connection with the case are not paid out of the public funds.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I understand that the Trustees of the British Musum are advised that they have no legal right to give up these ornaments, and that, therefore, they feel they cannot do so without the decision of a Court. In order that the case may be properly placed before the Court it is necessary that some legal expenses should be incurred on behalf of the Trustees, which could not properly be charged on the ordinary Votes by which the Museum is supported, nor could they

    189
    be asked to pay such expenses themselves, as, even assuming them to be wrong, they are only acting to the best of their judgment in their official capacity. Their expenses will, therefore, be paid from the Vote for law charges.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: Will any special Estimate be made for the law charges?
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, Sir, I think not.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state when the trial between the Treasury and the British Museum for the recovery of the Irish gold ornaments will take place.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I understand that the time given by the Court for the delivery of the Defence expires on the 8th instant. It is not possible to state in advance the exact date on which the trial will take place.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give no idea of the date?
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, Sir, it does not rest with me.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I will.repeat the Question in ten days time.

Military and Naval Works Bill.
MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intend to introduce any Military or Naval Works Bills this Session.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH (for Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): No, Sir.

New Procedure Rules.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I desire to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question of which I have given him private notice, viz., whether he can explain the object of issuing the revised version of the proposed new Rules of Procedure distributed to Members this morning; can he explain the material difference between this version and the one formerly circulated—can he state whether—
MR. SPEAKER: Order, Order! This is going beyond the limits of a Question. The hon. Member is now discussing a Parliamentary Paper.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then I will simply ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can give any explanation at all of the revised version.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The Paper has been circulated in order to show what are the proposals placed before the House by the Government. They will be moved at the proper time. I propose to postpone the Rules of Procedure until tomorrow week.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two proposals in the revised version are inconsistent with each other?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I do not think that is so. It is a matter of interpretation.

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Sir JAMES FERGUSSONreported from the Chairmen's Panel that they had appointed Sir James Fergusson to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee for the consideration of Bills relating to Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure.
Sir JAMES FERGUSSONfurther reported from the Chairmen's Panel that they had agreed to the following Resolution: That any Member of the Chairmen's Panel be and he is hereby empowered to ask any other Member of the Chairmen's Panel to take his place in case of necessity.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS—HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES.
That they concur with this House in their Resolution, "That it is expedient that a Select Committee of this House be appointed to join with a Committee of the

191
Lords to consider the Standing Orders relating to houses occupied by persons of the labouring class and the Clauses usually inserted in Private and Local Bills and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills in pursurance thereof; and to report whether any Amendments should be made in such Standing Orders and Clauses, and especially whether any and what provision should be made for better securing the re-housing of all persons of the labouring class who may be displaced in connection with the undertakings to which the Bills relate, whether displaced under the powers given by the Bills, or otherwise."

NEW BILL.
  AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To enable county councils in Ireland to exclude congested districts from the area of charge for certain purposes,' presented by Mr. Wyndham, under Standing Order 31; to be read a second time on Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 112.]

  LONDON WATER BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  [SECOND DAY'S DEBATE.]
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment proposed to Question [27th February], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  And which Amendment was—
  "To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words this House, while welcoming the adoption of the principle of purchase and the creation of a special court of arbitration, is of opinion that the authority proposed to be created for the purchase and control of the water supply of London, is unsatisfactory and unworkable, and repugnant to the general principles of municipal government.'"— (Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR BLUNDELL MAPLE: In rising to discuss this Bill I am afraid I shall have to trouble the House for some time in
  192
  order to properly consider the nature of this measure. As most hon. Members of the House are aware, last year I expressed my views upon this subject when I introduced a Bill which had been most carefully prepared by Mr. Gerald Fitzgerald, and which was read a first time and ordered to lie printed On the 23rd of July. Although some portions of the Bill now introduced by the Government are the same as my own, I regret to say that there are other portions which are not included in this. Bill which would seriously affect the working of the measure introduced by me, and therefore I propose to ask, if this Bill is read a second time, that my Bill shall be sent to the same Committee, to be considered at the same time as the Government Bill. The common object is to get a measure passed that will be of advantage to all classes of the community. We want a measure which will not only give a new water authority that will work more satisfactorily, but we want an authority set up which will deal fairly with the present holders of water stock, and which will see that water affairs have. a proper organisation, so that the interests of the water consumers generally will be looked after
  The House, no doubt, is aware of the fact that the Royal Commission, when considering the constitution of the new water authority, assumed that that authority would not be larger than thirty members, but the water authority which is now proposed would amount to sixty-nine. Upon the water authority recommended by the Royal Commission, out of thirty members ten were to be given to the London County Council, and the Bill now before the House only gives the same number to the London County Council as was recommended by the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission suggested that the London County Council should nominate ten members of the WaterBoard, being one-third of the whole body, but the Government Bill which we are now considering only allows the London County Council a representation of one-seventh of the whole body. I think the present Bill is wrong in allowing certain of our municipal boroughs to have two members and other boroughs only one member. What is there

  193
  to define the question as to whether there should be one member or two members? It is perfectly right and proper that every metropolitan borough should have at least one representative of its interests. In the Bill which I introduced last year it was provided that the London County Council were to have sixteen members on the water authority instead of ten members, which is now proposed, and that every metropolitan borough should have its one representative. Therefore, what may be called the inner circle of London would be represented under both these Bills by about the same number. That seems to me to be an important thing when you are going to constitute a new authority, and when you are handing over to this new body a great and important question dealing with the expenditure of something like £40,000,000. Therefore, it is most important that we should be certain that this authority is a thoroughly good and strong body, capable of looking after the interests of the water consumers and of managing their affairs properly. The Royal Commission, when it came to deal with this point, suggested that the appointment of the Chairman and the Vice Chairman should be handed over to the President of the Local Government Board. I am convinced that that is the right thing to do, because, as the House will be aware, the Board now to be constituted is a body that will only last for three years, because we are supposed to have a fresh election every three years. What is thought necessary in dealing with this question is to try and get a body some portions of which would go on continuously. In the Bill which I introduced last year, I proposed that the Chairman and the Vice Chairman should be nominated by the President of the Local Government Board. I proposed that the Chairman should have £3,000 a year, the Vice Chairman £1,500 a year, and that the Water Board should be allowed to nominate a Deputy Chairman to whom they might pay £500. I also proposed in my Bill that there should be an executive body consisting of ten members from the Water Board, making an Executive Committee altogether of thirteen. I proposed that the members of this Executive Committee should each receive £250 per annum. My proposals involved a total payment of £7,000 a year. In dealing with such a large and important subject as the management of
  194
  these great water undertakings, you cannot look upon this Water Board as a municipal body altogether, but it will be more like a Board of Directors. I would point out that every Board of Directors, such as railway directors, is paid large sums of money, and I do not think that £3,000 a year is at all too much to pay to the Chairman of the new Water Board. Lender these circumstances, I think it would be far better for the Chairman of the Water Board to be nominated and elected by the President of the Local Government Board rather than by the members of the Water Board itself.
  Now I come to a rather important subject, to which I do not think the attention of the House has been directed before. The Water Board is to be elected every three years, but it seems to have-been overlooked that the constituent authorities themselves, who send representatives to the Water Board, are also elected every three years. The London County Council elections occur in March, and the municipal borough elections take place in November. Therefore, as the members of the-Water Board will have to go off that body immediately in order to be re-elected members of the local authorities, you will have three lots of elections determining the members of your Water Board. The London County Council members are elected for three years, but on the municipal boroughs some of the members go out of office one year and some the next, and in some cases they all go out in the third year. Therefore, unless you re-organise that body and give some new power to the Water Board, you may have a body which will not exist more than ten or twelve weeks before there is some change in its representatives. That to me does not seem to be altogether on business lines. By this arrangement you would no sooner get your Board to work than some of its members would be leaving, and the working of the Board would be thrown out of gear. Although the Bill I introduced is somewhat on the same lines as that of the Government Bill which we are now considering, I would suggest that the members of the Water Board shall remain on that Board so long as they are the representatives of the Local Constituent

  195
  Authorities, and until they are replaced by some other representatives, so long shall they remain members of the Water Board. If I had to deal with this body, I should most decidedly pay the members of the Executive Committee, and I would also pay the ordinary members. I would like to pay to every ordinary member £100 a year because of his great travelling expenses in going from one district to another. If you gave to the Chairman of the Water Board £3,000 per annum, to the Vice Chairman £1,500 per annum, to the Deputy Chairman £1,000 per annum, to the ten members of the Executive £500 a year, and to the other members £100 a year, that would mean only £17,000 a year. The water directors at the present time are paid £31,000 a year, so that you would be getting this work done for something like £14,000 a year cheaper than now. My opinion is that unless you make this new water authority a powerful body, composed of men who will devote themselves, not one day per week, but day after day, and hour after hour to this work, the water authority will be perfectly unable to deal with this great question. Sooner than see a water authority set up on the lines which have been suggested, I would most certainly prefer the present directors of the water companies to remain in their places. To create an authority which will be changeable and shifting, and which will be required to give its whole time without any pay, would, in my opinion, be an authority in which the business people of this Metropolis would have no confidence. I consider myself that it would be far more advantageous to have the authority which.at present exists than have a new body like the members of the Water Board who would not be paid for their services. Let me read to the House what the Royal Commission said upon this point. Their Report says—
  "It is doubtful whether the management of so large a business as that of the eight water companies by an unpaid committee whose members will frequently be changed and who have no interest in the financial prosperity of the business is likely to result in economy. More responsibility will be thrown upon the permanent officials, and that responsibility will result in higher pay and a more expensive staff."
  196
  That is exactly what I feel upon this point, for unless we have a Committee that is made more permanent than the body proposed under the present proposal—which, as I have already explained, changes every three years upon dates different from those fixed in this Bill—it will be a body always variable and a most unsatisfactory authority in which to place the custody and the conduct of this most important business.
  And now I come to another portion of this great subject. Having dealt briefly with the constitution of this body, I now come to the financial aspect of these proposals. What is the price to be paid? Allow me here to state that I am not a shareholder in any water company, nor am I a water company director, but I am associated with those who pay a great many heavy water rates, and I say that the Bill as at present framed will do them an injustice. I think the time has come now when we who have studied this question for so many years should be allowed to speak our minds. At a time when the Government are bringing forward a measure like this, the Bill is introduced without those persons who have been identified with this great question so long being consulted about it, and the only way in which we can put forward what we consider is advisable is by stating our views upon the floor of this House. I think it most unsatisfactory that there is a provision in the Bill which leaves it to the new water authority to arrange with each of the water companies the price which they shall pay for these undertakings. If the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Local Government Board, would kindly give me his ear for a minute, I would like him to consider carefully this particular subject. It is one of the questions which very much affects the whole of the Metropolis, and which I think we shall have to deal with at future elections for the London County Council, and also at the Parliamentary elections. The Government Bill, which we are now considering, lays it down that the new Water Board may agree to any terms they like with the water companies, and there is nothing in the Bill, that I can see, which will allow any inquiry to be made into that

  197
  question. I think that is most unsatisfactory. The water companies, no doubt, will be able to take care of themselves, but what about this new Water Board? Who are likely to be the members of this new Water Board? Perhaps some of the water company directors them selves may be elected on the Board, and I say, in that case, it would not be right that they should be able to have a voice in settling the question of the price to be paid to the water companies. I agree that the water companies ought to be paid a good and a proper price. It was laid down by the Royal Commission clearly that—
  "The shareholders ought to receive such a sum as would purchase an equally good security producing the same income."
  With that proposal I most thoroughly agree, but this can only be accomplished by putting this question upon a more thorough commercial basis. The Bill which I introduced last year laid it down clearly that each holder of an interest in the water companies, whose interest was perfectly secure, was to receive the same income as they had been in the habit of receiving. That is, in my opinion, a right and proper thing, and that can be settled at once without the arbitrators. Of course the arbitrators would have to come in to decide as to any possible increase of income which would come from the water companies, and that I also made provision for in my Bill. In this Act which we are considering you provide that, unless the sum is agreed upon between the new Water Board and the companies, it is to be left to the arbitrators entirely to decide this matter exactly as they like. That I consider is most unsatisfactory and insecure, and I would much rather prefer to give the same amount of income to the holders of water stock as they have been having up to the present. That is fair and honourable, and that is what all large consumers of water would like to see done. We are all agreed, I think, that the shareholders should have the same income in the future as they have been having in the past from their shares.
  Now I come to the proposal in this Bill that the water stock should be a 3 per cent. water stock. I think that proposal is altogether wrong and the stock ought to be 3¼ per cent. When
  198
  you are giving over water stock for the same rate of income it does not matter one iota whether it is 3 per cent. or 3¼ per cent. If a person has £3 5s. coming in from water stock, and he has received £100 worth of water stock, if you issue it at 3 per cent. instead of 3¼ per cent., instead of having £100 worth of water bonds as in my proposal he will get by the Government Bill £108 6s. 8d. worth of water bonds. The great advantage of making your stock 3¼ per cent. is that it would he above par, and therefore would be likely to be looked upon more favour-ably by the investing public, whereas when the stock is less than par people are inclined to think that there is something wrong with the stock and something insecure, and when it is above par it is much better. When you issue new stock, if you issue it at 3¼per cent. you issue it at a premium. The London County Council issued its stock at 3 per cent., and now that stock stands at 93 and 96. But seeing that the consumers have got to pay the water rates and provide the purchase money, the whole question is just the same whatever rate of interest is paid. I much prefer to see a stock put upon its proper basis. Let me again say that I think this Bill, when it creates a new water authority, does not seem exactly to give to this new authority the necessary powers which it will require to carry on its business. I have looked everywhere in the Bill to see how this new authority is going to carry on its finances. It is true that the new body will take over the debts and all the money in the banks belonging to the Water Company, but supposing the water companies pay all their accounts, what is the financial position of the new Board? I think this measure requires a clause to be added giving to the new Water Board authority to borrow from the Bank of England by means of an overdraft. I know that these are all questions for the Committee, but I think they ought to be pointed out to the House in order that they may be inquired into before the Committee. It is for that reason that I ask the House to agree that the Bill which I brought forward last year shall be placed before the Committee when they consider the Bill brought forward by the Government, in order that their attention may be attracted to the proposals contained in that particular Bill of mine.

  199
  When the new water authority comes into existence, what will it do? It will desire to connect up the different pipes, alter the different services so as to save waste and incur some expense. This Water Board will have a very serious and important subject to deal with. It means perhaps spending half a million of money in abolishing duplicate pipes and trying to bring the entire water supply under one governing body. Let me point out that there is no authority in the Bill to borrow money for that purpose, whereas if you put in your Bill power to borrow say £1,000,000 when they come into existence, then the new body will be able to go to work at once. The right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Local Government Board, must not for one moment think that I do not recognise that this Bill is one which should be read a second time for I do, and I hope all the water directors here will support it; but I do feel compelled to point out the weaknesses of the Bill and I also feel it my duty to point out the way in which I think those difficulties should be dealt with.
  Now I come to a much more serious question, and that is the interests of the ratepayers. By this Bill the Water Board may come into power and immediately proceed to alter the charges and make reductions. They can if they like alter altogether the financial conditions. In the Bill I, together with some of my friends, introduced last year, laid down that:—
  "All bye-laws, rules, regulations and scales of water charges made or enforceable by any of the scheduled companies shall continue in force until repealed, altered, or superseded under the powers conferred by any Act of Parliament."
  That seems to me to be a necessary provision to put in. It is perfectly true that there are different charges in Lon- don, but how did this happen? Simply because powers were given to the different water companies under different conditions. The landlords had houses built in those neighbourhoods well knowing the water charges which they would have to pay, and to go and reduce those charges now, would mean that you might have to put an extra charge upon other localities. This great water question has often been debated, and I have heard it debated upon the London County Council when I have had to reply to the Rodual
  200
  charges upon this subject. I have frequently had to point out that lodgers and ordinary tenants would not be benefited. The question of the charges made by the water companies is one which has wholly and solely to do with the landlord. The lodgers do not pay water rates, and if you were to reduce the water rate of any particular house, the lodgers would not benefit. What governs the price of lodgings is the law of supply and demand. If there are 100 lodgings and 500 people want them, the price will be high, but if there are 500 lodgings and only 100 people wanting them, then you would get them very much cheaper. That is exactly what governs the price. The ordinary tenants will not benefit by this. The only people who will benefit by the water charges being reduced lower than they ought to be are the landlords and owners of house property having long leases. If the water rate of a house is reduced by £5 a year, then the landlord will get £5 extra in rent. Therefore this is all a question of benefiting the landlords. It does not so much interfere with the lodgers, and it is altogether a landlord's question and nobody else's.
  Before I sit down, I wish to say that I am not a water director nor a shareholder in the water companies, but I am one of those persons who pay large sums in water charges, and we like to have good value for our money. In this Bill, I think, it is laid down that every employee in connection with the water companies should be either re-engaged or else paid a certain sum of money. The same thing happens in the creation of municipal boroughs. There is, however, one body of men who are left out and who ought to be paid, and they are the directors. The present directors of the various water companies have a professional interest in this question, and I think that this Bill deals most unfairly with them. I think the directors ought to be provided for in this Bill as well as the clerks and other different employees of the water companies, and they ought also to be paid a legitimate price. I believe that I am right in saying that when the Government took over the telegraph companies the directors of those companies were also paid as well as the other officials. Then, again, the holding of a certain number of shares in the New River Company entitled anybody who held them to a seat on the Board, and those

  201
  seats were worth £500 a year. By this Bill you will give no money at all to the present directors of the companies. In considering what is right and fair I cannot understand why the Parliamentary draftsman was not instructed in drafting this Bill to provide for the water directors. In the Bill which I introduced last year I proposed by Clause 35 that—
  "Every director of the scheduled companies who is in office and has held office for not less than three years on the appointed day shall be entitled to receive by equal half-yearly payments out of the income of the Water Council a life annuity equal to his yearly salary, or fees on the average of the said period of three years."
  That is the way in which you ought to treat the servants of the water companies. The directors have worked hard and well, and they have been well looked after by the London County Council and other authorities, and all things considered, I think they have done their work very well indeed. As I have said before, these directors have done their duty as best they could under very trying circumstances. The directors of the water companies have had in the past to spend a great deal of time and money opposing Bills brought before Parliament by the London County Council which were useless, and Parliament has decided that they ought not to have been introduced and re introduced, but they have been brought forward again and again and they have been a great deal of trouble. Therefore, to let the directors go without being provided for is not in my opinion what we ought to do.
  To recapitulate briefly the points I have made, I say first of all that most decidedly the London County Council, in view of the fact that the Water Committee of the Council will cease to exist—and I do not see any reference to this Committee in the Bill—ought to be represented to that extent on the Water Board, for the Water Committee of the London County Council ought not to be allowed to interfere with the Water Board at all. I cannot see if we are going to have a public Water Board why we should have another public body like the London County Council continually coming down and interfering with the Water Board in its work. Therefore the
  202
  Water Committee of the London County Council ought to cease to exist, and the Water Board ought to be made secure in every possible way from any outside interference. It is because I think the London County Council Water Committee ought to cease to exist that I say that the number of representatives of the London County Council on the Water Board should be as large as the number of members of the Water Committee of the Council now is, that is sixteen. These members know exactly what is required, and instead of being allowed to interfere with the new Water Board, it should be allowed to carry on its business in its own way. I shall have no confidence myself in the executive body controlling this water question unless those men are paid as they ought to be paid for that constant attention to the work which is absolutely necessary. The work will require their constant attention day after day, and if the members of the Water Board are not paid, you will find a lot of extra officials will be employed, and instead of about £17,000 a year you will have £200,000 or £300,000 spent every year in paying for an over-abundance of water officials, and the whole of the ratepayers of London will be suffering from this disadvantage. We know by this Bill, and by any other Bill that may be introduced dealing with this question, that any deficit must be made up out of the county and borough rates. We do not want, however, to have to contribute through the ordinary rates. We are aware of the fact that every year large sums of money have to be contributed from the local rates in Liverpool and Manchester to make up the deficits upon the working of the water undertakings by the Water Committees. [Opposition cries of "No, no."] I could give you the figures to show that. I think that is a most serious state of things, and one that ought not to be. There should be no chance of suffering from that in London If the water rates were considerably reduced, we should find ourselves in the position of having to pay a few hundred thousand pounds a year through other rates, instead of having to pay our proper share of water rates. I support the Second Reading of this Bill, and I hope the Government will kindly give a chance to

  203
  the Committee in some form or other, either by instruction or notice to the Committee, that the Bill I brought forward last year may be considered, and also that the other questions which have been discussed here may be taken before the Committee. It is most important for the whole of the London district that a thoroughly good Board should be established, consisting of thorough business men, to look after the interests of all classes of the community. I think it is possible to make this a good Bill if the Government will give it more attention, and have the various proposals thoroughly threshed out in Committee.
  MR. ASQUITH: Rarely in the Parliamentary experience of any of us has a measure of first-rate importance proposed by the responsible Government of the day been exposed to a more unbroken fusilade of hostile criticism from every quarter of the compass. I do not know whether I am to gather from the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that he is a whole-hearted supporter of the Bill. So far as I could judge, a considerable portion at any rate of his remarks was devoted to advocating a rival scheme of his own, but so far as I know he constitutes the only exception—not one to boast of very much—to the otherwise continuous stream of hostility with which this measure has been received since its introduction. That being so, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman may take some consolation in the cynical maxim that a Bill which pleases nobody must have something to be said for it, and that it must contain some elements of good, particularly when the critics approach it from so many diverse views and with so many different interests.
  Although I shall have one or two hard words to say about this measure before I sit down, I should like to begin by repeating the acknowledgment made by other speakers on this side of the House in an earlier stage of the debate, that in two respects it constitutes a very distinct advance upon the position hitherto taken up by His Majesty's Government. In the first place, it not only recognises that the water supply of the metropolitan area is a matter of public concern, which ought in some form or other to be
  204
  in the hands of the community—that has been recognised before—but that as between the two, and the only two, competing methods by which that principle can be carried into effect—the method on the one hand of public control, and on the other hand of public purchase—that purchase has won the day. In the next place, the Bill acknowledges also—and this likewise is a considerable step in the direction of progress—that the machinery of the. Lands Clauses Act with the incident of a bonus on compulsory purchase which is annexed to that machinery by the custom of arbitrators is inapplicable to such subject matter as this, and that in dealing with that subject matter the various interests and contingencies which it involves are so complicated and so exceptional in their character that you must constitute a special tribunal of arbitration with special directions of its own. On that point, though I do not wish in my few remarks to deal with the financial aspects of the Bill, I should just like to say a word. I am glad to understand from the speech made by the hon. Gentleman, the Under Secretary of the Local Government Board, that as regards the whole of these provisions the Government have, comparatively speaking, an open mind, and that they are to be freely discussed and overhauled by any Committee to whom this Bill may ultimately be submitted. That being so, I do wish strongly to press, upon the Government—the suggestion has already been made, but I desire to emphasize it and press it so far as I can —that they should follow the recommendation of Lord Llandaff's Commission, and that in the case of every one of these companies the valuation should be a valuation in cash, so that we may know precisely what is the value which this tribunal has put on the undertaking, of each particular company. Then we shall be able to pursue the further inquiry—a most important inquiry in the interest of the ratepayers—whether the amount of water stock allotted to the vendor is or is not more than he ought to receive. To my mind it is fundamental to the businesslike carrying out of this transaction that the valuation in the first place should be a valuation in cash. This is the only

  205
  other observation I have to make on that point, and I should have thought it was a truism, that in considering the amount of stock which is ultimately to he issued to the vendor, it ought to be clearly understood and there ought to be no doubt about it, that account is taken of the better credit of the purchasing authority. You have under this Bill a trustee stock, that is, a stock in which trustees will be able to invest. You have a stock very large in quantity and therefore very easily marketable. You have a stock the transactions in which can he put through the Bank of England,—a stock secured on the rates, not only of the County of London, but of the adjoining counties. It is ridiculous to contend that the existing shareholders of t he metropolitan water companies ought to have granted to them for all time to come an income equivalent to that which they at present receive, when all the causes of possible fluctuation and diminution of the value of their security have been removed, and it is put on the basis of the public credit. What is given to them ought to be an equivalent, and an equivalent only of the undertaking. The cash value and the market value of the stock ought to be clearly the equivalent, and no more than the equivalent, of each other.
  I pass from that to what I conceive to be a far more important and vital matter, and that is the nature of the authority to whom the transfer is to be made. Now, any statesman accepting the two principles which the Government have accepted, and which I have already indicated, in facing the problem of how the transfer was to be effected and the undertakings placed in the hands of one body for the future management of the London water supply, would find himself under the necessity either of discovering or inventing an authority fitted for the purpose. What would he look for? There are some obvious and elementary conditions on which such an authority should be constituted. It ought to be either from its own constitution or from its powers of delegation to Committees, moderate in numbers and manageable in size. It ought to be, so far as you can make it, homogeneous as possible in its composition. It ought to be framed upon the
  206
  precedents which our legislative and administrative experience in other parts of the country have shown to be successful. And it ought to command, from the first, public respect, and what is most important of all, it ought to be directly subject to popular control, because otherwise there is no argument for purchase at all. You would be no better off than you were before if you substituted for the existing companies a body which is not directly responsible to the ratepayers and consumers of water in the metropolitan area. I do not believe that anyone will dispute that that is a fair statement of the case.
  These being the conditions to which such an authority ought to conform, I go a step further. I may say to the light hon. Gentleman that if the area of water supply actually authorised wereconterminous with the area of the county of London it is impossible to conceive that either he, or any other Minister, would look elsewhere than to the one municipal body which represents the whole of London and is responsible to the whole of the ratepayers. I do not think that will be disputed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I think I hear a faint murmur of dissent, but I do not believe—certainly if you go back to precedents cited in other cases, awl act on these precedents—that you could have other than one authority with jurisdiction over that one area. Now, is that prima facie presumption displaced because of the undoubted fact that in the case of the water undertakings with which we are dealing the actual water supply to a substantial extent, and the possible future supply to a considerable extent, goes outside the boundaries of the administrative county of London? In answering that question, certain considerations present themselves, some of which are peculiar to London, and some of which are founded upon experience elsewhere. The circumstances of London—I speak, not of the county of London, but of the whole metropolitan area of water supply—are in some respects peculiar. In the first place, it is obviously impossible that you could break up the water supply and the management of the water and hand it over piece-meal to the various local authorities in the whole of this immense area. Nothing but chaos, confusion and waste would result from a scheme of that kind. We are all agreed about that. Again, there is the other

  207
  extreme proposal which might be made, that all these bodies without distinction, County Councils, District Councils, Borough Councils and the like, should all be united into one amorphous and gigantic Board which would undertake the duty of furnishing the water supply and the whole management. That is an equally ridiculous proposal. Further, if we contemplate an indirectly representative body in the case of the metropolis, we have a special experience of our own, which in a matter of this kind ought not to be disregarded or forgotten. The old Metropolitan Board of Works perished unwept, unhonoured, and unsung. [Hon. Members on the Ministerial Benches: "Oh!"] Well, the fatal blow was dealt, I remember well, by Lord Randolph Churchill, with the approval of a great number of hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House. That Board began its career under good auspices, and undoubtedly made some contributions to the improvement of London, but it was found that, from the inherent vices of its composition, it did not and could not in the long run command the confidence of the ratepayers. And what was the reason? The reason was very evident. The moment you introduce the principle of indirect election—I will show presently to what an extraordinary and unprecedented length that has been carried in framing this Bill—it is obvious that the door is opened to the operation of indirect influences and interests, and in the same proportions and almost to the same extent, you shut the door to that which is essential to the true and vigilant conduct of business; that is the invigorating and restraining sense of direct responsibility. These theoretical reasons, which are strong everywhere and at all times, and which cannot possibly be ignored, are amply justified and verified in the actual experience of the Metropolitan Board of Works.
  I am not an uncompromising and undiscriminating advocate of everything which the London County Council does, or does not do. That body is a creation which reflects the very greatest credit and honour on the right hon. Gentleman, whom I see present opposite, who was responsible for bringing it into existence. It would be nothing short of marvellous, acting as it did on an unprecedented scale, and dealing with
  208
  new problems, if it had not at times transcended the limits of that which was sensible and prudent. But, on the whole, the London County Council is a body in which the great mass of the ratepayers of London possess confidence; and in regard to this question of water, it stands in a very peculiar position ever since the Report of Lord Ridley's Committee of 1891. For a period of twelve years, the London County Council has devoted itself, at the invitation of Parliament, through its Members, its Committees, and its officials to the investigation of this subject of water supply. It has collected a mass of material, information, and evidence by Parliamentary Committees, by the promotion of Bills, and by investigation before various Commissions not to be paralleled anywhere else. Although in these days it is dangerous to indulge in metaphorical language, I may say that the London County Council have immersed themselves in that subject, and steeped and drenched themselves to a greater extent than any other representative body in similar case in any other part of the Kingdom. If these are the circumstances peculiar to London, what is our experience in other places? Instances have already been given. The House is aware that there are many instances in which Parliament has deliberately entrusted to great municipal bodies like those of Manchester, Liverpool, Bradford and others, the power and the duty of supplying water to outside areas beyond the jurisdiction of their own Municipal Councils.
  The President of the Local Government Board, in the course of a reply to observations made by the hon. Member for Poplar, made a remark which deserves some notice. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no parallel between the position of the London County Council and the municipal authorities in any other great towns. If, he said, my hon. friend was right in his contention, it would amount to this, that the County Council of Lancashire should be given the control of the water supply of Liverpool. I heard that statement with amazement, coming from the President of the Local Government Board. It showed a strange ignorance of the conditions of local government alike in London and in Lancashire. What is the County

  209
  Council of Lancashire? It is the local authority over an area which consists of the residue of the County of Lancashire after you have scooped out of it twelve or fifteen large county boroughs, which are themselves autonomous and independent, with an exclusive jurisdiction. Now, of these county boroughs, taken out of the geographical area of Lancashire, no fewer than twelve at this moment have powers of independent water supply of their own. And out of these twelve, eight supply outside areas. The real analogy, if the right hon. Gentleman wants an analogy, would have been between the London County Council and the great municipal authorities in Lancashire. It is to these great county boroughs in Lancashire that Parliament has given the very powers the Government is denying to London. To take two illustrations. Manchester is authorised to supply water not only to its own administrative county but to the Adjoining County Borough of Salford and to other outlying parts of the administrative County of Lancashire. In the same way the County Council of Liverpool has been authorised to supply not only its own area with water, but the county borough of Bootle and a considerable part of the adjacent area in the county of Lancashire. Therefore, if you go to Lancashire, when you get as near to identity as you possibly can, you will find it entirely in favour of the municipal authority which represents the bulk of the population, which, both from its needs and number, has the central and dominating interest in the matter, such as the County Council of London, the body which according to all Parliamentary precedent should have been entrusted with this jurisdiction.
  There are two obvious ways in which you might have dealt with this matter. If you had made the County Council the purchasing authority, you might require it to supply water to the outside local authorities, leaving to them the task of distribution. That is the common practice adopted elsewhere. Or you might, having regard to the peculiar circumstances of London—which I admit to be exceptional in many respects—do that which the County
  210
  Council itself proposed in the later versions of its own Bill, viz., you might have admitted on to the Statutory Committee, which will have the management of these water undertakings after transfer to the Council, members of the outside County Councils. Whether you have regard to the special circumstances of London, or to the example set in the nearest and most analogous cases, that would have been the course which, according to all precedent, this House should have pursued.
  But what have we here in this Bill? I confess the more I study the authority set up in this Bill, the more I am filled with bewilderment and confusion. If the wit of man had been commissioned to devise and to put on paper the most farfetched, the worst equipped and least workable body the imagination could suggest, it might have equalled, but could not have surpassed, the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. Look at it. What is it? First of all, in point of numbers, the Water Board is to consist of sixty-nine gentlemen. Why sixty-nine? What are they to do? They will have two functions. The first is to conduct the negotiations, and, if necessary, to prepare for the arbitration which is to proceed the actual operation of purchase; and then they are to take the daily routine management of these water undertakings. I ask the House, as men of business, can you imagine for the one purpose of preliminary negotiation or the other of subsequent management, a body less fitted to transact these operations, than a body consisting of sixty-nine gentlemen brought from the high-ways and bye-ways of all the home counties? In adopting this number of sixty-nine, the Government have flown in the face of the recommendations of every authority which has ever examined this question. Lord Ridley's Committee recommended a body of twenty-one; Lord James, when he introduced the Bill of 1896, said he thought that on the whole thirty would be the best number to fix upon, and he gave as his reasons, which were very good reasons, that that would enable a fairly representative body to be constituted, not too large to relieve individual Members of their responsibility, while enabling the duties imposed on

  211
  them to be properly discharged. Then the Llandaff Commission, also appointed by this Government, recommended that the Board should consist of not more than thirty Members, selected on account of their business capacity and, if possible, for their knowledge of matters connected with water supply. The right hon. Gentleman himself, speaking in this House last March, in referring to that very recommendation, said that the meaning of it was that the men who would have charge of these responsible and difficult duties should be selected because of the experience they had had, or ought to have had, or because of a training which fitted them for such a difficult and peculiar task. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that that part of the Report ought to meet with general approval, viz., the part which recommended that the body should consist of thirty gentlemen. The right hon. Gentleman endorsed without any qualification or exception that recommendation. Therefore, this unwieldy body of sixty-nine members is absolutely novel, and is directly contrary to the recommendations of every Committee which has inquired into the matter for the last ten years.
  Let me pass from its number to its composition. Its composition is at least as remarkable as its dimensions. Where are these sixty-nine gentlemen to come from? Forty-six of them are to come, one way or the other, from the County of London, ten from the County Council, and thirty-six from the City Corporation and the Borough Councils. I ask again this question, which has been asked repeatedly in the course of this discussion, but has not yet been answered—why were the Borough Councils brought in?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): Why not?
  Mk ASQUITH: Why not? That is not the question. Why are they brought in? I can understand why the County Council should have been brought in, not only for the reasons I have already given, but on this very simple ground. First of all, it represents the whole of London; next, each County Councillor is
  212
  elected by the whole of the district which he represents in the County Council; and, thirdly, as regards the County Council it is a matter of notoriety that the question of Water Supply has been and is one of the great issues on which the electors gave their votes. Is that denied? [An Hon. MEMBER: Yes.] I am surprised that it is denied, as it shows what short memories some hon. Gentlemen have. When we were discussing this question last year, I was able to produce a leaflet, which was part of the fighting ammunition of what is called the Moderate Party at the last County Council election, which stated that a vote given to the Progressives was a vote given to the Water Companies. The water issue was one of the governing issues at the County Council election, and it was one on which the members of the Council had pledged themselves. But when you come to the Borough Councils you cannot say anything of the sort. No one contemplated when these Councils were created that the Water Supply was to be handed over, even indirectly, to their control, and, in addition, it is not immaterial to remember that in these Borough Councils, unlike the County Councils, the election is by wards. Every member is returned by one particular segment or fraction of the constituency. The average number of electors in each is, as far as I remember, between 500 and 1,000, rarely more. Therefore, you cannot say that a representative on the Borough Councils comes there clothed with authority to represent the constituency as a whole. He represents his own locality, but he does not represent the width and range of interests in this particular question especially, which every member of the County Council may be presumed to do. Under these circumstances, it does appear to me that if your object is—and I assume it is—to get upon your Water Board a fair representation of the opinion of London in relation to London's interests and London's water supply, there can be no justification for resorting to these Borough Councils.
  Then I come to the outside areas, and. there I concede that the right hon. Gentleman was right in having these outside areas represented. But there again why, apparently simply for the purpose of

  213
  swelling the size of this unwieldly body, did the right hon. Gentleman bring in all the urban districts enumerated in the schedule. Just let me give one illustration. Take the case of Brentford, and let the House see how this will work out in practice. A number of these Urban District Councils are to choose a Joint Committee and the Joint Committee is to choose a representative of the whole. In this case you have eight Urban District Councils. These choose a Joint Committee of twenty-one members, and the Joint Committee is solemnly brought into existence for no other purpose than to select from its twenty-one members one person to go on the Water Board and represent these eight districts. What a travesty and caricature of popular representation is that! There is a representative chosen by a Committee of twenty-one, themselves chosen by the eight Rural District Councils; who, in turn, are elected by the ratepayers of eight separate districts, and this one man—there is no analogy to a case under the Public HealthAct—is sent to the Water Board to deal with interests extending over 620 square miles, and that you say is representative government. Whom will he represent? To whom will he be amenable, and of whose interests will he be the spokesman? You cannot have a more useless, a more nugatory way of recruiting your Board than by doing this, which is nothing more than lip service to the principle of representative government and of electoral responsibility. One might multiply illustrations from the schedule, but that is sufficient.
  I venture to say, in summing up the objections which I think go to the very root of the Bill, that this Water Board is gratuitously created by the Government. There is no necessity for bringing it into existence at all. I say that it is viciously constituted on the principle of indirect representation, which, even if it were not carried to the extravagant lengths I have shown, really negatives electoral responsibility and popular control. There cannot again be anything like real and individual responsibility among the members of such a body. You have no guarantee in the source whence they are drawn and, in the circumstances of election, that it is a body of expert or
  214
  technical knowledge. Their size and their numbers from the business point of view are unwieldy; and, anxious as I am to see this process of purchase carried through and the transfer of these undertakings accomplished at the earliest possible moment, speaking for myself I see little or no prospect that in hands such as these the water supply of the metropolis will be more economically or more efficiently managed than it is by the present authorities.
  I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that a scheme of this kind, as to the foundation principles of which there is now general assent, ought not to be forced through by mere appeals to party discipline. The Government have already shown a disposition, which is to be commended, to keep an open mind as to the financial aspects of the measure. I ask them to go a little further, and I suggest that under these financial arrangements the size and the composition of this proposed authority should also be a matter which the Committee can freely consider. Let the Committee have any other scheme—the scheme, say, of the hon. Member for Dulwich, the scheme of the County Council, or any other scheme of any responsible body or individuals—and give them an opportunity with an open mind and a free hand of considering and dealing with these proposals. After all, it is a matter not only of the comfort but of the health of the metropolitan and adjoining populations in the next generation, and it cannot be any one's interest to bring in an unworkable body to carry out an undertaking like this. No one can pretend that any fundamental principle is involved in the numbers of this body, or in the precise scheme contained in the schedule. I suggest to the right lion. Gentleman that, taking his fundamental principles as we all do, —first, these undertakings ought to. be transferred to a representative public body; next, that they should be transferred under terms which will allow, either by negotiation or arbitration, the special and peculiar circumstances of the case to be taken into account in fixing the amount of consideration to be paid; if we accept these as the fundamental principles on

  215
  which the scheme is to be built up, all the rest is merely a matter of machinery.and procedure. He might well undertake on behalf of the Government—I will go further and say that he ought to allow no obstacles to be thrown in the way, after we have had ten years of continuous and abortive effort of settling this question by arrangements of a specific and final character.
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: We have heard from both sides of the House a good many speeches with regard to the London County Council, the poor ratepayers and other people affected by this Bill, but I do not think anything has been said or any point made of the persons who will have to supply the water that is to be used by this Water Board that is to be created. I have the good fortune to be Chairman of the Thames Conservancy, and I represent those who supply most of the water used by London and who say they ought to be considered because the great bulk of the water supplied to London comes from the Thames. I do not think we are represented on this Board which is proposed to be created in the way in which we ought to be. In the Llandaff report, the Board was to consist of not more than thirty members, and of these four was not an unreasonable number to represent the Thames Conservancy, because there is no doubt whatever that a great deal of what will have to be arranged by this new Water Board will have to be done by communication with the Thames Conservancy. I am told we have got everything we can want in connection with the Thames Conservancy in this Bill, because the powers given to the new Water Board are only the powers which the companies at present enjoy, but this new Water Board will come before Parliament for new powers of their own, and the Thames Conservancy will be in a very bad position if it has to fight a big Board like the Water Board, instead of having to fight the different water companies which are not only not closely allied but generally differ amongst themselves. I therefore consider the composition of the Board is objectionable. I think it should have been composed
  216
  of more businesslike men; men who could discuss the water question; and who were fitted for their work. You have to consider the fact that these new men have to learn their work, and you may depend if you make a wrong start by putting in men who do not understand their work, it will take more time to put right than if you had put in business men in the first instance. The Boards of Directors, whatever they have done, have tried to manage the Companies in the most economical way possible, because they wanted to get a profit for the shareholders, but when the Water Board comes into operation economy will disappear altogether, because they can come down on the rates for any money they want. I think the composition of the Water Board is very different from what it ought to be, and I hope the Government will take the responsibility of appointing the first Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board so as to secure that they shall be equipped with a knowledge of the work they will have to undertake.
  I have also to speak for another outside interest—with regard to the County of Middlesex. Nearly all the water that comes to London is supplied by the river Thames. All the water except that supplied by the Lea and the New River comes through Middlesex, but the Bill has drawn a fancy line across Middlesex, and it is surprising to see how scantily it is dealt with. It has drawn a line through that part of the country where there is just about enough water, and only just enough, to supply the population at the present time, but not the increase which is going on every year, and what is to become of Middlesex when this Board is formed and takes that water away. The whole of the water is to be taken by the new Water Board. This Bill, if it is passed as it stands, alters the whole system of rating outside the County of London as it places the extra charge upon the Poors Rate, whereas at present it is charged in any Urban District upon the General District Rate or District Fund, and if in future it is charged as proposed on the Poors Rate, land and other properties entitled to a differential rate under Sec. 211 of Public Health Act, 1875, will

  217
  be charged the whole instead of one quarter of the assessment.
  There is another important point with reference to the rating. It has been stated by the Llandaff Commission that there is plenty of water in the Thames to supply London until 1940, by a system of reservoirs through the valley of the Thames. There is no doubt that that is the case, but what will be the result to Middlesex? At the present moment, a large area of the county is occupied by reservoirs, and it has this effect. The moment a Water Company takes land for the purpose of a reservoir, the rating of that land is reduced to one-fourth, consequently, the parish or district loses three-fourths of the rates it would otherwise have received. That is manifestly unjust, but it is not the worst. There have been cases in which large numbers of houses, which would have paid rates to the County of Middlesex, have been pulled down, and the land taken for these purposes at one-fourth the agricultural ratable value. Therefore, if all these reservoirs were formed, they would utterly destroy the ratable value of the land in the county. The loss represented by this reduction of rates to the extent of three-fourths is at present very great. In Hampton it is £1862 a year; in Barnes, £1604; in Esher and Dittons, £782; in Sunbury, £794; in Molesey, £469; in Walthamstow, £1763; and in Walton-on-Thames, £448. If the necessary reservoirs were made to keep London supplied with water until 1940, 6000 acres of new reservoirs would be required, and the consequent loss to the rates would be enormous. That is a very strong point which I hope the President of the Local Government Board will take into account and deal with at a later stage. The right hon. Gentleman says that that would not be the general law of the country, but I do not think there would he any difficulty in so dealing with it, for there is no reason why a Bill of this sort should be brought in which is not just in its local effect.
  Then we are all naturally very anxious that the Committee which deals with this Bill should have a free hand to thresh out everything connected with the matter. We remember the Hybrid
  218
  Committee in connection with the Thames Conservancy Act of 1894. That Committee did its work so well that when the Bill came before the House afterwards very little discussion w as. necessary, because it had been thoroughly threshed out. I hope we shall have such a Committee as will do justice all round, because you may depend upon it that if any of the ratepayers are tremendous sufferers under this Bill it will re-act upon those who have brought in the measure. If an unjust Bill gets through it will be the most dangerous thing that was ever done. But there is no question that a Bill is wanted to settle this matter once for all. That we all feel. I have opposed Water Bills year after year, and with a good deal of knowledge spoken upon them, but I hope that this Bill will be so amended that we can, approve of it, and that it will be a great success in the hands of the President of the Local Government Board. I certainly do not agree with the suggestion, which has been made that the Water Board should consist of thirty Members paid at the rate of £100 a year each, to devote the whole of their time to the duties connected with the Board. What sort of person would you get at £2 a week to devote the whole of his time to the work? You would get a much better class to give their time gratuitously. I thoroughly agree that the Chairman should be well paid, but the suggestion to which I have referred is simply ridiculous. I shall support the Bill, trusting the inequalities I have pointed out will be redressed in Committee.
  MR. CHARLES HOBIIOUSE: I hope the House will allow me to say a few words on this Bill, not in any way from the point of view of the consumer of water, but rather on behalf of the counties which contribute almost the entire supply on which London depends. By examination of the Schedule to this Bill, I find that every water company mentioned as to be absorbed by the Water Board draws its supply of water from the counties of Wiltshire, Oxfordshire, Berkshire, and Buckinghamshire, with a very small proportion coming from Gloucestershire. It is not unnatural, therefore, that these counties

  219
  should view with apprehension a Bill which makes no provision for the representation of their interests on the body proposed to be set up. There is this further point the Government might well consider in connection with the matter of representation. A great deal of money has been laid out by these counties, and.by the county boroughs of Reading and Oxford far in excess of anything necessary for their own sanitary requirements, in order that no trace of pollution might escape into the Thames and thus contaminate the supply for London. In particular, I understand that the Borough of Reading has expended about £100,000 in bringing not only up to date but to a state of perfection their sanitary works, in order that they might comply with the minutest demands of the Thames Conservancy Conservors, and in that way, by a rate laid upon its ratepayers, has benefited the consumers and ratepayers of London. In return for the services thus rendered, these counties and county boroughs are to have absolutely no representation whatever. Under existing circumstances, either directly or indirectly, they have representatives on the Thames Conservancy, but only to the extent of one seventh of the Board, and, as the Thames Conservancy Board is to be represented on the new body by only one member, the consequence is that the outside representation which these large and important local bodies will have is about one-seventh of the number.
  I should like to enforce the argument, already addressed to the House, that upon the Board of thirty members recommended by the Llandaff Commission, the Thames Conservancy were to have four representatives, and the Dee Conservors two, so that the providers and administrators were to have a representation on the board of one-fifth of the whole, while upon the board now proposed they are to have a representation of only one-thirtieth. That is a serious divergence, and a proportion which I am sure the House regards as inadequate, and one which in no way represents the real interests of the providers of water.
  Then I should like for one moment to direct the attention of the House to the interests concerned in this matter. The four counties to which I have referred as providing the greater part of the London
  220
  water supply have a ratable value of £7,000,000, and a population just under 1,000,000, and an average of 1,250,000. The population of the limit of supply, I understand, is practically 6,000,000, and the ratable value £40,000,000. Therefore, the 6,000,000 population and £40,000,000 ratable value get a representation of sixty-nine members, while the 1,000,000 population and the £7,000,000 ratable value get none at all, except the indirect representation of the Thames Conservancy.
  Another point is that while these counties and boroughs have every year to meet an increasing demand from London, they have, at the same time, to meet an increased demand for water from within their own limits, and they are also directly menaced in regard to their water possessions by this Bill. It may not be possible—though I hope it will be to—give direct representation to these four counties and two county boroughs to the extent of one representative each, but an improvement would be effected by the adoption even of the principle of the Thames Conservancy Act of 1894, under which two or more of the counties and the counties' boroughs might be combined and given some direct representation, carrying to it local knowledge, on the Water Board. There is a direct connection between that Board and the counties on whose behalf I speak. The water companies are bound by statute to contribute to the service of the Upper Thames a sum of £25,000 a year, and this contribution, under the present Bill, will have to be continued by the Water Board. This contribution—the obligation to pay which is of considerable standing, dating, I believe, from 1866—is not now enough to maintain the service of the upper portion of the river. Under this arrangement a great many works would be carried out to the advantage of London and London water consumers, which lack of funds up to the present has put off. And so there would be direct transactions, and direct communications between the new Water Board and the service of the upper river, but apart from this, I think these counties and borough's ought to have some representation. There is under Section 19 of the Act a very large power given to this new Water Board, with regard to which I think it is well that

  221
  something should be said. Under Section 19, sub-Section B, the new Water Board may go into any county not only within but outside the counties of supply as they exist at the present moment; they could purchase areas of land, and by setting up a powerful system of pumping, could absolutely drain the districts of all water for the purpose of supplying London. That is a very large power, which, if exercised to the full, would be absolutely disastrous to the districts and counties concerned. Although this power is given to the new Water Board, the counties concerned are given no powers of resistance, and they have no voice as to the terms upon which this water shall be taken away from their own consumers and ratepayers, and the power given to the Water Board in this Bill can only be exercised to the detriment of their own consumers in the future. I do think that this matter is so very serious to the future interests of those counties and those county boroughs that I venture to bring it to the notice.of the House.
  MR. HARRY SAMUEL: I am glad to be able to say a few words, because I speak on this matter from a different point of view to many hon. Members who have already addressed this House. I have to speak for a body of men and women who, unfortunately, have through much suffering become intimately acquainted with this water question, and the inadequacy of the present water supply, consequently, they have formed their opinion as to what they desire the water authority of the future to be. My constituents are anxious to do justice to all parties in this matter, but not more than strict justice. The first thing I should like to say is that the very greatest possible satisfaction has been given by the announcement that at last a scheme of purchase has received the stamped approval of His Majesty's Government. I think, after all, that is the very greatest possible consideration in dealing with this question. This subject we have never had satisfactorily settled in all the storm and stress which this water question has produced before the House. I should like to say that the question of the authority is, to my
  222
  mind, the chief point to which I ought to direct my attention, because, after all, the other questions we have had dealt with in this debate are more or less questions which may be adequately dealt with in Committee. The chief point is that this House approves of purchase; and the second point is that it will have to decide who shall be the authority to purchase. I cannot help saying that my constituents feel very strongly upon this question. They recollect well that in days gone by, when they were suffering from cruel want, owing to the inability of the water companies to supply them with a proper amount of water, the London County Council, which was supposed to take the greatest possible interest in the welfare of the inhabitants, seemed to have as its chief idea the object of opposing every possible form of improvement by which relief could have been given to my constituents. I have often stood up here and complained of the London County Council endeavouring to stop the water companies from obtaining powers to increase the supply East for the people of London. Consequently, my constituents would view with the deepest concern any proposal to entrust the management of the London water supply to the London County Council. We do not want to have Party politics introduced into this question, but I cannot help saying that some of us would like to see some signs of business methods being introduced into one or two things with which the London County Council are dealing at the present moment. I do not want to deal now with the Works Committee, but were it a limited liability company, I feel sure the Directors would view the prospect of the annual general meeting with some trepidation. I have heard whispers, which may be true or untrue, that the system of management adopted by the London County Council is not quite all that we have a right to expect in connection with the tramways, and when we do see the figures of the revenue from the tramway system, I think we shall find that it is not producing anything like the amount which it was when in the hands of the companies. I am the Chairman of a very large educational body, upon which there are two distinguished members of the

  223
  London County Council. One of them holds the same politics as I do, and the other is of the same political opinions as hon. Members on the other side of the House. It became necessary at one meeting to fix a day for the visiting Committee meeting of the institution I refer to, and I submitted almost every day in the week in my endeavour to obtain their most valuable assistance. These two distinguished Members of the London County Council informed me that their time was so fully occupied by the work of the London County Council, that it was impossible for them to attend our Committee. If that is so, and I do not suppose a single hon. Member present will dispute that their time is fully occupied, it seems a very curious thing that they should desire to have one of the largest and most important things connected with this Metropolis thrust upon their shoulders.
  For these reasons, I think that it is much better to look somewhere else for this new water authority, and if it is not to be the London County Council, the question naturally arises "Who is it to be?" The Matthew White Ridley Commission suggested who this authority should be, and I think this is the keynote of this Bill. By this suggestion the Corporation of the City of London is brought into conjunction with the London County Council, and I must point out that up to that time the Corporation of the City of London was the only Corporation that existed in the Metropolis. But since this Commission reported, twenty-eight new corporations have sprung into existence. I would like to point out to the House that the Act of 1894 constituted the London vestries the sanitary authorities, and therefore the Corporations of London, as their direct successors, have become the sanitary authorities for London. It does certainly seem a very common sense view, to suggest that the sanitary authorities should be the masters of the water supply of this great city, because, after all, they really require a copious supply of pure water more than any other body that now exists. I cannot help thinking, therefore, that His Majesty's Government have been absolutely right in coming to Parliament and asking that the water supply of London should be
  224
  placed in the hands of the sanitary authorities. The sanitary authorities in provincial towns are the water authorities, and I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House when he says that the water authority for London should be the London County Council, because it is analagous to the provincial corporations; they are not in any way alike. The right hon. Gentleman acknowledged that London held an altogether peculiar position, and that the London County Council is, practically a county authority. It seems to me, however, that when you have your twenty-eight corporations created, and the Corporation of the City of London in existence, it follows that those corporations, as the sanitary authorities of London, should be given the control of this great water question. Surely the London County Council has got its own representatives. It has been given, as I think was pointed out upon the First Reading of the Bill, five times as much representation as any other body. I should like to point out that the London County Council is not strictly a sanitary authority at all, but it has powers in regard to main drainage, and in addition it has to appoint medical officers of health. Under these circumstances I submit that the London County Council cannot be considered to be the sanitary authority at all.
  What are the objections raised to the proposed constitution of this Board? First of all, in regard to its numbers, I cannot see myself that the Board is in any way too large. If you take the London County Council with its 137 members, you have a body almost double in numbers to what is proposed under this Bill. I am told that the London County Council is worked by Committees. I think the new Water Board would also be worked by Committees, and the most onerous work would, of course, fall upon the Executive Committee. I think the Water Board will have to appoint seven or eight other Committees, and the number proposed will only give about eight members to each of these Committees, and no man can say that the number is too large for the great work which has to be done. In regard to what has been said with reference to the incompetency of the Board,

  225
  I would point out that the Metropolitan Asylums Board has seventy-three members and ten Committees, and I have heard from all sides testimony paid to the admirable manner in which that Board conducts its business, and we are having a proof of this in regard to the small-pox epidemic, which they are now dealing with in a most admirable and competent manner. Therefore I think we might accept the constitution that is proposed. I will grant that the London County Council has had a very great deal of experience in regard to the water question, but I do not think it has had any experience whatever in water management. I notice, from a flood of documents which I have received, that the London County Council has been spending the ratepayers' money very extensively in printing and circulating literature in support of its case. I do not think, after all, that this is a very excellent way of spending their money. I confess that the methods which the London County Council have adopted by constantly introducing these Bills cannot fail to have given them some knowledge of the financial arrangements of the Water Companies, but I do not think this has given them any insight whatever into the management of these water undertakings. How they can claim to be more competent to manage this business than anybody else I cannot see. In regard to the Corporations, of which there is a large number it seems to me that it has been a great delight to hon. Gentlemen opposite to cast aspersions on the members of these Corporations. I will insist on one point, and that is, that the members of these great Corporations are infinitely more representative than the members of the London County Council. First of all, they must be ratepayers in the areas for which they are elected. They have a very great knowledge of the districts they represent, and of the requirements of those districts. In addition to that, they are men living in the districts or in business there. How about the candidates for the London County Council? A great many of them have never been in the districts they desire to represent, until they are candidates. The area is much larger from which you have to
  226
  select your members of the Water Board, and I cannot understand why it should be impossible to obtain competent men of business there. Why should they not be as competent as the members of the London County Council? Again, we are told that there is no control whatever over this Water Board. It appears strange that nobody has discovered that there is a double check on the qualifications of the men selected by the districts to act as members of the Water Board. First of all, they must be elected by the ratepayers, and then they must be elected by the Corporations. If the ratepayers were not satisfied with these men they would not be elected, and if the Corporations in turn did not find them representative on the Water Board they would not send them back. It seems to me that there is a double check which they would not hesitate to use if occasion demanded. Again, we have in the London County Council the interests of the east and the west of London, which are opposite as the poles. There is nothing in common between them, and yet it claims to carry on its administrative work extremely well. I cannot see why, if we have men of diverse views on this Water Board, that the work should not be carried on equally well.
  There has been a question raised with regard to arbitration and agreement. Hon. Members on the other side of the House have raised a particular objection that the price, or rather that the amount of water stock to be given to the water companies should be fixed not by agreement, but by arbitration. I find that in the London County Council's Water Bill of 1902 there is a clause which would have enabled the County Council to come to an agreement with the water companies. I am, therefore, surprised that the London County Council should object to that proposal in the Bill now before the House. It is also stated as an objection that the whole Board cannot be turned out together. I do not think it is desirable that the whole Board should be turned out together. It seems to me the chief work the Board will have to do will be to manage the water supply in a careful and business-like manner, to endeavour to meet the requirements of the consumers as far as possible, and to mete out absolute justice to the ratepayers

  227
  and the consumers. There are two different ways of looking at it. So far as the east end of London is concerned, the people suffered very severely indeed from want of consideration by the companies. It is not out of place, therefore, that a Member, representing an East London constituency, should give vent to the feelings of the people whom he represents. In giving my vote as I shall for the Second Reading of this Bill, and in supporting it in every way I can, I believe that I am acting in the very best interests of my constituents, and I believe the Water Board will be capable of giving sound work, and that my constituents will, in future, have a better supply of water on less onerous terms than they have had in the past.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: For the last time but one, the House.of Commons is confronted again with the London water question. I say the last but one advisedly, because, anxious as I am to convert this Bill into a businesslike operative measure, I am convinced that it cannot work, that the Board which it sets up will break down, and that the House of Commons will again be confronted with an amending Bill to supply the defects which this Bill undoubtedly contains. I say that, because, like many Members of Parliament who are also members of the London County Council, I have had some experience of various branches of London administration. I have been for nearly fourteen years a Main Drainage Commissioner, and the duties of a Main Drainage Commissioner give me an opportunity of forming a view and of getting experience of a cognate service, viz., the water supply, and justify me in giving a few opinions based on experience to the House. I venture to say that the Board which this Bill creates, by its anomalous composition, by the inexperience of its members, by the costliness of its proceedings, and the incapacity it must demonstrate, will break down. That is the opinion of nearly everyone of the thirty Members who from different points of view have addressed the House of Commons on this subject.
  Why do I think that this Board will break down? Because the
  228
  Board has been created contrary to the teachings of water history, and the experience of the water companies, and is opposed to all the precedents, and the Committees and Royal Commissions on this subject. This Board has been created, not because the Government think that it is a good or workable Board, but because it is necessary to have a large Board in which the County Council representation will be out voted. There is underlying this Bill a prejudice against the County Council, and the majority vote of the Borough Councils will enable them on the new Board to set the Council practically at naught. I venture to say that, except that this Bill is framed mainly out of prejudice to the County Council, I cannot see any reason at all why this Board should have been created so large, unwieldly, and unrepresentative. Whom have we had speaking on this subject? We have had water director after water director getting up and telling the House of Commons that this Bill from the point of view of the Board is unworkable. I do not associate myself with the financial criticism of the water directors, but I would appeal to the Government not to be too susceptible to it. On the business side, on the representative side, and as regards the capacity of this Board, every one of the water directors has criticised this Bill adversely. I think this Bill goes out of its way deliberately to detract, to minimise, and to shear off useful municipal power the only body in London that ought to have been the rucleus of the Water Board or Water Committee. I would point this out to the Conservative Party. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon was responsible for the creation of the London County Council. I know that he has suffered much criticism, most of it uninformed, nearly all of it prejudiced, and a great deal of it interested, for his creation of that body. I venture to say that twenty-five or fifty years hence, when impartial opinion passes judgment on his creation, the County Council will be praised beyond his expectations, and will be regarded as perhaps the best body this city ever got. This Bill still further is an attempt to shear the County Council of its proper functions and duties, and it is part and parcel of the deliberate policy on the

  229
  part of some members on that side so to do. We are not to have the power of running a half-penny tramway over Westminster Bridge, but you will spend £5,000,000 on a railway from nowhere to the back of beyond in Uganda, and the natives can burn the sleepers for the lack of passengers using it. That is your policy. Everything by London, but nothing for it. The Council is to be deprived of the power of running a municipal tramway; it must not run steamboats; it is to be deprived of telephones; it is to be robbed of markets; and last, but not least, it is to be unfit to discharge the elementary municipal duty of carrying out a municipal water supply.
  Let me put this view on this occasion. It is a mistake—and I would say this to any Government, whether Liberal or Tory—to depreciate your central municipal body in London. What is more, you ought to magnify the central body in London, so that you may attract to that body not water company directors, or gas company directors or men "on the make," but able, conscientious, disinterested men who will be attracted to the municipal service by the usefulness, honour and dignity of the work. Instead of that, you are depreciating the Council, you are making it less attractive for healthy ambitious men, and it is because this Bill is merely an affront to the London County Council that I protest against its being treated in the way this measure does. See how contrary it is to what the Government does in other directions. When the old vestries, mainly through indirect election, lack of publicity, and lack of attractions, rendered themselves unpopular, and when you decided to get rid of them what did you do? You said that you must render the work more attractive If that is so with the Borough Council, it is doubly so with the chief municipal body of London, to whom you deal a serious, a heavy, and unnecessary prejudicial blow by the way in which you treat it under the conditions of this Bill.
  I pass from that to the history that the Government has ignored in setting up this authority for the water area. This House prides itself on its respect for constitutional and historical precedents and
  230
  authority; but what precedents have the Government followed in the composition of this Board? What authority have they listened to? What respect have they shown to the findings of their own Committees and Royal Commissions? There has not been a Committee or a Royal Commission which has sat upon the London Water Question, every one of the recommendations of which this Government has not flagrantly violated and over-rided. As the right hon. Member for East Fife proved—but I must repeat it because it is part of the argument I am now addressing to the House —the City Corporation introduced a Bill in 1891, which some Members forget, but which proposed to place at the outside fifty-one on the Water Board, and not a single vestryman or Borough Councillor. In what was called the Vestries Bill itself, because it was introduced with the approval of the Vestries, in 1891, the largest number proposed was thirty-nine. Lord James's Commission recommended thirty. In 1900 the proposal which Lord Llandaff's Commission recommended was thirty. But this Bill flies in the face of all these precedents from four different quarters, viz., the City, the Vestries, Lord James's Commission, and Lord Llandaff's Commission; and it recommends sixty-nine men from seventy-eight districts. Well, let us go into these sixty-nine. The London County Council has ten only out of the sixty-nine. That is a smaller number than the City gave to the London County Council in their Bill, smaller than the Vestries Bill gave to the London County Council, and smaller than Lord Ridley's and Lord Llandaff's Commissions recommended. Then why is it that the London County Council have, under this Bill, only ten out of sixty-nine? I say that ten is inadequate to the position which the London County Council occupies, to its capacity, its ability, its experience and its powers of work; and I venture to say that that number has been made small to put the London County Council in a hopeless minority on this Board, and to use the Borough Councils probably in the interests, as it may work out, of the water companys. [HON. MEMBERS: No, no!] Well, that is my opinion, and it may be your experience; and they know how to do it, exploiting the innocent

  231
  ignorance and inexperience of the thirty-four borough councillors, and exploiting that innocence and that inexperience by mulcting London in the interest of good purchase terms against the ten London County Councillors, whose knowledge and experience put them in a position of being neither hum hugged by water directors, nor deceived by the water companies' officials. I am one of those who have done everything in their power to dignify the position of the Borough Councils. I have never said one word to discredit them, and I hope I never may, because it is a mistake to discourage anyone in a city like London, where, through apathy and indifference, it is the greatest possible difficulty to get any sort of men to take any interest in Government, be it central or local. But I decline respectfully to recognise these Borough Councils for tins purpose, as being representative, or in any sense an authority, that ought to he taken into consideration on such a Board as this.
  Why do I say that? The borough councils are elected by wards for purely microscopic local interests. They will probably in the matter of water supply do what experience, sentiment and instinct teaches them to do, viz., to fight for their own narrow and parochial interests on this Water Board, as against the general water interests of the Metropolis as a whole. They cannot help that, they are built that way. But on the London County Council we insist, and every Member here who is a member of the London County Council knows, that immediately a man from any district asks for a fire station for his locality, it is the signal for every one of the metropolitan-minded Members to see that he does not get that fire station unless it is concurrent with and coincident with the general fire interest of the metropolis as a whole. That is the right way and the proper spirit. I venture to say that on this Board the borough councillors will fight for their own local interests and their own local ends as against the Metropolitan interests as a whole. What is more, it will mean district after district trying to get cheap water at other districts' expense, and probably many of the poor districts, improperly amalgamating against the bigger districts, who pay,
  232
  at present, very heavily for their water. And it may also mean cheapening the rate of London water at the expense of the outside areas. That will be a blunder; it w ill be a mistake. It will he inefficient ill administration, and costly in process. This Board means the diffusion of control; it means the diffusion of strength; it means the waste of energy arid extravagance in financial adminstration. I go further, and say that the Borough Councils in this matter must be irresponsible to the Metropolis. What experience have the Borough Councils in cognate matters? None at all. The London County Council has great experience. It has 137 members, split up into twenty-one different Metropolitan Committees to deal with such kindred duties as drainage, fire, health, and so forth; and I believe that as we have proved ourselves to be representative of London as a whole, and not delegated from any particular locality, that ought to be the experience and the body from which you ought to get your Water Committee in the interests of efficiency and economy.
  I come to another point. It has been urged by the hon. Member for Limehouse that the Borough Councils have been selected because they are the Sanitary Authority; but they are not the Sanitary I Authority for London. They are the sanitary authority for their own small areas, one thirtieth part of London as a whole. The London County Council is the Sanitary Authority for dra nage, for fire, for drawing up regulations for public control, and for acting when these local sanitary authorities do not in default do their work. What is more, the London County Council is sufficiently the sanitary authority that this Bill recognises the value of our experience and capacity for the kind of work which this Bill denies to us. It is the London County Council's plans, it is the London County Council's measures, it is the London County Council's men, it is the London County Council's officers, and it is the London County Council's abilities that have forced this Water Question to its present stage. If the hon. Member for Islington doubts me, let him ask any water director whether, without the persistency, without the representative authority behind its back,

  233
  without the ability and sustained experience of the London County Council, you would have had this Bill before the House of Commons. Then an hon. Member gets up and says: "What about the outside area?" The outside area has been purposely exaggerated. The bulk of the people who live outside the London County Council's area are men whose business interests are inside the metropolitan area; and if these men are content, as election after election has proved, to have the London County Council to be the water authority, surely these same men will not object to our dealing with them in their residential capacity in the counties of Middlesex, Kent, Essex, and Surrey. The fact is that tins Bill duplicates representation, and mixes up a number of things, particularly with regard to outside areas. Let me give one. I see the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Middlesex in his place and also the hon. Member for the Epping Division. The latter admits frankly that he is a water director, and that the London County Council Bill is, in many respects, a better Bill than the Government Bill. Both hon. Members admit that if they had to choose from an outside point of view, whether they would deal with a London County Council Water Committee of fifteen, or this hetearogeneous mob from everywhere, they would rather choose the London County Council's experienced Committee of fifteen. The hon. Member for Limehouse said that the borough councillors were the only right people, the only people who perhaps ought to be considered. I want to know where the evidence is that the Borough Councils want this Bill. It has not been produced. The water companies do not like it; the outside authorities are not enthusiastic about it. Well, then, who is it that wants it?
  AN HON. MEMBERon the Ministerial Benches: The London County Council.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: No, we do not want more than our proper deserts; but we do say that ten out of sixty-nine is not,our proper deserts; that this large Water Board is unnecessary, is dangerous, and that some day you will have to demolish it, and that you will have to set up an
  234
  experienced Committee of the London County Council, that has forced you to give more consideration to this very serious problem. Where are the Borough Councils that are in favour of this Bill?
  MR. THORNTON: Wandsworth.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Not of this particular form of the Bill or tins particular Board.
  MR. THORNTON: Yes, this particular Board.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: But one swallow does not make a summer, and one Borough Council out of thirty asking for this Bill does not prove the Government's ease. I will take Wandsworth, which plumped for this Bill before its provisions were known. Did Wandsworth know what effect this Board would have on their local rates? Did they know that they would have to raise local rates for a foreign body to spend on works 120 miles up the river Thames? Did Wandsworth know that tins Board, to be gathered from anywhere, could mortgage Wandsworth's rates and could indent on Wandsworth for expenditure that Wandsworth knew absolutely nothing about? So far as I can find out not another Borough Council has expressed an opinion in favour of the Bill except Wandsworth, and Wandsworth bought a pig in a poke. I believe that if Wandsworth, with its high rates, had known what they were doing, Wandsworth would have thought twice before they decided to petition in its favour.
  MR. MOON (St. Pancras, N.): I may tell the hon. Member that I presented a petition from St. Pancras Borough Council on Friday in favour of tins Bill.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Since the Bill was introduced?
  MR. MOON: Yes; last Friday.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Then we have two swallows out of thirty I am waiting cheerfully and patiently for

  235
  the remaining twenty-eight. Supposing the borough councillors who were elected to this Board took their seats, I want to know who is going to have some or any control over the member, or the 420th part of a Member from places in Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire? If he is elected, he will not be elected by the Borough Council on the Water Board because of any knowledge that he may have of London water. Not a bit. His conduct on the Board can never be challenged; he can never be brought to book because he is elected for other local purposes; there can be no check on those localities, and no control over the Board of which he is a member, and the borough councillor will be a member of the Council for the water supply, and he will be free from the supervision of the Local Board that elected him in the discharge of his duties. When we find that thirty-six Urban District Councils nominate eight members, what possible chance of control can those districts have over a member elected in this way? When we find that eight Joint Committees must take place every three years to elect eight members, what control can there be? 575 Urban Councillors have to be elected; they have to elect ninety-one, who elect eight members to serve on a Committee, who sit, and in their turn elect one member to the Board. The result is that while 343 people in Hertford will have one member on this Board, London will have only one for 97,245, and from the Central London view one member for 400,000 people. It is preposterous when we remember that the Board will be elected for three years, and that half that Board may be aldermen, and not subject to re-election, and when we consider that the Royal Commission recommended that the Board should be a popular body, not larger than thirty members, responsible to the central authority, this Board is not only against common sense representation, but dead against all the recommendations of the Commission.
  Now, with regard to the personnel of the Board, some will no doubt say I am always proud to sing the praises of the London County Council. Sir, I cannot
  236
  help it, that body deserves it, and this is the last time probably that I shall ever, as a London County Councillor, take part in a London Water Bill. But compare the Committee of Water of the London County Council with the Committees that will be derived from this body. Immediately we got to work with the heavy burden of London Government upon us, we did not run our politics to death in the selection of men for onerous posts which required experience and capacity, we put upon our Finance Committee ex-civil servants, Lord Welby, Lord Farrer, Lord Lingen, and men of this type. Those men were on the Water Committee and the Finance Committee, and were responsible to and under the executive control of the Lon don County Council. We added to them the hon. Member for East Islington, Mr. Hoare, a banker, and Sir John Lubbock. Where the probity and honour of the London County Council is at stake, we do not trouble whether a man is a Duke or a banker what we wanted was the work properly done by people that London might trust from the point of finance and credit, and I venture to say if we had a Water Committee the type of men we would commission would he Lord Welby, Lord Farrer, Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Hoare and Mr. Anthrobus—men we could trust and London could respect. I believe if you were to give the London County Council the control of the, London water supply we should have, fifteen of our best men, men whom London could trust, men who had financial knowledge and ability of the, highest character, and men on whom London could safely depend for experience and probity.
  However, you have decided to create this body. Directly it goes to work with its inferior and excessive personnel, this is what will happen. This strong Board of ex-vestrymen and Borough Councillors will only have one body of men to advise them, the water companies' own officials. Supposing you had an ex-vestryman or Borough Councillor from Battersea or Watford or Hertford, and suppose he was confronted with the, solicitor, lawyer, and accountant of one of the London Water Companies, he would be, as clay in the hands of the potter, without,

  237
  experience, without knowledge and without that suspicion based on past experience which is necessary when dealing with matters of this kind. These people would make him a mere negative plate on which to photograph their own views. But we have wrestled with the water beasts at Ephesus—we have grappled with these gentlemen, and on facts, knowledge and experience we would extract from them a not unfair bargain based on the facts and our knowledge of their works, plant, engines, and service. This cannot be the case with these inexperienced Borough Councillors. What will this new Board have power to do? The rates in London are jumping up by leaps and bounds as a proof of what the Borough Councillors have done. Since they have been in existence in London they have raised the rates from 6d. to 10d. in the £. They have raised the rates more than any other public body in the history of London. This body will have the power of contracting debt, to levy rates to purchase without arbitration, to abandon the present supply and undertake new sources, and do all this under the advice and guidance of the water companies' officials without having previous experience. If it is necessary to have a Board at all, have a Board constituted out of the City Corporation, the outside County Councils, and the London County Council itself. Those three bodies would make an infinitely better Board than that which the Government give us. What is going to happen to this Board? Take the Metropolitan Board of Works. I am not going to say anything against the Metropolitan Board of Works. I have said in the House before, and I repeat it now, it was a Board that was unnecessarily abused. It did a great deal of good work, and it did a great deal of harm in its latter days. You made a mistake in doing with the Metropolitan Board what you are trying to do with the London County Council. You tried to belittle it. It was indirectly elected, many of its Committees were held in secret and did not do its work in the full light of day, in the fierce light of public criticism in which the London County Council has happily been compelled to work. The Metropolitan Board of Works died from lack of attractiveness, and the lack of that capacity and control which you cannot get except by direct election even with
  238
  regard to the Metropolitan Asylum Board. I have nothing to say against that body, but some of its members think that some day it will have to go the way of the Metropolitan Board of Works because it has not that attractiveness that bodies of this kind should have. The Metropolitan Board of Works died; it was killed by public opinion. The Metropolitan Asylums Board may do the same very shortly. The Thames Conservancy is another instance of these irresponsible bodies. The Thames Conservancy was so unpopular and so irresponsible that to keep it sweet the Government had to bring in a Bill to send half a dozen County Councils to keep it from putrifaction, and since we have enforced popular election, we have tried to teach them, and have to some extent shown them how to do their work properly.
  Let us go to another instance. Take the Government's own work. There recently has been centralisation. They have got rid of the old vestries, the old Metropolitan Board of Works, they have had to level up the Thames conservancy, and in the House itself they have centralised legislation. Now why have they departed from those four cardinal principles in this Bill, except for one purpose, the purpose of giving an unmerited snub to the London County Council? Why have they treated London in this way? Why have they not treated her in the same way as they have treated other cities. There are 931 water authorities in the Kingdom and of those 931, 918 or 98 per cent. of them carry out their water supply by the directly elected water authority of the Municipal Council. Of that 931 there are only thirteen joint water authorities, and those are not joint authorities for the distribution of water but for the allocation of water sheds which is a very different matter. Here is an extraordinary anomaly. You deny Home Rule to Ireland. One of these days you will alter your mind about that, but in the whole of Ireland there is only one body for the supply of water that is not directly elected. Let London have in this respect, what Ireland enjoy. These bodies carry out their works for miles outside their own areas without difficulty. Why cannot you give the London

  239
  County Council power to go outside its own ratable area? Birmingham does it. Let me deal with Birmingham for a moment. Birmingham has a population of 522,182 inside its area and 252,462 outside. Its ratable value inside is £2,735,426, outside it is £1,182,417, and the extent of its area inside its wards is 19·9 miles. outside it is 112 miles. This municipality has compulsory jurisdiction over 112 miles, over five times as much as its own ratable area, and what is true of Birmingham is true of Bolton, Leicester, Plymouth, Liverpool, and other places. I ask the Government, then, not to fly in the face of municipal precedents like that—not to make a mistake and follow the sinister precedent of the various Boards they have created which they have afterwards had to abolish. I have mentioned four. Let us not forget the Thames Sewage Valley Board which was created and had to be abolished. And never forget that whenever this has been tried in America and elsewhere it has always led to bad results. Why should the Thames Conservancy have two members? Why should it have one or two? If it has a direct interest then in my opinion two is not enough, I believe a Body that is going to sell water ought not to send a representative to the Board that may have to buy water. If it does its duty as it, should to the river Thames it may have to prevent this new Board from taking water from outside districts. It has to keep the river full and keep it clean and may have to prevent the Board from taking water from the Thames in dipletion of its natural flow. What the Water Board ought to do is to go to Wales or some other place for a source of supply and why you allow the names Conservancy to sit on the new Water Board this inevitable duty will be postponed for interested reasons. Now what is the reason for admitting Wanstead? Why should Wanstead where the flats are locoing admitted to, this Board? Why should Hanwell where the lunatics are claim to be represented on this peculiar Board? Why should all these Urban Councils get this representation to the exclusion and suppression of the London area? I see no reason except that the Government intended to snub the London County Council and give it another blow.
  240
  I will not trouble the House with further arguments against this popular Board. I believe it is too large and unwieldly; that it has vested in it dangerous powers, and is costly and extravagant; that it will cause another Bill to be introduced to deal with the same matter; and that, is why I speak against it. In my opinion the only alternative is a Water Committee of the London County Council, or a Water Committee of the London County Council co-operating with other County Councils only. The Water Board will have to have a little more control over it financially than this Bill gives if we are to have this foreign body levying rates in the outside areas.
  The last point is the question of price. It is curious that though the London County Council has been represented as confiscatory in its policy, the water companies would rather throw themselves on the tender mercies of the Council than this Bill. What does the County Council ask? That the Water Companies shall receive, a fair market value for their undertaking. We have asked for nothing more nor less, and if we asked for less we should not be doing our best for our constituents. The fact of the matter is, the water directors want better security for their investments, and they have no right to have it. If they ask for their present income on better security, they are asking that on a water supply drawn at a nominal charge from public water sheds. They ought to be satisfied. They have no legal monopoly for the water apply, and I believe when their plant engines and pumping power come to be examined, they will receive far more than adequate consideration for the concern that they have to sell. We must remember that they have no future source of supply to warrant them in asking that their income should be made more secure. I think, from our point, of view, the water companies under this Bill are as well treated as they deserve to be. I do not like to see the House of Commons year after year wasting its time on Water Bills, all based on one idea, that idea being to keep the London County Council out of the work of London Water Supply. This Bill is based on t hat authority for reasons I cannot understand, but when tins Board breaks

  241
  down, as it will; when the Board prove to be incompetent, as it must; when it levies rates and contracts debts, and makes the supply more costly, more complex, and more difficult, then the London County Council will have to come and ask the House to reverse this Bill in some particulars.
  I make this suggestion to the Government. Let the Bill go to a Committee, and send to that Committee, concurrently with this Bill, the London County Council Bill and the Bill of the hon. Member for Dulwich, and give the Committee the freest possible hand to cut down this Board to measurable proportions. If they do, the Committee will cut down this Board to thirty Members, composed generally of London County Councillors with eight or ten County Councillors from Berkshire, Kent, and Middlesex. They will only ask two members of this Board for about a year during the transition period, arid then they will give us our own water supply, to which the London County Council would be willing to agree. Those are my suggestions, and I hope the Government will agree to them, that we may settle this matter once and for all. Let time body that collects the rates and spends the rates, make the debt and pay it, and undertake the responsibility of going to Wales or elsewhere for a future supply of pure water. Such a body is the County Council. We ask for this body an opportunity of increasing the burden of our responsibility, so that we can manage the existing water supply as every other municipality does, and that we may get a new supply from Wales. This new Board cannot and will not do it, because, so far as London is concerned, they have neither the will nor the power. It is because I believe all this that I have much pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member through his various remarks upon London government; I will content myself by saying that it was only when he is making practical suggestions and offering alternatives to the Government proposals that the hon. Member commands the attention of the House. It is easy to indulge in criticism
  242
  and attack upon any proposals under consideration; but the hon. Gentleman devoted most of his speech to an attempt to convince the House that there is behind the Bill sonic feeling towards the London County Council of which at all events I, as responsible for the Bill on behalf of the Government, am entirely in ignorance, and as to which I know nothing. The House has been told that the only reason for the introduction of the Bill is hostility to the London County Council and to prevent that body becoming the controlling water authority; but it is idle to waste time in 'discussing an opinion of that kind. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are welcome to their own opinions as to the motives which have induced the Government to introduce the measure, but I will as briefly and clearly as I can give the reasons for the proposed solution of this very difficult question. Much has been made of the criticisms addressed to the Bill from the Government side of the House, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fife said he had only heard one speech in support of the Bill, and that was from the hon. Member for Dulwich, and of that even he was not sure whether it was actually in support of the Bill or not. I share the right hon. Gentleman's doubt on that point, but I must remind him that this is not the only night of debate. I have gone carefully through the list of speakers on the first evening, and, putting aside those who spoke, and rightly spoke, on behalf of the water companies and presented the companies case, out of the others the three speeches from this side of the House were in unqualified support of the Government proposal. Even the hon. Member for the Chelmsford division of Essex—
  MR. JOHN BURNS: His company is not directly interested in the Bill.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that because his company is not directly interested in the Bill my hon. friend is not capable of forming a correct judgment in regard to it?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: In this respect I should describe the hon. Member as an Uitlander.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The hon. Member is entitled to describe my hon. friend as he likes, but I am also entitled to say that out of eight speakers on this side of the House, four spoke, and rightly spoke, on behalf of the water companies, but of the remaining four, three spoke in firm support of the policy of the Bill. Therefore, I maintain that the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman earlier in the evening has no foundation whatever.
  But I am not surprised that a measure of this kind should meet with much criticism. We have heard of what the London County Council would do if they were now dealing with the question. All I have to say in comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Battersea is that it is a great pity they did not arrive at this conclusion when they had the opportunity long ago, but did not avail themselves of it. It is a little late in the day to come forward with this policy now in criticism of the proposals of the Government and to say, "If we had the opportunity we would do much better." The London County Council have tried their hand—I do not blame them for it—and failed. My hon. friend the Member for Dulwich—all honour to his industry—produced and introduced a very long Bill dealing with this question last session. All who have put their hand to the work, even to the smallest extent, know how full of difficulties and anxieties is this London water question. I say that it is unnecessary that our difficulties should be added to and our path rendered more thorny by these uncalled for and unjustifiable suggestions that our proposals, made in good faith, are based on feelings of hostility either to the London Count Council or to the Party opposite. When I hear these constant suggestions with regard to our attitude towards the London County Council, I am inclined to ask myself whether the right hon. Gentlemen opposite would be so persistent in their support of the London County Council, in claiming that it should be given every new power, if it were not for the fact that that body is progressive in character, and therefore representative of views with which the Party opposite are in sympathy. I do not know; it may be that if it were composed of Moderates, they would take the same view. [Cheers.] That is a very easy cheer to give now. All I can say is that these are not the reasons that induced His Majesty's Government to
  244
  formulate the policy we have proposed. I have argued before, and I will not take up the time of the House by arguing again, the question of the analogy between the London County Council and other municipal authorities. Great stress has been laid in the course of this debate on the fact, that the Metropolitan Borough Councils were not elected as water authorities. No more was the London County Council. When the London County Council was created in 1888 it was not created as the water authority for London, nor was it contemplated that it should become the water authority. It was not until the passing of legislation permitting it to promote Bills in Parliament to become the water authority that it was so constituted. Therefore, any argument based on the objects for which these Metropolitan Borough Councils were created must apply equally to the London County Council.
  But I pass that by altogether; I desire to deal simply with the municipal question. We are told by Gentlemen on the other side of the House that we are casting a slur on municipal life, and that we are putting back the hands of the clock of municipal life. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite realise that in repudiating the right of these Metropolitan Borough Councils to bear a share in London government, either in connection with the administration of the water supply or in regard to any other matter, they are denying to them rights and privileges enjoyed by every provincial body in the country? ["No, no."] It is easy to say "No, no," but so it is. There is not one of those metropolitan boroughs that has not at present a population which, if it were a provincial borough, would entitle it to the separate powers and privileges of county boroughs. Why is it they have not these powers? Because at the time of the passing of the Act of 1888 the metropolitan boroughs as such did not exist. ["No."] I beg your pardon; that is the fact. I speak of what I know. At the passing of the Act of 1888 the metropolitan boroughs did not exist; they were created by an Act of Parliament passed in the year 1899. Did Parliament mean anything real in regard to the reform of the municipal government of London when it passed the Act setting up metropolitan

  245
  boroughs, or did it not? Did it mean simply to create a certain number of men as mayors and aldermen, and nothing more? If so, then the policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite is the right one. But if, on the other hand, it meant to endeavour to give a new interest and a new life to local government in the Metropolis, if it meant to realise the fact that in some respects the creation of one centre of local government had failed, and that new centres must be created if the best men are to be attracted, then we are entitled to regard the metropolitan boroughs as representative of the local government of London, and to include them in the constituent bodies which will go to form the new water authority for the metropolitan area as a whole.
  Great ridicule was cast—and I must confess to my surprise—by the right hen. Gentleman the Member for East Fife upon the inclusion not only of the metropolitan boroughs, but also of the urban districts. "Why do you bring in these metropolitan boroughs? What right have these metropolitan Boroughs to come in?" Somebody suggested, in the ordinary way, that there was an answer to that by asking, "Why should they not be brought in?" The right hon. Gentleman indignantly rejected such a form of answer; he declined to be drawn—for which discretion I much admired him—and said, "No, it is not enough to ask me why they should not be brought in. Why are they to be brought in? Why are the urban districts to be brought in?" I confess that as I listen to such remarks, as I am told that we have trampled on every precedent of local government, that we have taken an entirely novel course in connection with local government—when I hear these statements emphasised in this particular manner I am filled with surprise. I admit that the position of the metropolitan boroughs is different from that of the provincial boroughs for the reason I have already given. But the position of an urban sanitary district outside the metropolitan area is in no sense different from that of any other urban sanitary district in the country. They are responsible for the sanitary work of their area, and one of the primary
  246
  duties of a sanitary authority is to provide its area with water, or to bear a share in that provision if it is required. Therefore, I maintain that so far from it being wrong to include in the constituent bodies of this new authority the urban sanitary authorities of the various areas, including the Metropolitan Borough Councils, it would have been wrong, on the other hand, to have excluded them from some share in the representation upon this new body. I am glad to notice that in the debate on this stage of the Bill, the language on the other side of the House has altered somewhat from that used in the debate on the First Reading. It is true that one or two gentlemen tonight have let slip those familiar words with which we were so familiar in the previous debate, but we have not heard so much about this, Omnium, gatherum these sweepings from lanes and by-ways. We heard a great deal of such expressions in the First Reading debate, but tonight hon. Gentlemen have been more guarded in their references to the new Board, and a little more respectful in their references to the metropolitan boroughs concerned.
  I listened to the greater part of the debate on Thursday last, and to the whole of it tonight, but for the life of me I have not been able to ascertain what there is either in the form of election or in the qualification of a candidate or in the members themselves which justify this remarkable distinction between the members of the London County Council and members of the Metropolitan Borough Councils. They are elected by the same electors; the same man goes to the polling booth and votes, one day for a member of the London County Council and another day for a member of the Metropolitan Borough Council—it may be for the same person in each instance; but according to the hon. Gentlemen opposite, if the person is elected to the London County Council he is immediately endowed with all the civic virtues, but if he is elected to a Metropolitan Borough Council, as we have heard tonight, he is not fit to be entrusted with the ordinary duties discharged by members of every provincial Borough Council in the country. What is the marvellous change that takes place? What wave of the magician's wand is it that turns

  247
  either the elector or the elected into such different material, depending solely on whether the election is a London County Council election or a Metropolitan Borough Council election? We have had no justification whatever given us for the special pen into which Metropolitan Borough Councillors are to be driven by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They fall foul of us because, they say—I think without justice—we attack the London County Council. There is no foundation for that criticism of theirs. But at all events they cannot deny that they have declared tonight, and on Thursday night last, through their representative speakers, that you cannot expect or hope to find among the representatives of the Metropolitan Borough Councils men fit to be entrusted with the management of the water supply of London, but that if you turn to the London County Council you will find there a Committee of fifteen competent in every way to do the work. But let us know the secret of this marvellous effect of the elections to the London County Council. What is it that turns a Londoner into something marvellous, who may be entrusted with everything the moment he is sent to Spring Gardens, but which leaves him a poor unworthy citizen, unfit to be entrusted with municipal powers, when he is elected to a Metropolitan Borough Council?
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite have been a little more careful in their references to precedents tonight. We heard a good deal the other night about the Metropolitan Board of Works. I am not afraid, if it is necessary, to discuss that here; I am not afraid to discuss its history. Until tonight hon. Gentlemen opposite have been very free in their recollections of what the Metropolitan Board of Works did that was wrong, and they have been conveniently unmindful of the great works which the Metropolitan Board of Works did for the advantage of London. We had heard nothing until tonight of the share that body had in some of the greatest of London's improvements. The Thames Embankment, Shaftesbury Avenue, the main drainage system of London, of which the hon. Member for Battersea spoke the other day with such high praise—all these are works well done by the Metropolitan Board of Works. But I admit the failure of the
  248
  Metropolitan Board of Works. Its history it is not necessary to go back upon. The hon Member for Battersea tonight frankly admitted that that was not the only indirectly elected body that London possessed which had done good work for the Metropolis. When the Government, basing their views generally on the Report of the Royal Commission, had to look for precedents and experience, to help them in creating a new body for this work, I confess I found none more worthy of the respect and confidence or better deserving to be copied than that of the Metropolitan Asylums Board. It is quite true that we do not have such debates as took place elsewhere, and are not constantly told that we possess every civic virtue; but it is known to all that the work they have to do is the most responsible that could be given to them, that the very life of the Metropolis is in their keeping; they have never shrunk from their work or their responsibility, and all men speak well of the way in which they discharge their duties. Hon. Members are aware that it was necessary not long ago to place a number of children under the care of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and nobody at that time raised the objection that the fact of their being indirectly elected made them unworthy of the confidence of the people of London.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I did not say that.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Then I withdraw that statement. At any rate, the hon. Member for Battersea said he thought that the members of this Board ought to be appointed in some other way.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Like the Thames Conservancy Board.
  MR. WALTER LONG: It has been said that we have not followed the recommendations contained in the Report of the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission recommended that this body should number not more than thirty members, and my noble friend Lord James, when he introduced a Bill in another place a few years ago, also limited the new authority to a similar

  249
  number. We have been asked why is it that we propose that this new body should be so large and unwieldy in its size. I deny altogether that the body proposed in the Bill is too large, even by one man, for the work it has to do. I may assure hon. Members opposite, although I can hardly expect them to believe it ["Oh, oh"]—I hardly expect them to believe it, because I have been so repeatedly assured that the one thing that is not to be expected from this Government is any proceeding that is business-like—but I assure the House that the first step I took as the Minister responsible for the, preparation of this; Bill was to obtain the advice of the most experienced expert connected with the administration of water in London—an expert of experts, intimately acquainted with the whole area and knowing all the work that has to be done. I asked this expert to suggest to me what sort of body would have to be created, and the reply was—"A body that will have to appoint at least eight or nine separate committees, a body that will have to do the work now done by eight separate directorates numbering something like eighty or ninety gentlemen, and a body which will have to do work certainly as difficult and laborious as the work now done by the Metropolitan Asylums Board, which numbers, I think, seventy-three." The present companies represent eight different districts with varying conditions. For some years, at least, it will be necessary for any body responsible for the administration of the water supply to have meetings in different parts of the metropolitan area with considerable regularity. I do not profess to be a business authority upon this question, and I have no doubt that I deserve the condemnation upon that head which has been so freely passed upon me by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but if this new body is to provide men to sit upon eight or nine different committees to do such work as the provision of stores, and which has to deal with all questions of rating charges and a variety of other matters, then I do not think it will be too large.
  The hon. Member for Battersea has referred to the London County Council. It is said that we are proposing seventy or eighty members to dc what fifteen members of the London
  250
  County Council could do. But then we have not all reached to that state of human perfection. If this body is to do such work as must fall to it, then, looking to the capacities of such ordinary mortals as we can only expect to find outside the region of Spring Gardens, the number sixty-seven proposed in the Bill will not be too large to man the Committees and do the weekly work and allow for such absentees as must necessarily occur thro ugh ill-health and other causes. I do not believe that anybody who will look at the size of the Board from that point of view will arrive at any other conclusion than that which the Government have arrived at, namely, that it must be large enough to enable five or six separate Committees to be appointed so that the work of each district may be done without imposing upon the Board as a whole such incessant labours as would lead to constant resignations and inconvenience.
  I could quote precedents with regard to this question, and I know of no local body connected with the Metropolis which is not at least as large as the one which the Government propose. The School Board is composed of fifty-five members, dealing (or, I would say, who; ought to be dealing) only with primary education: and the Technical Education Committee, dealing with technical education, has thirty-five members—the two together making a body for metropolitan education a little bigger than the one the Government are now proposing for the purpose of dealing with the difficult question of the water supply of London.
  As to the criticisms of the method of purchase, I feel, after listening to the I debates, that the Government must have struck that happy middle path which is the safe and fair one between two extremes; for, while I am told on the one hand by hon. Gentlemen opposite that I am giving over the ratepayers of London to eternal ruin and destruction by the friendship we have evinced for the water companies, I, on the other hand, can never forget the pathetic tone of the hon. Member for East Marylebone as he described what he imagined to be the unhappy and forlorn condition of the companies under this Bill. The hon. Member for Chelsea has put the position in words which could not be more desirably

  251
  chosen by the Government when he said that by the transfer no one will he one whit the better, and no one will be one whit the worse. In other words, outman justice will be done as between the companies and the public. I am unable to find any justification for the criticism of the language of the purchase clauses. The Government has adopted the view of the Royal Commission that a special tribunal should be appointed and no one has shown that there will be any departure from the lines of the Lands Clauses Act. As the Government were advised, and as was stated by the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries, the provisions of the Lands Clauses Act are not in themselves applicable to the kind of purchase under consideration; all that is intended by the principle of the Lands Clauses Act is to provide a fair and just system of purchase by agreement, or, failing that, by arbitration. There is no ground for the apprehension that an unfair agreement might be made by the new Board, as it will be composed of representative members of public bodies. The object of the Government is that the policy of the Land Clauses Act shall be incorporated in the Act, except as to the 10 per cent. for compulsory purchase.
  I listened with surprise to the hon. Member for the Tewkesbury Division of Gloucestershire when he suggested that the purchase should be made piecemeal. To ask this Water Board to take these companies over piecemeal one by one would impose upon them an almost impossible task, which they could not find means to carry out. This must be a part of the purchase scheme. My hon. friend has stated that this new Board would be created without the means of deciding as to the price, but I do not think that there is any justification whatever for that statement. I imagine that if they so desired this new authority could state within a few days or weeks what the price of their undertaking would be. But supposing that was not the case. If hon. Members think that the appointed day is too soon for the companies to have their case ready for arbitration, they must remember that the Government have taken power to postpone the "appointed day" That power will be justly, fairly, and reasonably exercised, and I cannot help
  252
  thinking that that ought to be a sufficient guarantee that the water companies will have a reasonable opportunity for the statement of their cases. I can only repeat that, while we stand by the provisions as to purchase and arbitration, we have no intention that the procedure on the arbitration clauses should be different from the procedure of the arbitration courts appointed under the Lands Clauses Act. That is the principle.
  MR. BARTLEY: Cannot that be put in the Bill?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I have said that we believe there is no necessity for the insertion of that. The words as they stand are absolutely clear and incapable of being misunderstood, but if the words do not convey what we intend, obviously we should be prepared so to amend them as to make them convey that intention. I do not think there is anything more I need say now. I have already referred to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Chelsea with regard to the appointment of chairman and vice-chairman and members of outside bodies. Those and other suggestions are matters to which the Government will be prepared to give friendly consideration in Committee.
  MR. ABEL SMITHI think my hon. friends will allow me to say a few words in regard to this Bill. It is one, as we all admit, of first rate importance, and the proposals it contains have been very ably argued on both sides from many points of view. I must say that I do regret that more has not been heard of the wants and wishes of the outside districts who buy water, which is so necessary to the welfare of the people. I wish to remind the House that this a matter of the very first importance to the district which I represent. My constituents are very anxious indeed to see what their position would be under the provisions of this Bill. Now I think it must be admitted that our position in this matter is a very peculiar one. I will not attempt to describe it at any length, but I think it is known to many Members of the House that there is a great want of water felt throughout the district. Many of the deep wells had

  253
  to be deepened at very great expense. Narrow wells and springs have dried up in the upper portions of the Lea, and the tributaries have ceased to flow. The people of these districts have not that supply of water which is so necessary for their comfort and for the carrying on of their business. I am not going to attempt to discuss what is called the question of depletion, but at the present time I hope the County of Hertford will have its rights and wants carefully considered by the Committee when considering the details of this Bill. I think I may say that I have not been influenced by the eloquent Members opposite, who say that the London County Council ought to have the management of this matter, but still I am very anxious, and my constituents are very anxious, as to how they will stand when the Bill becomes law, and I therefore urge my right hon. friend and the Government to give most careful consideration to the interests of the County of Hertford, which I have the honour to represent.
  MR. CORRIE GRANT: Although I represent a county constituency, I have been resident in London all my life, and therefore I hope the House will excuse me for a few moments if I intervene to answer some of the arguments brought forward in support of the Bill. I take the last speech first. The House will understand that that has been by far the most effective speech yet delivered in support of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman in defending his measure said he was quite ignorant of any motive of attack on the London County Council. There is motive expressed in language and there is motive expressed in action, and when you find the Government departing from the principles of municipal government which have obtained in this country for thirty years past, and when you find them attempting methods of government such as are not suggested by any of the bodies to which they entrusted the consideration of this question, surely you are justified in asking what inspired this action if it has not been some motive which is not apparent on the face of it.
  The right hon. Gentleman complained that the London County Council
  254
  did not express in its Bill the voice of the London people which had been accepted by this House. If the London County Council has made a mistake in dealing with this matter, it has been in attempting to follow from time to time the recommendations of the different Royal Commissions and Committees which have dealt with this matter instead of establishing a single principle for itself, and insisting on that view. The right hon. Gentleman made a complaint in introducing the Bill of the changes in the London County Council's policy, and said that the Council must be bound by its last declaration of policy. He said that it could not go back again to the first. The reason of that is that the London County Council has endeavoured to meet the expressions of opinion from different bodies which have dealt with this question, and in so doing it has to some extent changed the policy which was expressed in the earlier bill. The right hon. Gentleman said the London County Council was not elected on the water question. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] Well, I apologise if I am wrong. He said, at any rate, that the London County Council did not represent London on the water question. The fact is that the water question has been part of the Progressive programme since 1889, but that alone is not the point on which I rely. The London County Council as a whole has had a policy on the water question, and the present policy of the London Council is endorsed alike by the Progressives and the Moderates. There are hon. Members on the Benches on the opposite side who are Moderates in the London Council, and I venture to predict that if we do hear their voices in the course of the debates on this Bill we shall find them critics of the Government and not supporters of it. The right hon. Gentleman's main point, and that, I think, upon which we join issue with him, is that the Borough Councils in London are in exactly the same position as the Municipal Councils in the provinces. The Borough Councils in London deal with small administrative matters, but with the great matters which are entrusted to the Municipal boroughs in the provinces they have nothing whatever to do. These matters are entrusted to the London County

  255
  Council. If you come to the questions of main drainage, and the fire brigade, and all matters which are common to London, you find that they are entrusted to the London County Council, and therefore that Council is the body which stands in the place of the Municipal Council in the provinces, and that is the body with which the parallel ought to be drawn. When the right hon. Gentleman asks what was the remarkable difference between a man elected to a Borough Council and to the London County Council, the answer is perfectly simple. If in 1889 it had been proposed to constitute a Water Board, it would have been perfectly fair to say that they were ignorant of the water question, and not fit to deal with it. No one supposes that because a man is a member of the London County Council he is fit to deal with it, but for the last twelve years the London County Council has been studying the water question. It has been fighting the water question, and it has men trained in that question. Therefore, the men elected to the London County Council have the benefit of that growth of experience which is not at the disposal of the Borough Councils or their officials. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and showed a natural desire not to touch upon the later years of that body. Without referring to the matters connected with the later history of the Board of Works, let me ask him what was the verdict of London on that Board when the County Council was elected. Of the men who had served on the Metropolitan Board of Works a considerable number presented themselves as candidates for the County Council, and I think I am right in saying that with the exception of those who represented the city of London they did not find election.
  COLONEL HUGHES: There were more.
  MR. CORRIE GRANT: I said with the exception of the city of London. I think the hon. Gentleman represented the city of London. Out of that great body who formed the Metropolitan Board of Works, representing the whole
  256
  of London, the only members who obtained election to the County Council were the hon. Member who sits for Woolwich, and, I think, Mr. Clark, who sits on the Council for the city of London.
  COLONEL HUGHES: I could give you the names of half a dozen.
  MR. CORRIE GRANT: I am sorry if I am wrong. I will take just one other point. The right hon. Gentleman said that these water companies have eight Boards, and that he had given a large number of representatives because eight Committees would be necessary to carry on the different classes of work to be done. The eight companies have eighty directors among them, giving an average of ten directors to each of the water companies. Therefore these ten directors are competent to early on the work as it is now. If they are competent to do so, where will be the need of the far greater number to carry it on in the new Board? It is all the same class of work, although it may differ in detail. I come now to the last point, and it is, perhaps, the most important. With regard to the financial aspect of the question, he said that he wanted this new Board to so deal with the present shareholders that nobody should be one whit the better or one whit the worse. That is a perfectly true position in regard to the finance, but I ask him to turn his own test to the Water Board. Will he say that the new Water Board will be better than the present administration? The whole of experience is against it. He is removing directors of long experience trained in the difficulties they have to meet and putting in their place a Board upon which, if he has some water directors, so much the better, but of whom, because of the limitation of the election, we shall not be able to see more than one or two representatives. I think that justifies this House in asking that the Board he is going to substitute shall be a better administrative Board than the one he is going to remove. On that ground alone, I think the proposals in the Bill are unsound. I think I have said enough to justify me in the vote I am about to give.
  MR. HUDSONrose to address the House amid loud and persistent cries of "Divide," which rendered the hon. Gentleman practically inaudible in the gallery. He was understood to say that in his part of the country there was very considerable feeling in regard to this question of water supply. As a matter of fact, the Urban Districts of Ware and Cheshunt desired to be taken out of the limits of water supply of the new Water Board, as they had applied a few years ago to the New River Company for a supply of water, but were refused it, and they had to bring in a supply of their own, at a cost of £35,000.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESalso spoke amid loud cries of "Divide." He said that although there seemed to be a general wish to bring the debate to a close, he felt that the matter had not received adequate consideration. He spoke not only as a London ratepayer, but as a representative of a constituency which might possibly be affected by the construction of this new water authority, and as one who felt that the matter was one of the greatest magnitude, and which affected the principles of local government, in which the whole country was interested. The arguments in favour of the Bill had not struck him as being sound. His point was, that the true principle in regard to this matter was that the water supply was a municipal function for a municipal service. He would remind the House that down to the seventeenth
  century it was a good and sound principle of legislation and municipal action that the corporations of this country should control the water supply; but in the troubles of that century that principle was departed from (Cries of "Divide.") If any one would take the trouble to read the history of Private Bill legislation on this subject, he would find that in modern legislation Parliament had only gone back to the older practice. For what reason was this new water authority to be created? He had very considerable authority on his side for asserting there was not the slightest reason for taking away this matter from the control of the London County Council. His authority was no less a. person than the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies. That right hon. Gentleman had had great experience in regard to municipal affairs [Cries of "Divide."] He was sure that every one would admit that the right hon. Gentleman's conduct of municipal affairs in Birmingham was of a most remarkably successful kind. What did the right hon. Gentleman say, speaking in this House? [Cries of "Divide."]
  (8.7.) Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Questions be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 223; Noes, 145. (Division List No. 53.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex, F.

  Bigwood, James

  Charrington, Spencer

  Agg-Gardener, James Tynte

  Bill, Charles

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Aird, Sir John

  Bond, Edward

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Anson. Sir William Reynell

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Brassey, Albert

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Bull, William James

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Butcher, John George

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (D'rbyshire)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G'r'ld W(Leeds)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Banes, Major George Edward

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich'el Hicks

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

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Bignold, Arthur

  Chapman, Edward

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Rasch Major Frederic Carne

  Dixon Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Keswick, William

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Knowles, Lees

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lawrence, Joseph (Menmouth)

  Robinson, Brooke

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lawson, John Grant

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Finlay, Sir Robert Baunatyne

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Leveson Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Rutherford, John

  Fison, Frederick William

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edwd. Algernon

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Bristol, S

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Flower, Ernest

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Foster, PhilipS (Warwick, S. W.

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Gardner, Ernest

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Garfit, William

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

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

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Spear, John Ward

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Milvain, Thomas

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Gretton, John

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Stroyan, John

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Hain, Edward

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

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

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Hardy, Laurenee (Kent, Ashford

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Murray, Rt. Hon A Graham (Bute

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col.Edward

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Myers, William Henry

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Whitmore, (Charles Algernon

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Helder, Augustus

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wylie, Alexander

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Hughes, Colonel Edwin

  Purvis, Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Pym, C. Guy

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Randles, John S.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Crean, Eugene

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Cremer, William Randall

  Ambrose, Robert

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Cullinan, J.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Asquith, Rt. Hon Herbert Henry

  Burns, John

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Delany, William

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Caine, William Sproston

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Bell, Richard

  Caldwell, James

  Dillon, John

  Black, Alexander William

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Blake, Edward

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Boland, John

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Doogan, P. C.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  260

  261

  Dunn, Sir William

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)

  Reddy, M.

  Edwards, Frank

  Lundon, W.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Emmott, Alfred

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  M'Crae, George

  Runciman, Walter

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Govern, T.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Field, William

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Gilhooly, James

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Mooney, John J.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Grant, Corrie

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

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

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John (Montrose

  Sullivan, Donal

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Murnaghan, George

  Tennant, Harold John

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Murphy, John

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Newnes, Sir George

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Sealc-

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

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

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wallace, Robert

  Holland, William Henry

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

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Warner, Thomas Courtney T.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Dowd, John

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Malley, William

  White, Luke (York. E. R.)

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  O'Mara, James

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Kitson, Sir James

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Lambert, George

  Partington, Oswald

  Young, Samuel

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Perks, Robert William

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Levy, Maurice

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  TELLERS FOK THE NOES—

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Price, Robert John

  Mr. Lough and Dr. Macnamara.

  Lloyd-George, David

  Rea, Russell

  (8.21.) Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 226; Noes, 140. (Division List No. 54.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex, F.

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bull, William James

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Aird, Sir John

  Butcher, John George

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh 0.

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Chapman, Edward

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Charrington, Spencer

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r

  Balcarres, Lord

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Balfour. Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Fison, Frederick William

  Banes, Major George Edward

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Beach, Rt. Hn.SirMichael Hicks

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Flower, Ernest

  Bignold, Arthur

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

  Bigwood, James

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W

  Bill, Charles

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Gardner, Ernest

  Bond, Edward

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Garfit, William

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

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

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Gordon, Maj. Evans-(T'rH;mlets

  Brassey, Albert

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Gretton, John

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Rutherford, John

  Hain, Edward

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (D'mfriess'ire

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G(Midd'x

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Hamilton, Marq.of(L'nd'nderry

  Milvain, Thomas

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Scott. Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morgan, David J. (W'Ithamstow

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Spear, John Ward

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Helder, Augustus

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Stroyan, John

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Myers, William Henry

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Hughes, Colonel Edwin

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Keswick, William

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Knowles, Lees

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Purvis, Robert

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Randles, John S.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Lawson, John Grant

  Rankin, Sir James

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Wylie, Alexander

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Robinson, Brooke

  TEKLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kont)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Flynn, James Christopher

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

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Gilhooly, James

  Ambrose, Robert

  Crean, Eugene

  Grant, Corrie

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cremer, William Randal

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Cull nan, J.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Bell, Richard

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Black, Alexander William

  Alfred Davies, (Carmarthen)

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Blake, Edward

  Delany, William

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William

  Boland, John

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Dillon, John

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Brunner. Sir John Tomlinson

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

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

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Dunn, Sir William

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Burns, John

  Edwards, Frank

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Emmott, Alfred

  Joyce, Michael

  Caine, William Sproston

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Caldwell, James

  Fenwick, Charles

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lambert, George

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Field, William

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  264

  265

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

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

  Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R. (Northants

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Sullivan, Donal

  Levy, Maurice

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Thomas Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Lloyd-George, David

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lough, Thomas

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Lundon, W.

  O'Dowd, John

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Thomson, F. W. (York. W. R.)

  M'Crae, George

  O'Malley, William

  Tomkinson, James

  M'Govern, T.

  O'Mara, James

  Trevelan, Charles Philips

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wallace, Robert

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Partington, Oswald

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Perks, Robert William

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Mooney, John J.

  Price, Robert John

  Weir, James Galloway

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Rea, Russell

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Reddy, M.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John (M'ntrose

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

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

  Murnaghan, George

  Runciman, Walter

  Young, Samuel

  Murphy, John

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Newnes, Sir George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. M'Arthur.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Bill read a second time (8.33.)

  MR. WALTER LONG: There seems to be some little doubt in the minds of Gentlemen on both sides of the House as to the reasons which have led the Government to suggest that this Bill, under the somewhat peculiar procedure which governs a Bill which is both a private and a public Bill, should be sent to a Joint Committee, The procedure governing a Bill of this kind is peculiar. It has to be considered as a private Bill upstairs and as a public Bill downstairs. The interests concerned in this measure are not only large but numerous, and it is probable that the statement made on their behalf would take a considerable time before any Committee of the House of Commons or of the House of Lords. The two considerations which have been foremost in the mind of the Government in selecting a Joint Committee have been, firstly, economy of time, and secondly, economy of money. If this Bill were to be considered in the ordinary way as a private Bill by a Committee upstairs, then come back to be considered by a Committee of the Whole House, and pass through the report stage and Third Reading, and if it were then to go to the House of Lords and go through the same procedure there, it is obvious that very considerable time would be occupied. To those Members who, like some on the
  266
  opposite side, honestly dislike the Bill, that result is one which they would view probably with equanimity, but undoubtedly it would load to the defeat of the Bill, for I do not think it will be possible for the measure to pass through the procedure I have mentioned within the compass of an ordinary session. It would be, at all events, a risky proceeding. But in addition to that there is the question of cost. A great deal has been said on the other side as to the ultimate effect on the ratepayers of the Bill, but it is perfectly certain that if we are to have a bitterly conducted conflict before a Select Committee of this House and also before a Select Committee of the House of Lords, the costs must be practically doubled. The same fight would be fought over again after being decided here in the House of Lords, and consequently it became the duty of the Government to see whether there was not some other procedure of Parliament adequate for the purpose which would avoid both the risk of wasting time and the risk of undue expense, and to accomplish this the course we have selected is to have a Joint Committee.
  Many precedents might be cited for the course suggested by the Government. In 1873 all railway and canal Bills containing powers of transfer and amalgamation were referred to a Joint Committee. In 1900 the same course was followed with the Dublin

  267
  Corporation Bill, which was an extremely contentious measure. That Bill was referred by general approval to a Joint Committee of both Houses. There is also the procedure, now well established, under the Scottish Private Bill Procedure Act. Under that procedure, a Scottish Bill is referred to a Joint Committee, not of both Houses, but to a specially constituted tribunal, and there is only one hearing. There can, as far as I know, be only one argument advanced against this proposal, and that is that the decision of the Committee of the Commons may be reversed on appeal by the Lords. That is the view which I understand is taken by my hon. friend who represents the water companies, who thinks that the decision of the House of Commons might be adverse to the companies' interest, and the decision of the House of Lords might be of the different kind, and therefore they ought to have an opportunity of appealing from one to the other. But in answer to this I would point out that while with an ordinary private Bill the only chance of appeal is from the Select Committee of the one House to that of the other, in this case there is an opportunity of revision of the decision of the Select Committee by the Committee of the Whole House in either Chamber. For my part, as a Minister specially connected with Private Bill legislation, this is the kind of procedure which I would not hesitate to recommend in regard to all Private Bill business. If we could consolidate our Private Bill business by referring it to a Joint Committee of both Houses we could save the enormous delay and cost of a double inquiry before both Houses, where we should only get the same evidence, the same counsel, and the same speeches, and differing only in the fact that in one case there are five commoners considering the matter, and in the other five peers. In this case the Government think full justice will be done by having a strong Joint Committee composed of five Members of the Upper House and five Members of the Lower House. A question has been put to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth, in regard to the chairmanship of the Committee. It did not occur to me at the time that probably there might
  268
  be some idea prevalent in the minds of hon. Gentlemen that the position of Chairman of the Committee should be filled by myself as being the Cabinet Minister in charge of the Bill. So far from making any claim of that kind, I should strongly dissent from any suggestion that I should be Chairman of the Committee. I should, however, be prepared to serve on it if selected by the Committee of Selection, but I should ask that somebody should be selected as Chairman, who would not be likely to be so partial as I should be towards the Bill. For these reasons I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient that the Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons, and that a message be sent to the Lords to acquaint them therewith."—(Mr. Walter Long.)
  MR. LOUGH: Is the number absolutely restricted to five?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar): There is one remark which fell from the right hon. Gentleman with which I entirely concur, and it is that if we were considering the new procedure in reference to Private Bills I think there is a great deal of force in the contention that a large number of the Bills which come before the Private Bills Committee, and then go through the same ordeal in the Upper House would be very much better dealt with in this way by a Joint Committee of both Houses. Obviously, in a very great number of cases, the point is really a small one, and the expense of going to two Committees is overwhelmingly large in regard to a very great number of these Bills. I think, however, that this is one of the cases in which this particular tribunal and the particular proposals of the right hon. Gentlemen are not adapted to the circumstances of the case. He said that some who opposed this might oppose it in order to destroy the Bill.
  MR. WALTER LONG: No, no. If I did I did not intend to say anything of the kind.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: At all events I would say myself in regard to this matter that my wish is not to destroy the Bill. What we desire is publicity in regard to this matter, which is a most complicated one, involving very large interests. We desire that all the persons interested should be able to place their views at full length before a Committee of the House of Commons, and subsequently before a Committee of the House of Lords. Although I quite agree that there is a great deal of force in what the right hon. Gentleman said in regard to expense and time, it does seem to me in regard to this matter that it would be better for the public interest that the Bill should go before two distinct and separate tribunals. We shall have this advantage if it is sent to an ordinary Committee that evidence and counsel will be heard, and they will be able to bring their arguments to bear in regard to the Bill, and to point out where if possible certain parts of the measure ought to be amended or changed in some way or another. The House of Commons when it goes into Committee on the Bill would therefore be in a better position to deal with the details of the proposals. I think the right hon. Gentleman has practically promised us that to a very large extent he will allow this Bill to he considered as an open question. We have had that promise from his subordinate in the matter of finance, and I did not understand that he took up a positive attitude in regard, for instance, to the question of the number and composition of the authority.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am sorry that there should be any misunderstanding on this matter. I thought I was perfectly clear in what I said. I am quite willing, arid I do not think the Government would resist any proposal, that the Committee should consider in the freest possible manner the numbers of the governing body, the financial questions, or the special reference in either the arbitration clause or the purchase clause; but to the main principles on which the Bill is founded obviously the Government must adhere, and if the Committee were to break through those the Government would drop the Bill.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman thought I was
  270
  misrepresenting him. Although he maintains the main principles of the Bill, he is not going to make it one of those inspired Bills in which no word can possibly be amended. His argument is that the Bill should first go through the Hybrid Committee upstairs, that they should make alterations in the Bill, and that it should then come to this House. I hope, and I believe from what I know of the right hon. Gentleman, that he will not be deaf to the arguments from the other side of the House. These are likely, I think, to lead to some Amendments in the Bill during its passage through Committee of this House. It is obvious that the Bill would not go out in the same condition as it came to this House, and it would be a great advantage, therefore, if after passing through Committee of this House it should go again to a Committee of the House of Lords. They would be able to enter into the different points. The result would be that there would be two inquiries, and that process would throw more light on the matter. I make this appeal all the more strongly, inasmuch as we have had a debate on Thursday and this evening, and I think there is no doubt that on the right hon. Gentleman's own side of the House there are a good many Members who desire to speak not exactly in favour of the proposals put forward. We hope, therefore, that these hon. Gentlemen will have an opportunity of being heard in Committee. I think we can perfectly well assume that there will be some alterations made when the Bill is going through Committee. This Bill has been placed before the House and the Metropolis as the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman. It has been placed before the different governing bodies without, as I ventured to say the other day, any official communication. We want to give every opportunity to the bodies concerned of being heard in regard to this matter, and especially that the County Council should be heard. They have never in all these years, when this question has been discussed, had a real proper opportunity of stating their case to a Committee of this House. If they are afforded this opportunity, I believe they will be able to show that many parts of the Bill not hold water at all. The right hon. Gentleman said one object of the

  271
  proposal was to save expense. As I have already said, that is a good sound argument in regard to Bills of a minor description, but I confess I do not think it is one which ought to affect the question we have before us now. It is a matter so large and which affects so much the future water supply of London and the interests of consumers, ratepayers, and shareholders, that I do not think the question of a few hundred pounds more or less, which may be paid to counsel, should affect the question at all of the double tribunal. What we want is more light on the matter, and, therefore, two inquiries are likely to be better than one. Assuming that this Bill goes before a Joint Committee, counsel, of course, will appear. It was stated to me, but I do not credit it, that evidence will not be allowed on behalf of the different bodies interested; for instance, on behalf of the London County Council, and that the Committee will merely hear the addresses of counsel. It is very important that those who oppose the Bill in regard to certain parts, and more especially the London County Council and the outside authorities, should have the fullest opportunity of stating their ease, not only through counsel, but that they should be able to give evidence themselves. I want to ask, with respect to the terms of reference, whether the arguments of counsel on behalf of those interested will be fully allowed. I hope the right hon. Gentleman. will consider this matter from the point of view I have put before him. So far as I can see the arguments are in favour of the double inquiry rather than the Joint Committee which he is proposing.
  MR. BOULNOIS: My right hon. friend has alluded to me as representing the water companies. In regard to the question of this Committee, I should like to say that I do strongly urge that my right hon. friend should reconsider his decision. In the first place, I must say at once that I entirely dissociate myself from the idea that because I object to a Joint Committee and prefer an ordinary Committee I do it with any desire to wreck the Bill. It is far from my intention, especially in view of the concessions which have been made this
  272
  evening by my right hon. friend. [An HON. MEMBER: What concessions?] Well, the explanations. I think the proposal is unconstitutional. This is described as a private Bill, but it is a public Bill. It has been brought in as a public Bill. I believe that all precedents quoted by my right hon. friend were in connection with private Bills which have been brought into this House. I cannot speak with any authority, and I may be corrected, but I think I am right in saying that no public Bill of such importance, no public Bill at all events of a highly contentious nature, which has been brought into this House, has ever before been referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses after the Second Reading only in this Chamber. It is practically pledging the other House to a Bill which has never been before them. One may say that the House of Lords has practically no legal cognisance of the Bill which some of the Members of that House would have to revise in Committee. On that ground I think it is unconstitutional. My right hon. friend said that I stated in the speech I made on the Second Reading of the Bill on Thursday last that I apprehended that the companies might be prejudiced by their not having the right of appeal which all persons who are expropriated have to the second Chamber. I think that is extremely important. There are a vast number and variety of matters of detail which will be brought before the Committee by counsel and attested by witness, and it is advisable, at all events it has been considered advisable hitherto, that where errors are made by a Committee of this House corrections should be made by the House of Lords. I think this proposal is denying to those persons whose property has been taken, what I may call their right of appeal to the Second Chamber. It is a matter of supreme importance, and although I should have, of course, great confidence in such a Committee as my right hon. friend describes, I cannot help feeling that the ordinary custom and the established usage of this House should not be departed from, and that a Bill of such enormous magnitude, involving interests which are an unknown quantity, should be dealt with in the same way as other Bills. This Bill should go before a Committee, first, of this House, and, secondly, a Committee of the Upper House. I do

  273
  not care, personally, whether it is an ordinary Committee of four of this House such as Bills have to go before, or a strong Committee, selected by the Committee of Selection, of seven or nine Members, but I hope the ordinary custom will not be departed from, and that this Bill will be decided as other Bills have been.
  M R. LOUGHsaid that looking at this question from an entirely different point of view, he arrived at the same conclusion as the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. He heartily appreciated the candour with which the right hon. Gentleman stuck to the Bill; he had not even tried to admit that he had made any concession. The Government intended to get through this Bill, if possible, and the right hon. Gentleman had told the House that that was the reason he had made the proposal for a Joint Committee. That candid statement ought to make the House pause before adopting a suggestion which had been supported by very weak arguments. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he was going to give the House precedents for the course he was adopting, but the case of 1873 was not an exact precedent at all. Then the right hon. Gentleman got over the next thirty years with a bound, arid mentioned the case of the Scottish Private Procedure Bill. But, again, that was no precedent for this extraordinary proposal. Then the next point the right hon. Gentleman brought forward was that the question of cost was in the way. There never was a case in which the question of cost was of less importance than on the present occasion. The transaction involved in this Bill would cause the expenditure of £35,000,000 or £40,000,000 sterling, and in a huge transaction like that, what did it matter whether there were 'two inquiries or one? He was entirely with the hon. Gentleman who said that this was not a case in which to depart from the usual practice. In connection with private Bill procedure lie was not one to say anything against the House of Lords. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] He was as ready to do justice to the House of Lords as anyone else. When the Conservatives were in power their behaviour was correct; it was only when the Liberals were in power that the action of the House of Lords could be
  274
  questioned. He would mention a precedent relating to this question touching London, in which huge financial interests were involved. A Bill was brought by a great Gas Company. They made the same protests, but they were of no use, and the Bill romped through this House, but in the House of Lords the Bill was defeated. Then what happened? The same Bill was brought into this House in the next session, but the same hon. Gentleman who had supported it in the previous session now opposed it, and the Bill was defeated, and they had never heard of it again. That was a most remarkable instance. Tins Bill bristled with great constitutional points, and they had a right to claim that the usual course of Parliamentary procedure should not be abridged, or departed from. He was paying a compliment to the House of Lords and defending it from hon. Gentlemen opposite. He wanted a House of Commons Committee, and he wanted a House of Lords Committee as well. The House of Lords would not be influenced by the emotions which swept over tins House after the last general election, but would look at the matter from a high constitutional point of view. There was another point. Few amongst the people of London understood this Bill yet. He had been astonished to find that members of the Borough Councils had not given this Bill any attention, because they did not understand it. If the procedure were shortened, they would only have half a chance of understanding the nature of the proposals that were being thrust upon them. He urged, therefore, that they should proceed in the usual way, and send the Bill to a Committee of this House, where it could be thoroughly discussed, and then send it to a Committee of the House of Lords. The only serious argument of the right hon. Gentleman against this proposal was, that there might not be time. But he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that this was only the 3rd of March, and there was no reason why it should not be through this House on the 3rd of May, and then there would be three months for its consideration by the House of Lords.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that this Bill will be through a Select Committee upstairs, and afterwards through the Report stage by the 3rd of May? I only ask for information.
  MR. LOUGH: Oh, yes, if we are hustled along at this rate.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is not in order in discussing the action of the House.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg pardon; I did not mean to reflect on the action of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman devoted himself to the subsequent stages of the Bill in the same hearty fashion as hitherto, he did not see how it would not be through in two months. He heartily supported the Motion that the usual course should be pursued, and that the Bill should be sent to the Select Committee upstairs.
  MR. COHENsaid they all accepted the declaration of hon. Gentlemen opposite that they did not desire to wreck the Bill; but everybody must see that their resistance to that procedure which alone could secure the passing of the Bill and their insistence on the unique procedure of two Select Committees, must be attended, if not with fatal results, at least by detracting from the value of the Bill. His hon. friend was unfortunate in referring to the history of the Gas Bill which had passed through this Rouse and had been rejected by the House of Lords. Like the hon. Member, he had been a member of that Committee, but the House of Commons had not the Report and recommendations of the Committee before them when the Bill was sent up to the House of Lords, which had the advantage of having the Committee's report and recommendations before them, and they naturally adopted the course which, he believed, the House of Commons would have adopted if they had been in possession of all the documents. The precedent, therefore, had no value or validity at all. The hon. Member for Poplar asked that the evidence of the London County Council should be heard in the Committee up-
  276
  stairs. Now, he had had the advantage of being a member of the London County Council for twelve years, and had never said a disrespectful word against that body or depreciated its work in any way; and although he had ceased since March last to be a member, he had been favoured with a great deal of printed matter prepared by the London County Council and its members on this Bill, and he did not think that his hon. friend opposite would contradict him when he said that the evidence and opinions of the London County Council had been brought more than once ipsissimae verbae before hon. Members. He was therefore quite convinced that the London County Council even without a locus standi before the Joint Committee, need not fear that their views and opinions would be concealed. It was not possible to conceal them. Anybody who knew, as he did, the handwriting had very easily recognised these opinions in the speeches they had just had the advantage of listening to. He was not saying that by way of reflection on the London County Council or on his hon. friends who availed themselves of the information which had been furnished to them. He did not think there would be any difficulty in anybody being heard or in making their arguments felt in the Joint Committee proposed to be constituted. His hon. friend wanted the Bill to be submitted to the House of Lords in consequence of alterations which might be made in this House. But was it not the fact that after the Bill had passed this House and had gone through Committee, it would have to go through the same procedure in the House of Lords, and would be subject to the same critical examination as it had gone through here? When his hon. friend avowed that his desire was to alter the Bill and not to wreck it, he could not see why he should resist the adoption of the procedure which alone could ensure its passage through Parliament this session. Criticisms on points of detail should be reserve d to Committee stage. He would not now refer to them, because that would be out of order, but he would say that, as there was this principle set up in the Bill, Members should apply themselves like business men in a businesslike way without Party spirit and try and make this Bill art equitable settlement of this long vexed question.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I must say there is something in the proposal of the Government to send this Bill to a Joint Committee, when one considers the desirability of passing the Bill in any altered form. As the right hon. Gentleman suggests, it is an economy of time and an economy of money to allow the views on this Bill to be expressed before one Committee. But I would suggest to the President of the Local Government Board that probably he might modify the views he expressed to the House. If he increased the number of Members from the House of Commons and the House of Lords on that Committee from five to seven, I think that would meet with acceptance where otherwise it might be opposed. I can only say that if he will do that I think it will give satisfaction to all sides of the House. There is another thing I wish to ask, and that is, whether all the authorities who have given notice as having some right to come before the Joint Committee, will have the power, and I hope they will, to give evidence and state their case before this peculiar tribunal. We have not had it definitely stated. Of course I know the London County Council wants a lot of keeping out when it takes up a question. It is built that way. It generally tries to get the views of the ratepayers expressed, whether it has a locus or not. I do not object, and I do not think the Government ought to object, to anybody giving their views on this matter. Am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman representing the Local Government Board that the procedure is that the Bill will go to this Joint Committee, and then to a Committee of each House, and that then there will be a Report stage, and then the Third Reading, and do I gather that the various authorities would have a right to be fully heard?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON, Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk): That will be a matter for the Committee.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: If that be so, that considerably reduces my opposition to the Government proposal; but the Government must not forget that there are very few precedents for this novel and exceptional course. You are taking a Bill, to some extent a Private Bill, but
  278
  in the main a Public Bill, and sending it to a Joint Committee. There are some kinds of things which the House of Lords is competent to deal with, and with regard to which it is a fair tribunal, but if we are to have this proposal used as a precedent for other matters, it is a course we shall have seriously to consider, because whether the Government likes it or not, when you have a Joint Committee of five Members from this House and five from the House of Lords, you start with a permanent makeweight of Toryism and vested interest in property. That cannot be denied. The House of Lords is not susceptible to the same influences as the House of Commons, and, when you are setting up a Joint Committee to inquire into matters proposed in Private Bills, that raises, more or less, political issues. You are giving that Committee a permanent makeweight of vested interests in property which attaches more peculiarly to the House of Lords than to the House of Commons. But I trust that the criticisms that have been directed from this side of the House against this novel and exceptional proposal will enable the Government to see their way to increase the size of the Committee and make it more satisfactory. There is one thing more than anything else that makes me more satisfied with the proposals, of the Government than I otherwise should be, and that is that the water directors in this House look on these proposals as dangerous to their interests. That draws me towards these proposals, and when I find they are opposed by the water directors I support them. Speaking generally, whatever the Water Companies are in favour of I am against. And, as the Government in their proposals appear to be against the companies, I earnestly support them.
  MR. BOUSFIELDsaid time, of course, was of paramount importance in regard to this Bill. It would be a public misfortune if now this question was raised it should not be settled, but at the same time, if it was necessary in the interest of fairness and justice that it should go through two Committees, the matter of time might perhaps be allowed to fall in the background. When, however, it was considered that this Bill

  279
  would have to go through all the stages of a public Bill, and a Joint Committee as an additional stage super-imposed on the others, there was no doubt the question would be thoroughly settled. A Joint Committee was appointed not for discussion, but for taking evidence and doing that which it was inconvenient for the House itself to do in a Committee of the Whole House, but if the evidence had been taken once why was it necessary to take it again? It had already been given once and could be cited in this House. He was, however, of opinion that if it were of paramount importance that the Bill should be passed this session, and dealt with finally, it was desirable that the course proposed by the Government should be adopted.
  MR. SIDNEY BUXTON: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether evidence can be given before the Joint Committee?
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: Evidence can certainly be given before the Joint Committee.
  MR. DILLONsaid he took part in the debate not so much from his knowing anything of the water supply of London, except that it was common knowledge it had the worst water supply in the whole world; he simply rose for the purpose of protesting against the practice of referring Public Bills to a Joint Committee of the two Houses. The reasons for referring Private Bills to a Joint Committee were much stronger than those brought forward in public measures. In a Private Bill there was the grave consideration of expense. That was the reason why the great Irish Railway Amalgamation was referred to a Joint Committee. He thought it would be a great misfortune if a procedure were to be set up which, no matter what the composition of the House might be in future, in regard to private Bills would permanently set up a majority of the Tory Party by means of these Joint Committees. He could not imagine what could be said in favour of referring public Bills to such a tribunal. He had al ways understood until now that there was no precedent, but he believed the President of the Local Government Board had quoted one. He never recollected in his experience a public Bill being referred to a Joint
  280
  Committee, and he thought it was particularly unfortunate that the present Bill should be referred to such a body. He should not have dreamed of intervening in the discussion except for the fact that a precedent was being set up. This was one of those occasions that marked the epoch of a new departure in proceedure, and the same argument would be used in the case of every other great Bill connected with vested interests. He was not familiar with the proceedings of Joint Committees, but he understood it was almost precisely that of a Select Committee. They could alter a Bill or they could make recommendations to the House, and then when the Bill came down from that Committee, with the weight of the opinion of the Committee behind it, it was idle to say that the House could come to an opinion upon it with the same freedom as if the Committee had not sat. Therefore a Joint Committee had great power, which not only affected its own procedure on a Bill, but had the power of affecting the decision of a Committee of the Whole House. He thought, therefore, that it was a most retrograde step to establish, as a principle of the practice of the House, that Committees considering Bills of this great nature were to have a permanent majority of Conservatives in their ranks. On that ground he opposed the proposal of the Government, and as an Amendment proposed to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid.)seconded the Amendment. He said he should not have intervened but for the fact that this made a new departure. Reference had been made to Scotch procedure, but if the hon. Gentleman had looked at the Scottish Act Bill he would have seen that its title was "Private Bill Procedure Act," and that it was in regard to Private Bill legislation alone. The origin of that was that having regard to the local inquiry having been held in Scotland, it was felt that when the Bill came up here a Joint Committee was all that was needed. That was not the ease of a public Bill at all. The argument had been used of the saving of time and expense, because the same witnesses and counsel were employed and the Bill then went through two Committees, but that

  281
  did not apply to all Private Bills. That argument, if it were an argument at all, would only be an argument for altering Private Bill legislation. That might be a very good thing, because the object of the procedure of the House lately was to cut down the opportunity of discussing Bills in this House. The other precedent referred to was that of the Irish Railway Amalgamation Bill and the Dublin Corporation Bill, both of which were private Bills, and in the case of the latter, there was good reason for having it heard by a Joint Committee, because it had been discussed for twenty or thirty days in the previous session by a Committee of the House, which had passed it, and a Committee of the House of Lords, which had thrown it out, and it was thought better, instead of doing it all over again, to have a Joint Committee, and eventually a compromise was effected, and the Bill passed through the House. The House Was in this position; there was no precedent for sending a great Bill like this to a Joint Committee at this stage. The constitutional position was that the House should give its unbiased verdict through its own Committee and come to its own judgment, and that the House of Lords should begin anew and go through all the stages of the Bill and have the whole matter tested again. If it had been through the ordeal of both Houses, there would be some ground for believing the legislation had been well considered. That was the principle on which our constitutional procedure was based. Now it was desired to introduce a new element, and the only argument for doing away with the constitutional practice was that it would save time and money. There were a great many Rules of the House to ensure protection against Bills going through Parliament without being thoroughly sifted. There had been no case made out to remit this matter to a Joint Committee, and he could not see any sense in the suggestion in the hon. Member for Battersea's suggestion to increase the number to seven. The only result would be to have two Members of the House of Lords—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question of the number of the Committee does not arise on this Motion. That point will have to be the subject matter of a subsequent Motion.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he accepted the ruling of the Chair. The effect of having a Joint Committee would be that the Committee would be chosen in such a way that a portion of the Committee must represent the greater number on the Conservative side of the House. If they remitted the Bill to a Committee presented as nearly as might be the Parties which was a reflex of this House and re-and interests in this House, that was one thing, but if they introduced another and distinct element it was quite another. The great magnitude and importance of this Bill was a reason why it should not go to a Joint Committee. This matter had been going on for ten years, and supposing it were not settled in this particular year, progress could be reported in such a way that a better settlement could be taken next time. It was not in its first year that a good Bill was obtained; on the contrary, if a discussion was taken upon it, and the Bill came forward in the following year, it was generally found to be improved, and many obnoxious clauses had been removed, That was the object of debate. He begged to second the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'the Bill be committed to a Select Comnaittee.'"—(Mr.Dillon.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. WALTER LONG: I hope the House will not accept the Amendment of hon. Member for East Mayo, and certainly not be guided by the argument addressed to it by the hon. Member for Mid. Lanark. While I anticipated many strange results from this Water Bill, I hardly expected to hear hon. Gentlemen opposite descanting with great eloquence on the merits of the House of Lords. I cannot regret that my proposal to refer the Bill has evoked declarations from the other side, of which the Conservative party will take note for future use. The hon. Member opposite said there was no precedent in the case of the Scottish Private Bill Procedure Act, because in that case the Joint Committee procedure was confined to a private Bill.

  283
  But this is a private Bill, save and except that it is brought in by the Government. This Bill deals with private property, but it is introduced by the Government. It is therefore subject to Private Bill procedure and to Public Bill procedure. What is the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman opposite? We are told that the matter of expense is nothing. We heard a great deal about expense in the debate before dinner; hon. Members were then very full of the cost to the ratepayers, but now it is a mere matter of a few hundreds more or less. Hon. Gentlemen ignore the fact that there are a great many local authorities and, it may be, private individuals affected by this Bill, whose case will have to be heard, and who will have to pay their own costs. Hon. Members opposite are very anxious that they should pay twice over by having two hearings. ["No."] Certainly they are. If they do not wish that, they have no right to press their arguments one inch further. If they do not mean that, their arguments are dishonest arguments. The only way in which the double expense, caused by the double hearing, can be avoided, is by accepting the proposal of the Government. The suggestion that this course is unconstitutional is ridiculous in these days. Why should it be unconstitutional to ask a Joint Committee to hear this question in order that the evidence of and the counsel representing the various parties concerned should be heard before one tribunal? The case has to be heard in both Houses whatever happens; the Bill will have to go through Committee, Report stage, and Third Reading stage, in both Houses, but as it is a Bill affecting the rights of private owners, those private owners have the constitutional right and privilege of presenting their case before a Committee of Parliament through counsel and supported by evidence.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Without discharging what, in regard to Private Bills, is their duty—that of lodging a petition?
  MR. WALTER LONG: Certainly not. There must be proper notice, and petitions will have to be presented in the ordinary way. The ordinary procedure will be followed.
  284
  The only difference the Government suggest is, that in this case, instead of evidence being given twice, instead of counsel having to present their case twice, instead of the expenditure of time and money having to be incurred twice over, one hearing by a Committee composed of Members of the two Houses should serve instead of two hearings, one by Committee of each House. This House will hear the case in Committee afterwards, and the other House will do the same when the Bill has passed through this House. All that we suggest is that instead of a Committee of this House hearing the evidence first, and this House then dealing with the Bill, and then a Committee of the House of Lords hearing the evidence, a Joint Committee should hear the evidence of the individuals and corporations concerned, by which means both time and money will be saved. The hon. Member for West Islington said I had made a frank avowal, that I had admitted that if this policy were not adopted the Bill could not be carried. I do not think I made any admission of the kind. But I told the House, as I felt bound to do, that if the Bill had to go before a Select Committee of this House and also a Select Committee of the House of Lords, and all the subsequent procedure, its passage would be seriously imperilled. Nobody who is honestly desirous of seeing the Bill pass into law can possibly object to the proposal the Government has made. The argument that the strength of the Opposition will be weakened on such a tribunal will not hold water for a moment. The position of the Opposition, whether in the House of Lords or in the House of Commons, upon a Joint Committee is the same. The selection will be made in the usual way, and I think hon. Gentlemen will agree that a Joint Committee as a rule is an impartial tribunal, not governed in any way by party or partisan views, but which hears the evidence and decides upon the issue. That is all we ask—that a tribunal should be appointed to hear the evidence, to hear counsel, and to decide upon the issue, and thus settle in one hearing a case which otherwise would have to be heard twice. I hope the House, in the interests of economy, in the interests of the ratepayers, and in the interests of the discharge of business, will reject the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Mayo.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I have listened with some surprise to the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman. Either this is a Public Bill or it is a Private Bill. Anyone who has studied our Parliamentary procedure at all, knows that there is a vital difference between the two classes of measures. The right hon. Gentleman says this is a Private Bill. If he says that, and that alone, I venture to contradict him. This is a public Bill, and not only a public Bill, but a Government Bill. What I cannot understand is why, being a Public Bill brought in by the Government, it should not go through this House, if the Government can get it through', in the ordinary way. Why is it not allowed to go to a Committee of this House, or to the Standing Committee on Law, or to the Standing Committee on Trade, or to whatever other Committee of this I louse the Government might suggest I have not heard a single argument in favour of treating this Bill in a manner different from that of any other measure under the auspices of the Government.
  MR. WALTER LONG: It is nothing whatever to do with the Government; it is under the Rules which govern the procedure of the House of Commons. We have no power to deal with the Bill otherwise; we have no power to send the Bill to a Grand Committee.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: That is so, but it is still a Public Bill, and I have heard no reason whatsoever for depriving this Rouse, through this method of procedure, of having a detailed consideration of each clause in the measure.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: You will have that.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg your pardon. It is proposed to send the Bill to a Joint Committee first of all. Why should not the Bill proceed in the ordinary course?
  MR. WALTER LONG: Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to deal with the Bill either in a Committee of the House of Commons or in a Standing Committee upstairs, but unfortunately the Standing Orders of the House necessitate that a
  286
  Bill of this kind should go, first of all, to a Committee upstairs, Select, Joint, or Hybrid, and, after that, come back to a Committee of the Whole House. That is not the action of the Government, it is procedure of the House of Commons.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I should like the right hon. Gentleman to show me the Standing Order containing; the proposition he has just advanced. It may be so, but I do not think there is any Standing Order which, if a Bill is brought in, not under the procedure relating to private Bill legislation, but tinder the ordinary procedure relating to public Bill legislation, can possibly affect oar right to deal with this matter in the ordinary way.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The procedure is governed by the practice of the House of Commons, and the Rule is No. 226. Under that Rule, Private which are private in this respect, that they deal with private property, though they are introduced by the Government, and are therefore really Public Bills, are dealt with by reference, first of all, to a Select committee, in order that the persons affected may have their case presented by evidence and through counsel. Subsequently, such Bills have to go through Committee of the Whole House. If the hon. and learned Gentleman can show that we are wrong, and that we can dispense with a Committee of any kind, I should be delighted to withdraw my Motion and deal with this Bill in the ordinary way.
  Mr. BRYNMOR JONES: I think the Rule or Standing Order No. 226 comes in the second part of the Standing Orders —those relating to private Bill legislation; and if the right hon. Gentleman looks he will find—
  [A copy of the Standing Orders was handed to the hon. Member.]
  MR. SPEAKER: It will save time perhaps, if I say that there can be no doubt about the matter. When the Government bring in a Bill which proposes compulsorily to take private property, it brings it in as a Public Bill, but by the general practice of this House—practice of long standing—that Bill must go before a Select Committee,

  287
  or some other Committee such as is now proposed, in order that those private interests may be dealt with. Private interests there have the same opportunity of being heard as in the case of a Private Bill. After having been disposed of by that Committee, the Bill must come back to Committee of the Whole House just as if it had never gone to a Select Committee, and the procedure after that is the same as in regard to any other public Bill.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I do not contest your ruling, Sir, for a single moment. My argument is this: why have not the Government allowed this Bill to go before a Select Committee of this House? That is the ordinary way in which matters of this kind are dealt with. Why is this so exceptional? What ease have the Government made out for differential treatment in regard to this Bill? I will not longer occupy the time of the House; I have made my point. I have not heard a single word to justify this proposal. It is, however, a good argument for altering the whole of our procedure with regard to Private Bills, so that it should not be necessary to go to the expense of conducting cases before two Committees. But what I want to know is why this Bill of all others, one of the most important and affecting the greatest interests, is to be treated exceptionally by the Government? It is because it is a Government Bill, and one which they want to take every step possible to pass into law.
  MR. BLAKE: Although this Bill no doubt embraces those elements, which according to the practice of the House of Commons, require that it should be dealt with by means of a Select Committee for the protection of the private interests affected, it is yet properly a Public and a Government Bill. Why is it properly a Public and Government Bill? Because it is of such magnitude, concerning, as it does, the affairs of London the larger, concerning interests so enormous, so complex, and so varied, that, as is stated in the Text-book to which we refer on these matters, that it is a measure of great public policy rather than one of private interests. Private interests are involved and they have to be considered and guarded. And, indeed, the magnitude of
  288
  the measure is such that the pecuniary interests concerned are larger than those involved in the whole aggregate of the Private Bills before the House this session. That is the condition of the magnitude of the private interests. The condition as to magnitude of the measure in other respects is shown by the circumstance of its introduction. Large questions of public policy justify, nay, necessitate its introduction as a public Bill by the Government of the day. Now I have said that the pecuniary interests involved by this one measure are probably greater than the aggregate of those involved by all the Private Bills before the House this session. But what are we doing with reference to the suitors connected with all those other Bills, with their small interests and comparatively enormous costs of investigation and solicitation in the two Houses? Has the cry of the innumerable private suitors reached the ear of the Treasury Bench, and induced the Government to make any proposal for the mitigation of expense where that expense will be really felt, for lessening the expense in cases where the Committees will deal with the subjects on the principle to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, namely, that of fairness and of impartial regard for the private interests involved? No, that cry has not reached the Treasury Bench. Every one of those hundreds of Private Bills has to run the gauntlet of two Committees, with double sets of counsel, double sets of witnesses, and all the double expenses in regard to which the right hon. Gentleman weeps at that Table when he speaks of the Administrative County of London and the bloated corporations who are going to litigate in this case. If you were to ask me to give an example in which the cautious procedure of Parliament does not produce the sometimes over - balancing disadvantages involved in great and excessive expenditure, it would be the case before the House this evening. And the expense is to be widely distributed. It is to fall in infinitesimal individual shares on innumerable members of Corporations. No individual is hit hard. The double expense is as nothing in this case; it cannot be counted when compared with the £30,000,000 or £40,000,000 involved in this Bill. On the other hand, the interests, even private, are so enormous, that if any case would justify a double investigation, this one would. But it is

  289
  not so much because I desire a double investigation that I am opposed to the introduction of this precedent with reference to this great public Bill. It is because I wish this House to have that just weight of authority in the final decision of the question which it will not retain if it allows this important and preliminary investigation to be conducted by a Joint Committee equally representative of the two Houses, instead of being undertaken in the first instance by a Committee of its own, responsible to itself alone; announcing as far as the evidence before it justifies what the views of the popular body ought to be, the matter afterwards being discussed and decided for itself by the popular body, and then going to the House of Lords as so settled, with all the weight due to that settlement. You are proposing to surrender the just share of influence and authority of the popular and representative body of the nation in regard to the settlement of this question when you propose to remit it in the first instance to a Joint Committee of the two Houses, instead of taking care that the opinion of the House of Commons, unbiassed and uninfluenced by any view of the House of Lords, is expressed, and sent forward, as the settled view of the popular body, to the other and non-representative Chamber of the Legislature.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I find myself in some difficulty. I thought in the first instance the issue was fairly simple; a Select Committee on this side, or a Joint Committee on that. But from the speech of the hon. Member for Mid. Lanark, it appeared that a great constitutional change was involved, and, as a new Member, I shrink from that. I also gathered that it would create a great precedent. I do not know whether that is so or not, but, if it is, it is a precedent which will be hailed with the greatest satisfaction by those poor suitors on whose behalf my hon. and learned friend the Member for South Longford pleaded so eloquently. I came in to the debate in favour of a Select Committee of this House; perhaps that was because of my unregenerate prejudice against the other House. But I listened to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local
  290
  Government Board, and I listened to the hon. Member for Poplar, as they put their views before the House; I also listened to the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo on the constitutional aspect of the question; and I am bound to say, as a mere common sense person, that the weight of argument appears to be entirely on the side of the President of the Local Government Board. What is the position? The Bill is to go upstairs to a Joint Committee, and I understand that all interests are to be heard. That is an important point to me. The local authorities and private individuals interested are to be heard fully and completely. The measure is then to come back to this House and be dealt with in Committee. If I thought I were relinquishing that, I would go dead against the proposal, because there are certain matters of principle in regard to details in which I am closely concerned, and upon which as a private Member I should have a word or two to say. But I understand that that right is reserved in any case. Then, if there should be—and I gather from the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman there may be—changes made, there will be the Report stage and Third Reading. In the other House there will be Second Reading, participation in the Joint Committee, Committee stage, Report stage, and Third Reading. Really, I feel that in the interests of economy—I stood for the School Board, though a very strong Progressive, as a friend of the poor over-burdened ratepayer, and I appear in that capacity once more—and as a friend of the ratepayer, I am bound to say I think the proposal of the Government is the preferable one. I do not see that any constitutional issue is involved. As to time, I confess frankly, the Second Reading having been carried and the principle of the Bill thus adopted, I am not concerned to kill the measure. I think it requires modification in important details, but I do not wish to associate myself with any effort which may make it impossible to carry the Bill in an improved form, as I hope it will be before the session ends. I shall therefore find it impossible to vote for the Amendment, which I think is certainly not in the interests of economy or of the business-like conduct of the remaining stages of the Bill.
  (10.40.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 193; Noes, 120. (Division List No. 55).

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood,Capt.SirAlex.F.

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Flower, Ernest

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Foster, Sir M. (Load. Univ.

  Morton,ArthurH A (Deptford)

  Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gardner, Ernest

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Garfit, William

  Murray. Col. Wyndham(Bath)

  Arnold-Foster, Hugh O.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Myers, William Henry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gordon,Hn.JE.(Elgin&Nairn)

  Gore, Hn. S.F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Balcarres, Lord

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Gretton, John

  Balfour,RtHnGeraldW. (Le'ds

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Parker, Gilbert

  Beach,Rt HnSir Michael Hicks

  Hain, Edward

  Peel, HnWm. Robert Wellesley

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hamilton, RtHnLordG(Mid'x.

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richd.

  Bigwood, James

  Hamilton, Marq.of(L'nd'nd'ry

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Bill, Charles

  Hanbury, Rt.Hon.RobertWm.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hardy, Laurence (K'nt,Ashf'rd

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bond, Edward

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Pryce-Jones,Lieut. -Col. Edwd.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Purvis, Robert

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Bowles,Capt.H.F. (Middlesex)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Randles, John S.

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

  Helder, Augustus

  Rankin, Sir James

  Brassey, Albert

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Bull, William James

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Butcher, John George

  Hope,J.F. (Sheffield,Br'ghts'de

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Ridley,RtHriM.W.(Stalyb'dge

  Cavendish,V. C. W. (Derbysh'e

  Hozier,Hon James HenryCecil

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Robinson, Brooke

  Chamberlain,J. Austen (W'rc'r

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Chapman, Edward

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Charrington, Spencer

  Kennaway,Rt.Hon.SirJohnH.

  Rothschild,Hon. Lionel Walter

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Keswick, William

  Round, James

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smith

  Rutherford, John

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Knowles, Lees

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Corbett, A.Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lawson, John Grant

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Seely,Maj. J. E. B. (Isleof Wight

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N.S.

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Dairymple, Sir Charles

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Smith, AbelH.(Hertford,East)

  Davies, Sir HoratioD(Chatham

  Long, RtHn.Walter(Bristol,S)

  Smith,H C.(North'mb.Tyn'sde

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Smith,JamesParker(Lanarks.)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lucas,Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

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

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Lucas,ReginaldJ. (Portsmouth

  Spear, John Ward

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Stewart,Sir MarkJ. M'Taggart

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Stroyan, John

  Doxford Sir William Theodore

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Maxwell,WJH (Dumfriesshire

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Durning Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants,W.)

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Fison, Frederick William

  Moore, William (Antrim,N.)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col Edward

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

  More, Robt. Jasper(Shropsh're

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Wylie, Alexander

  Wason,JohnCathcart(Orkney)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

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

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

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

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  NOES.

  Abraham, William(Cork,N.E.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Dowd, John

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Mally, William

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  O'Mara, James

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Harmsworth R. Leicester

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir ArthurD.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Bell, Richard

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Black, Alexander William

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

  Blake, Edward

  Holland, William Henry

  Rea, Russell

  Boland, John

  Joicey, Sir James

  Reddy, M.

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Jones, David Brynmor(Sw'nsea

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Brown, GeorgeM. (Edinburgh)

  Joyce, Michael

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Runciman, Walter

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Caldwell, James

  Lambert, George

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Layland-Barratt,Francis

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Leese, SirJoseph

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Condon. Thomas,Joseph

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Levy, Maurice

  Spencer,RtHn.C.R(Northants

  Crean, Eugene

  Lloyd-George, David

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Cremer, William Randall

  Lundon, W.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Cullinan,J

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  M'Crae, George

  Thomson, F. W. (York.W.R.)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Govern, T.

  Tomkinson, James

  Delany, William

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dewar, John A (Inverness-sh.)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Wallace, Robert

  Doogan, P. C.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Wason,Eugene(Clackmannan)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Morley, Rt. Hn.John(Montrose

  Weir, James Galloway

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Murnaghan, George

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Edwards, Frank

  Murphy, John

  Whiteley, George(York,W. R.)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Whitley, J. H(Halifax)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Fenwick, Charles

  Newnes, Sir George

  Wilson,FredW.(Norfolk,Mid.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Nolan, Col. JohnP. (Galway, N.)

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

  Field, William

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Woodhouse, SirJT (Huddersf'd

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid

  Young, Samuel

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Gilhooly, James

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

  TELLERS OF THE NOES—

  Gladstone,RtHn. HerbertJohn

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Mr. Dillon and Mr. Lough.

  Bill read a second time.

  Resolved, That it is expedient that the Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords arid Commons.
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.—(Mr. Walter Long.)

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES EXCESSES, 1900–1901.
£155 2s. 5d., Civil Services Excesses.
MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)said he should like to know something about this Vote.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.)said there was a small excess of £145 for Peterhead Harbour, due mainly to the payment of compensation to a workman who was injured. The excess of £3,465 for "Prisons, England and the Colonies" was due almost entirely to the higher price of coal. They were, therefore, asking the House to give them a total Vote of £10 in respect of that.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he did not understand why they should he asked to vote £10 and not the whole amount.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid it was quite unnecessary to do so. They were following the usual practice in putting the Vote in this form.
MR. LOUGHsaid he understood this was a small balance of arrears, but they did not know how much. He thought the Committee were entitled to know what proportion of the total amount the excess was.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member will find it on the face of the Vote.
MR. BLAKEobjected to the Vote being stated in this form. A small sum would be unpaid in order that Parliament might have an opportunity of discussing it. Sometimes the Committee was unable fully to examine the Votes, but in this case the Committee did fully examine it, and were able to report that the expenditure was justifiable.

ARMY EXCESSES, 1900–1901.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to make good Excesses of Army Expenditure beyond the Grants, for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1901."
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)said this Vote represented a portion of the excess of actual overestimated appropriations in aid for Army services for the year ended March 31st, 1901, which amounted to £1,588,736. Strictly speaking, however, the whole of that amount was involved in this Vote of £100 which the Committee was asked to pass. A note was attached explaining that the excess of gross expenditure was due mainly to unexpectedly heavy charges for transport, provisions, and stores owing to the prolongation of the war. This expenditure referred to a year ended almost a year ago, and it might have been expected that the accounts should be before the House by this time. The Public Accounts Committee had been given to understand that there had been great difficulty in obtaining full accounts, and they had allowed an Excess Estimate to be presented. All he wished to say was that he reserved his right when explanations were given to go into the fullest detail.
SIR ARTHUR HAYTERas Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, said that what had been stated by the hon. Member for Kings Lynn was correct. It was impossible for the Committee to go into these accounts now, as they had not been prepared by the War Office; but they should hate an opportunity of discussing them fully when the accounts came before the Public Accounts Committee. He asked hon. Gentleman not to take a premature discussion now, but to be satisfied that the Public Accounts Committee had allowed this Excess Vote.
MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)asked when the Excess Vote could come before a Committee of the House.
SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: On the Report of the Public Accounts Committee.
MR. DILLONsaid the Report of the Public Accounts Committee was always shunted. It was well known to every Member of the House that the Report of that Committee might as well be presented to the Chinese Government as to this House for all the benefit of discussion it received. In his humble opinion, if they passed this Vote that night they would absolutely lose all power of discussing this question at all. It was only in connection with a vote in Committee of Supply that they could discuss that Report. In plain language, the Vote, though nominally for £100, was a Bill of indemnity to justify the Government for having appropriated for the Army in South Africa a sum of £1,000,000 that was not granted for such a purpose for the year 1901. If the Committee were to pass the Vote now, they would have no opportunity of discussing it again. What was the nature of the urgency which compelled the bringing forward of this Excess Vote at the present time? He had observed with interest the other day when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was referring to the items in Supply which they would be obliged to pass before 31st March; he said that some of the Excess Votes were contentious; and yet the right hon. Gentleman expected the Committee to pass this Vote that night. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted this Vote he should explain to the Committee frankly why it was that he wanted this Vote passed before it had been examined by the Public Accounts Committee. As he understood this was not one of the Votes which the law required to be passed before 31st March; and he therefore suggested that it should be postponed until the Report of the Public Accounts Committee with respect to it was received.
MR. AYSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the hon. Gentleman was under some misapprehension as to what had actually taken place. The Public Accounts Committee had reported that in the circumstances they had no objection to the Vote being passed; but
298
they promised to go more into its details at a later stage, when they had fuller information about it. If the Committee of Supply acted upon the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee and passed the Vote, they would not lose any opportunity of thoroughly investigating all the matters arising out of it. There would be Votes for transport and storage, and upon those Votes, of course, the questions arising out of the Excess Vote could be discussed. The course proposed by the Government in regard to the Excess Vote had been followed many times in his recollection, notably in connection with the Cold Storage Contracts.
MR. DILLONsaid he did not at all agree that a discussion on the Excess Vote could be taken on a Vote providing for the expenditure of the coming year. No Chairman would allow the Committee to go into detail on an Excess Vote dealing with the year 1901, on Votes for 1902–3. The thing was absurd. He knew it was quite possible to refer in the course of a discussion on the Estimates to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, but it would not be possible to discuss previous Estimates in detail. The Estimate before the Committee was a very special case. An Excess Vote was generally a small matter, but he did not remember in the course of twenty years such an excess as they had to deal now with being introduced in a very innocent way as an excess of only £100. When they looked into it, they found it covered a sum of £932,000, which was the real matter they had to deal with, and it raised a subject of the most vital importance, which might fairly be discussed for a night, viz., the whole of the enormous question of the meat contract in South Africa in connection with the Cold Storage Company. The real object of the Vote was to justify the Government in what they had already done, namely, appropriating that sum of £932,000 to the expenses of the war in South Africa. The whole question of the extraordinary, and he would be even entitled to call them shady, and certainly complicated transactions which had taken place between the Cold Storage Company and the Government in South Africa were

299
involved in the Estimate, because part of the mystery surrounding the operations of the Cold Storage Company was the transactions by which captured stock was slaughtered by the Company and used in connection with their meat contract. He thought the Government ought to lay before the Committee some statement of the whole account between themselves and the Cold Storage Company in relation to the captured stock, and there ought to be some explanation as to the method by which the stock was valued and sold. Generally, the Committee ought to know what they were doing before they passed what was really a Bill of indemnity. As time went by the mystery deepened. Last year he ventured to point out that the Cold Storage Company had a contract for selling meat to the troops in South Africa at a price of 11d. per pound—
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): This Vote has not been considered, for the reasons which have been stated, by the Public Accounts Committee. They have not been able to have all the particulars and details before them which were necessary before they could properly deal with the matter. It is essential, I think, in these matters that the House, if possible, should have before it the Report of the Public Accounts Committee on a proposal of this kind, in order to enable them to know what it is that is proposed, and why it is proposed. The only reason for asking the Committee to vote this Excess Vote now is, I understand, a financial reason which has been considered to require it to be included in the Appropriation Bill to be passed before the close of the financial year. I do not feel absolutely certain that it is quite necessary that this should be done in this case. I will make further inquiry into the matter, and if it is necessary we shall have to submit the Vote to the House again, in order that the law may be complied with. But if it is not necessary, I think it would be better for every reason that the Vote should be postponed uutil the Committee on Public Accounts has examined and reported on it. For the moment I will withdraw the Vote.
MR. DALZIELsaid he should like to point out that that was one of the many occasions in which the country and the House owed a deep debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Kings Lynn, because if it were not for his interference, the Vote would have been passed without one word of discussion. He hoped the hon. Member's constituents would note the fact.
MR. BLAKEsaid he acknowledged the fair spirit which animated the right hon. Gentleman, and he merely wished to suggest that, if the necessities of the law required the Vote to be passed, the right hon. Gentleman should give a pledge that, upon the Report of the Public Accounts Committee being made, some opportunity should be afforded for discussing the question. Notwithstanding the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury, he feared that hon. Members would have no opportunity of discussing the matter against the will of the Government if the Vote were now allowed to pass.
MR. WHITLEYsaid he hoped that hon. Members would have ample time for the discussion of the Vote when next it was brought before the Committee. The Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, apart altogether from the Public Accounts Committee, was quite sufficient to provide a whole night's discussion. There were many items m that Report which every hon. Member who cared about economy ought to study. He would give only a single illustration.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: As the Vote is to be withdrawn, I would remind the hon. Member that we have other business to get through.
MR. WHITLEYsaid he merely wished to point out that there was a statement in the Report which seriously conflicted with what the Financial Secretary to the War Office had given the House to understand in reply to certain Questions during the session.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Resolution to be reported tomorrow; Committee to sit again tomorrow.
SUPPLY [24Th FEBRUARY]—REPORT.
Resolution reported.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1902–3.
"That 122,500 men and boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, including 19,805 Royal Marines."
SUPPLY [25TH FEBRUARY]—REPORT
Resolutions reported.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1902–3.
Wages, &c., of Officers, Seamen, Boys, Coast Guard, and Marines.
1. "That a sum, not exceeding £5,962,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expenses of wages, &c., to Officers, Seamen and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1903."

NAVY (SUPPLEMENTARY), 1901–2.
2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £200,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1902, for additional Expenditure on the following Navy Services, viz.:— £

Vote 8, Sec. 3. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c. — Contract Work

150,000

Vote 11. Miscellaneous Effective Services

50,000

Total

£200,000

FRESH WATER FISH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.)
MR. CALEDWELL: I am surprised that the Government should have introduced this Bill for Second Reading without any explanation. So far as the Bill is concerned it deals with a matter to which I hate no objection. It provides that—
"Between the fifteenth clay of October in any year and the twenty-eighth day of February in the year following, both inclusive, there shall be an annual close time for trout in Scotland, during which it shall not be lawful, except as herein-after specified, for any person to—

(a) fish for or take common trout (salmo fario) in any river, water, or loch in Scotland, by net, rod, line or otherwise; or

(b) have possession of common trout; or

(c) expose common trout for sale:

And any person who shall so fish for or take or possess or expose for sale such trout at any time within the said dates shall forfeit and pay a sum not exceeding five pounds for every such offence."
So far the Bill may be said to be a measure for the purpose of establishing a close time for trout in Scotland, which I believe is a very good provision. But here is a proviso which states that—
"In the case of any stew or artificial pond, or other water where trout are kept in captivity or artificially reared and fed, no owner, occupier, or lessee of any such stew, artificial pond, or other water, nor any person employed by such owner, occupier, or lessee, nor any person to whom such trout may be consigned for sale or otherwise by such owner, occupier, or lessee, or by any person employed by him, shall be liable to any penalty under this Act in respect of any trout obtained for the purposes of, or kept in, or sent from, such stew, artificial pond or other water."
It does seem to me that that is establishing a new principle. In the case for instance of wild birds we established a close time which applies to all the birds of a particular species. In this Bill, however, while you impose a penalty on any person, who during the

303
close time takes trout from any river, water, or loch in Scotland, persons who have artificial ponds may go into the open market and sell trout. How is anyone to know when a trout comes into the open market, whether it was or was not bred in an artificial pond? That is an artificial reservation, which I think is contrary to the intention of the Bill. The object of providing a close time is that animals may be protected during that time wherever they may be. Therefore the Solicitor General should say that he is prepared to make it illegal for anyone to expose trout for sale during the close time. I am perfectly with him as regards the principle of the Bill, but I object altogether to the reservation which is in the interests of one class of the community, namely, those who have artificial ponds, and who may utilise these ponds to sell fish during the close season, and thereby defeat the very object in view. The clause imposing penalties for destroying fish by dynamite is a very proper clause, and I think there will be no objection to it. If the Solicitor General can say that the Government will make a close time without any reservation then I for one, will not object to the Second Reading.
MR. SHAW STEWART (Renfrew-shire, E.): As one of the backers of this Bill when it was promoted by the right hon. Member for Wigtonshire, I snould like to say a few words in support of this measure. It is a Bill demanded not only by gentlemen who can afford to take fishings of their own, but by large classses of working men who are quite as much interested in sport as anyone. Angling, especially in Scotland, is a sport greatly affected by the working man, and it is because of the increasing difficulty for anybody, be he a working man or a millionare, to find trout in any size or in any number that the Bill has been brought in. Hitherto there has been no close time for trout, and it is obvious to anyone, whether he be conversant or not with angling, that if trout are allowed to be taken out of the water during the spawning season their number must diminish. I should like to say a word or two in reply to the hon. Member opposite
304
as to the clause which refers to trout in artificial ponds. Of course, the trout are kept for breeding purposes, and it is for the protection of those engaged in breeding trout that this proviso has been inserted. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no ulterior purpose. The clause is simply for the protection of those engaged in the laudable object of increasing the number of trout, and I do hope, speaking, as I can confidently assert I am, for a large number of working men throughout Scotland that the House will pass this Bill.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SCOTT DICK-SON, Glasgow, Bridgton): I am quite sure that this Bill represents the views of all those in Scotland who are interested in the sport of angling. The proviso which, I understand, is the only ground on which the hon. Member opposite objects to the Bill is one which ought, I submit, not to have any effect with the House, so far as the Second Reading is concerned. The question of a close time is one which excites a great deal of interest in Scotland, and the Government are most anxious to meet the wishes of those who desire to protect and promote trout fishing. I am quite convinced if the House sees its way to pass the Second Reading, that they will pass a measure which will meet with universal acceptance amongst all true anglers in Scotland. With reference to the second clause, to which the hon. Member has referred, the necessity for that clause has been brought about by a recent decision in the courts in Scotland. The law as to the use of dynamite in Scotland, so far as fishing is concerned, is found to be different from the law in England, and the clause is really to bring the law in Scotland on this matter into the same position as the law in England, in order that there should be no improper interference with, or destruction of fish by the use of dynamite or other explosives, contrary to the interests of true sport. The hon. Member did not raise any objection to that clause, and I

305
trust the House, in the interests of sport, and in the interests of the proper protection of fishing in Scotland, will allow the measure to get a Second Reading.
MR. BRYCE: Hon. Members are right in their belief that there is no country where fly fishing is more enjoyed by all classes of the people than in Scotland; and I believe, therefore, that this Bill will be generally acceptable, and that it will be felt to go a good way towards restoring to the lochs and streams of Scotland, what they have suffered in past times from improper fishing. I think the Bill deserves to pass, and I hope it will pass. The dynamite clause is eminently needed, and will be eminently useful. Everyone who enjoys angling must feel detestation at a barbarous practice, and one which produces such little result. As regards the objection of my hon. friend, I have no doubt that if he can show that the clause goes too far, the Solicitor General will be prepared to meet him.
MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: I desire to express the hope that this Bill will be allowed to pass its Second Reading tonight. As representing a constituency of working men in Glasgow, I have had several communications expressing the hope that this Bill will be passed into law. I wish, however, to draw attention to the clause alluded to by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I am of opinion that the hon. Gentleman has laid his finger on a blot in this Bill. It will be quite possible for persons in improper possession of trout in the close season to plead in their defence the clause referred to, and I hope the Solic tor General will make it perfectly plain that these ponds which are to be excluded are ponds exclusively for breeding purposes.
MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs): I agree there is undoubtedly a pretty fair amount of feeling in Scotland in favour of this Bill. It is
306
really the Bill brought forward years ago by the hon. Member for Wigtonshire. It is, however, a mistake to suppose that opinion amongst anglers is absolutely unanimous in favour of it. It is nothing of the kind. There is a unanimous desire that something should be done to get a close time for trout, but this Bill divides anglers into two classes, one of which the owners of estates can by spending a few pounds, at any point of the river make an artificial pond, and he cannot be prosecuted for fishing or selling trout during the close season. What does "other water" mean? It means that at any portion of the river the landlord is exempt, but that the poor man who cannot afford to pay for his fishing is liable to be punished and prosecuted. Under the Bill as it stands, "artificially reared" does not necessarily mean "kept in captivity." If you artificially rear fish in any portion of the river the proprietor of the river is exempt from the provisions of the Bill.
MR. SCOTT DICKSON: I can only say that that is not the intention of the Bill That, however, is a matter which can be made perfectly clear in Committee.
Mr. DALZIEL: That is exactly the point I wished to get. It must not be imagined that because we assent to the Second Reading of the Bill that anybody who has anything to say in Committee is an opponent of the measure. I have received at least half-a-dozen representations in reference to the particular clause to which I have referred, and unless the hon. Gentleman shows some disposition to alter the Bill when we reach Committee I shall certainly vote against the Third Reading. I hope now, however, that the Second Reading of the Bill may be allowed to be taken.
MR. O'MARA (Kilkenny, S.): Hon. Members opposite seem somewhat surprised that I should speak on a

307
Scotch Fisheries Bill. I have only two excuses to offer. One is that my besetting sin is fishing, and the other is that on an important Bill dealing with such an imperial question, it behoves even Irish Members to take part in the debate. An hon. Member of the other side said the Bill was for the benefit both of the working man and of the millionaire. It certainly is for the benefit of the owners of rivers who can afford to take a few months fishing, but the working man who has to take his holiday when he can get it would like to have the fishing available all the year round. It cannot be said, therefore, that the same benefit accrues to both classes. Still, as a fisherman, I am of opinion that a close-time for trout is essential to good sport. I feel that Scotland has for many years been at a disadvantage as compared with England or Ireland in that respect. I do not know when the law introducing a close-time in Ireland was passed, but it has been in existence for a number of years, and that the close-time has immensely improved trout fishing is common knowledge. While they are waiting for this Bill, I would recommend any ardent fisherman to go to the West of Ireland for their fishing; there is excellent sport to be found there. The hon. Member for Mid. Lanark has pointed out a defect in the Bill, in regard to which I should like an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that an Amendment will be made in Committee. Then, too, I think the Bill should apply to all the rivers in Scotland. Why is the Esk excepted from the Bill? I am glad everybody agrees that the use of dynamite to catch fish is an unsportsmanlike proceeding, and with these few remarks I will resume my seat.
MR. SCOTT DICKSONformally moved the reference of the Bill to the Standing Committee on Trade.
MR. CALDWELLsuggested that the Bill should be sent to the Grand Committee on Law. All such Bills had previously been sent to that Committee' and he would move that a similar course be taken now.
MR. SCOTT DICKSONpointed out that Bills relating to fishing were included in the reference to the Standing Committee on Trade, and the Motion was therefore in accordance with the letter of the Standing Order.
MR. O'MARAthought the Standing Order should be suspended, in order to allow the Bill to go to the Grand Committee on Law. It had nothing whatever to do with trade.
Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, &c.
Local Government (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Bill.—Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Debate arising.
Debate adjourned till Thursday.
Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—
South Shields, Sunderland, and District Tramways [H.L.].
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

YSTRADFELLTE WATER BILL [H.L.]
A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
MEDWAY AND THAMES CANAL BILL [H.L.]
A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
RAILWAY CLEARING SYSTEM SUPERANNUATION FUND.
Petition of the Railway Clearing Sytem Superannuation Fund Corporation, under their common seal, praying for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund Acts, 1873 to 1897; and for other purposes, together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
EXETER AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
Bill (lodged on Friday last), presented, and read 1a.
LONDON AND BRIGHTON ELECTRIC RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Presented, and read 1a.
SWANSEA CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Report from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RENFREW HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
  RHYMNEY RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]

    TYNESIDE TRAMWAYS AND TRAM-ROADS BILL [H.L.]
    NEWCASTLE AND GATESHEAD WATER BILL [H.L.].
    ISLE OF WIGHT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
    BAKER STREET AND WATERLOO RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
    Read 2a (according to order).

    LONDON UNDERGROUND RAILWAY BILL (SUSPENDED IN SESSION 1901).
    Moved that Standing Order No. 92 be dispensed with, and that leave be given to present the following Petitions:
    CHARING CROSS, HAMMERSMITH, AND DISTRICT ELECTRIC RAILWAY No. 1.) [H.L.]
    (1) Central London Railway Company;.(2) George White and others; (3) Oswald Stoll.
    KING'S ROAD RAILWAY [H.L.]
    (1) Metropolitan District Railway Company; (2) George White and others; (3) Brompton and Piccadilly Circus Railway Company.
    NORTH-EAST LONDON RAILWAY (No. 1.) [H.L.]
    (1) Central London Railway Company; (2) Promoters of City and North-East Suburban Electric Railway Bills.
    PICCADILLY AND CITY RAILWAY (No. 1) [H.L.]
    (1) George White and others; (2) Central London Railway Company.

    WEST AND SOUTH LONDON JUNCTION RAIL WAY [H.L.]
    (1) George White and others; (2), Central London Railway Company.
    (The Chairman of Committees); agreed to; and ordered accordingly.

SWINDON UNITED GAS BILL [H.L.]
  SADDLEWORTH, SPRINGHEAD, AND LEES TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  LINCOLN AND EAST COAST RAILWAY AND DOCK (ABANDONMENT) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  HAMILTON GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2a (according to order).
  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  The LORD CILANCELLOR acquainted the House that the following Papers, having been commanded to be presented to this House by His Majesty, had been so presented on the following dates by delivery to the Clerk of the Parliaments, pursuant to Order of the House of the 17th February, 1896, viz.—
  1. IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
  Return for the month of December, 1901.
  2. TREATY SERIES, No. 2 (1902).
  General Index to Treaty Series, 1897–1901.

  3. ARMY (REMOUNTS).
  Reports, statistical tables, and telegrams received from South Africa. June, 1899 to 22nd January, 1902. (March 1st).
  The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

  EMIGRATION.
  Report on the Emigrants Information Office, for the year ended 31st December, 1901.
  TREATY SERIES, No. 3 (1902).
  Agreement between the United Kingdom and Japan relative to China and Corea. Signed at London, 30th January, 1902.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (JUDICIAL RENTS).
  Return for,June, 1901.

  TRADE REPORTS.
  Annual Series; No. 2745. Samoa (Trade for 1901).
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LEEWARD ISLANDS.
  Amended prison rules, dated 21st October, 1901, providing for the periodical revision of life sentences and long sentences.
  PIERS AND HARBOURS (PROVISIONAL ORDERS), SESSION, 1902.
  Report by the Board of Trade of their proceedings under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, and the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, Amendment Act.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889.
  Abstract of accounts for the University of Aberdeen, for the year ended 15th September, 1901, being the annual report on the state of the finances of the university under the provisions of section 30 of the Act 1889.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  BRIDLINGTON PIERS AND HARBOUR.
  Abstract of the annual general account for the year ended 26th July, 1901; delivered (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
PETITIONS.
  VIVISECTION.
  Petition in favour of legislation for the suppression of; of Pioneer Anti-Vivisection Society; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO WILD ANIMALS BILL [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: My Lords, this Bill is so closely connected with the Bill which became law in 1900, and which was presented to this House by Lord James of Hereford, that I had hoped that the noble and learned Lord might have seen his way to introduce this Bill. But he has not been able to do so. I believe, however, that I have his good will in the matter, and I trust that may also have his support. I am sorry that it should have fallen to a person like myself to introduce this Bill, but I hardly know what good a Bishop is doing in this House if he fails to do his best to help forward good and useful social legislation of this kind. I am emboldened to make this attempt by the fact that, having been closely connected for many years with the

133
profession of education, I find there is a very strong feeling among leading men in the educational world that it is high time that some such measure as the one now before your Lordships should be brought in. I hold in my hand a memorial in favour of the Bill from 463 men in the front rank of the educators of the country, including professors, tutors, heads and fellows of colleges at Oxford and Cambridge, and the head masters of a great proportion of the public schools throughout the country. These men, to whom your Lordships entrust the education of your own sons, are not sentimental as a rule. Many of them are very good sportsmen, and I hope they may imbue your sons with their own principles and opinions on this subject. I trust that, a, memorial of this description will have some weight with your Lordships.
The Bill is drawn, almost word for word, on the lines of the Act of 1900, and is, I think, a natural corollary of, and a logical deduction from, that Act. The Act of 1900 was a thoroughly good Act, as far as it went, but experience shows that it has had a very limited scope, and I can find only two instances in which it has been put into operation. One was a case in which a man was fined at Tottenham because he had coursed a rabbit twice. On the first occasion the leg of the rabbit was broken, and he coursed it again with a broken leg. It was for the second offence, your Lordships will observe, and not for the first, that the man was punished. For the first act of cruelty he could not be touched. The other case was still more curious. A fishmonger was fined for overcrowding a tank containing 700 carp, so that we have here a sort of beginning of legislation against overcrowding. So far as I can make out, these two cases constitute the extent of the practical operations of the Act of 1900.
This Bill prohibits the hunting, coursing, or shooting of any animal which, to the knowledge of the person so acting, has been kept in confinement and is released for the purposes of such sport. It will thus prohibit the hunting of the carted stag. Under the Act of 1900 you may not behave cruelly to any wild animal in captivity, but if you release that animal you may behave as
134
cruelly as you please to it and the law cannot touch you. [Lord JAMES of HEREFORD dissented.] We are all profoundly grateful for the high and gracious example which has dealt a death-blow to the hunting of the carted stag, but the practice will no doubt survive here and there throughout the country for some years to come, as belated and discarded fashions are apt to survive in some corner or other. The Bill will also prohibit the practice of pigeon shooting, which, as far as I can gather, is a screen for betting. I find in the rules of one pigeon club that any one who is not a member of the club and goes to the course for the purpose of betting, must pay £1 to enter. I think that indicates pretty clearly the sort of visitor expected. Speaking on the subject of pigeon shooting, the late Lord Randolph Churchill said that in his opinion the sight of a pigeon ground, abounding with feathers and blood of wounded birds was, without exception, the most horrible and repulsive sight possible to imagine. In his account various discreditable details are added, but as they probably refer to foreign and not to English grounds, I pass them over. It may be objected that the Bill will interfere with the shooting of the stock pheasant, with which, as I am given to understand, some wealthy men stock their preserves just before what they call a big shoot. But there is a proviso that it shall not apply to the hunting or coursing or shooting of any animal which has had at any rate two months liberty, and if a shorter interval is needed to meet the case of pheasant shooting, that can be secured by an Amendment in Committee.
The last type of sport with which the Bill deals is the coursing of the bagged rabbit, a practice which is absolutely cruel, and brutalising in its effect. This is a sport which possibly very few of your Lordships know anything about, as it belongs to the seamy side of our population. I hold that it is a form of sport which does discredit to the English people, and I venture to ask your lordships' attention to two or three examples of it, in order that we may have the facts quite clear in our minds. I will read an account, of a coursing of bagged rabbits

135
that took place yesterday morning on Tottenham Marshes:—
"Having been informed that there was rabbit coursing on Tottenham Marshes on Sunday mornings, I went yesterday to see if it was a fact, and I found it was. I arrived on the Marshes about 10 o'clock, and several hundred people, young workmen chiefly, assembled after a short time for the sport. They had with them about one hundred dogs. The rabbits, which I was informed numbered fifty, were brought on to the grond in bags in a cart, and were chased in different parts of the Marshes at the same time. The courses were started by the owners of the dogs keeping them in hand while a man took a rabbit to a given distance, and, after holding it for a little while in front of the dogs, released it. I was pitiable to hear the squeals of the rabbits as they were caught by the dogs. I am told this pastime goes on every Sunday and lasts from 10.30 to 1 o'clock, when the public-houses open and are quickly filled with the coursers."
I come now to a case from Birkenhead. The following is the evidence of a shipowner and a man of position there. In January of last year he was desirous of putting a stop to what he understood was going on the neighbourhood in an enclosed ground attached to a public-house, and he says:—
"On January 24th and 31st I attended these grounds. After paying half-a-crown gate-money I entered and found a crowd of about 150 to 200 men on the ground, a good many book-makers being among them. A large hamper containing rabbits was carried on to the ground, which was enclosed so that no rabbit had a chance of escape. They were taken out of the hamper and swung in the hand of a man who ran forward fifty yards before liberating them. The yelling and shouting of the crowd, and the yelping of the dogs filled the rabbits with terror. They were very quickly caught and torn asunder by the dogs."
This gentleman gives further details of a revolting character which I will spare the house. The practice is not merely local; it is a cancer that is spreading through all the great centres of the population. A credible witness, a respectable working man, furnishes me with accounts of what took place recently at Gateshead and Newcastle. He was present at coursings of bagged rabbits in May and June of last year, and gives revolting details of what took place. He adds that on one of these occasions
"More than half of the rabbits were torn from the dogs alive and thrown to a boy not more than nine or ten years of age to be put to a lingering death. The boy carried the injured rabbits back, and to kill them he swung the rabbits and hit their heads against the box."
136
So your Lordships can see the sort of influence on the young which this barbarous practice is exercising. This same witness says:—
"I was present on July 13th at a similar meeting in Gateshead, and again on July 20th. On Christmas Day last I attended another of these exhibitions held in the same place. Not only on Christmas Day but on New Year's day there was a repetition of the same scene.
That is what takes place on the banks of the Tyne. I have another witness, a Justice of the Peace for the County of Northumberland, and an old army officer, who writes to me as follows—
"The hideous cruelty is not confined solely to the coursing ground, for in the training of young dogs I have seen a man take a rabbit, deliberately break one of its legs, and then put it on the ground for the puppies to run after."
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (The MARQUESS Of LONDONDERRY): What is the name of that gentleman?
THE LORD BISHOP OF HERE-FORD: I do not think he would have any objection to my mentioning it. His name is Colonel Coulson. He says this is a common practice when training dogs, and that this is one of the cruelest forms of sport that exist. These bagged rabbits are frequently injured in transit; sometimes among them there are does heavy with young, sometimes they die a lingering death; they have no chance of escape, and revolting scenes are witnessed upon the course. He goes on to say that on the banks of the Tyne the better class of miner will have nothing to do with these meetings, which are attended only by the scum of the pits, and that the lowest class of publican alone gets up these disgraceful betting contests. I am told that about 2,000 rabbits are used for coursing matches every week on the banks of the Tyne near Newcastle. Turning to the part of the Kingdom nearer my own diocese, I hold in my hand a letter from the venerable Bishop of Llandaff, in which he expresses the hope that this Bill will obtain a large majority. In the South Wales newspapers of February 19th, there was an account of rabbit coursing which was held on February 17th, at Caerphilly, not far from Cardiff. There was an enclosure, for which the entrance fee was;

137
sixpence. About 1,000 people assembled, including betting men with coloured cards in their hats, three-card tricksters, dice manipulators, and so on. Above the din of the shouting men and barking dogs could occasionally be heard the plaintive cries of rabbits. The rabbits were brought to the ground in a cart containing fifteen bags or sacks, in each of which three rabbits were tied up. Eventually there was a great uproar, and one of the rabbits was brought forth. It was carried out about 50 yards and then dropped on the ground. On both sides stood a long line of men with howling dogs. Every gap in the hedge was filled with people, and the poor creature had no chance of escape. The description goes on to give revolting details of what happened on this occasion at Caerphilly. To take another instance or two. As I was travelling from the West of England this morning I found in the South Wales Daily News an account of what happened only on Saturday. In one place 3,000 people assembled, and the stakes were £50. The dogs were, no doubt, well known in the neighbourhood, and they were to kill, I think, twenty-one rabbits. According to the newspaper report, they coursed these rabbits with such vigour that one dog died on the ground from exhaustion, and the other died in the evening. At Caerphilly last Saturday two dogs were put on to course these wretched rabbits for a stake of £40. A large crowd assembled, and the coursing went on with all sorts of revolting details. After the competition was over for the £40, there succeeded other races for stakes of £1 each. It is stated that rabbits which, in some cases, had escaped from the dogs were pursued by onlookers and brought back to be torn to pieces by the animals. I do not think I need say any more to commend this part of the Bill to your Lordships' acceptance.
My position in the matter is a very simple one. I hold that we, as a legislative assembly, cannot, with any show of decency, legislate for the wild animals in a menagerie, for performing dogs, and for the unhappy creature in his scarlet coat on the hurdy-gurdy, and yet turn a deaf ear to the cries of all these suffering animals, and refuse to see
138
the brutalising consequences of this kind of sport. A philosophic observer reading the Act of 1900 would say, "See what care English legislators take to prevent cruelty to animals"; but if this Bill is rejected, I think he might fairly say, "What a fuss you make about the mint and cumin of legislation, while you turn your back on the weightier matters of the law, like political Pharisees." Our fathers and grandfathers long ago put an end to cock-fighting and bull-baiting, but I venture to think there is not one of your Lordships who would not think that both cock-fighting and bull-baiting were manly and reputable sports compared with the coursing of bagged rabbits. This kind of brutalising sport is one of the phenomena connected with what we may call the new heathenism of some of our great and neglected populations in the large cities which have grown up, and it behoves us to act, not only from the spiritual and moral side, but from the legislative side also, if we are to have any hope of curing this great cancer which is eating so deeply and so widely into the national life. I contend that the clergy, and other workers for the good life of the people, are cruelly handicapped so long as we tolerate these things.
I see that my noble friend Lord Newton has given notice of his intention to move the rejection of this Bill. I cannot but hope that the facts I have put before the House may have, to some extent, modified his view concerning it. I venture to think he put down his Motion without having before his mind all the facts, from winch I have given your Lordships only a selection. I know the noble Lord is a keen and genuine sportsman, and I cannot imagine any sportsman to whom these things are not revolting. I therefore indulge the hope that he may, after all, support the Bill instead of opposing it. Indeed, though I am aware there are prejudices against any legislation that seems to touch English sport, I cannot but feel that these exhibitions are so revolting that anyone who has the true instincts of an English sportsman will be desirous of wiping off this stain on sport and of putting a stop to disgraceful practices which are spreading through all the great centres of population.

139
My Lords, I will detain you no longer. As I look round the House I cannot think of any class of Members who would naturally support these degrading exhibitions. No humanitarian would oppose the principle of this Bill, no great lawyer would oppose it; and I cannot imagine any genuine sportsman opposing it with a good conscience. If there be any other class in the House likely to oppose me, I am unable to define it; and so I beg to move "That this Bill be now read a second time."
Moved, That the Bill be now read. 2a.—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, in asking your Lordships to reject this measure, I desire to acknowledge, in the fullest possible way, my sense of the conviction and the sincerity of my right reverend friend in bringing it forward. He is obviously so convinced of the benefits which will result from this Bill that it is with some difficulty that I screw myself up to the pitch of dealing what I am afraid is likely to prove a mortal blow to the measure. I assure the right reverend prelate that I oppose the Bill upon purely altruistic principles. If the Bill were to pass I should be one of the persons who would benefit by it, for I happen to live in the neighbourhood of a manufacturing town, and am subjected to considerable inconvenience, amounting almost to persecution, at the hands of people who attempt to take, and very often take, my rabbits for the purpose of coursing. I hope, therefore, my right reverend friend will acquit me of any selfish motive in opposing the measure.
My first objection to the Bill is that it appears to me to be improperly described. It is said to be
"a much needed extension of the Will Animals in Captivity Protection Act, 1900."
I submit that this is a misleading description, as the Act in question dealt with animals kept in menageries. Neither will I admit that the Bill is accurately described as being for the protection of cruelty to wild animals. As a matter of fact, this is a measure distinctly directed against particular forms of sport which, in the opinion of the Bishop of Hereford, are both spurious and cruel. For my part, I should be extremely sorry to have
140
to define what was spurious and what was legitimate sport. I think it is one of those things that might well be left to a jury of editors of sporting papers or one of the august tribunals which pronounce opinions on the subject.
The only matter which we need concern ourselves about this evening is that of cruelty. I take, first the case of stag-hunting. I do not know whether I am more thickheaded than any one else, but I confess. I have never been able to see that it is any more cruel to hunt tame deer than so-called wild deer. If the question could be put to the animal itself, I believe it would have no hesitation in preferring to be hunted as a tame deer with the certainty of having its life spared, rather than as a wild deer with the possibility of its being killed. A Member of this House has assured me that he is acquainted with a deer which is so accustomed to hunting that it habitually trots home with the hounds. I myself occasionally present deer to a neighbouring pack. I am absolutely impenitent on the subject, and I propose to continue doing so until my right reverend friend passes his Bill and puts me in prison for three months with hard labour. I turn from stag hunting, which, in my opinion, requires no defence at all, to pigeon shooting. So far as I am concerned, I have no sympathy with pigeon shooting. There are many objectionable circumstances connected with it, and I believe that persons who indulge in it are commonly supposed to suffer from what the late President of the Transvaal Republic would call moral and intellectual damage. It is not a pastime in which I indulge myself, but the question to my mind is—is it an unjustifiably cruel proceeding?. Is it really a more cruel thing to shoot pigeons than it is to shoot tame pheasants or tame partridges? Does it stand in an altogether different category from what my right reverend friend would call legitimate sport? Everybody must recognise by this time that sport in this country is becoming more artificial every day. Every form of game is at this moment an article of commerce. We import pheasants and partridges, and we buy deer. We go so far now as to buy fish, turn them into ponds, and fish for them afterwards. No doubt before long

141
legislation will be proposed against that. The right reverend Prelate alluded to the practice, which I believe is not very extensive, of obtaining supplies of live birds from purveyors when a person has not a sufficient number of pheasants in his woods and is expecting a distinguished friend for a few days shooting. Though I do not regard the shooting of pheasants bought from dealers as a practice worthy of much admiration, it is certainly not an offence which should be punished by fine or imprisonment. How can anybody who indulges in shooting at all, and particularly in the artificial form of sport which is so prevalent at this moment, vote conscientiously against pigeon shooting on the ground that it is, to use the language of my right reverend friend, spurious sport? What we have to consider is the question of cruelty, and there is probably more cruelty involved in a complete day's covert shooting than in an afternoon's pigeon shooting.
I now pass to the most important matter in the Bill, namely, the coursing of hares and rabbits. With one or two exceptions, the coursing of hares in enclosed grounds has conic to an end, but I believe that hares coursed at such meetings have just as good a chance of escape as the hares coursed on the plains of Altcar. I do not think it is necessary to say much upon the subject of coursing hares in enclosed grounds. The difficult subject to deal with is that of rabbit-coursing, and I admit that it is by no means easy to make out a case in favour of rabbit-coursing. At the same time, I find it hard to believe that such horrible cruelties as have been spoken of by the right reverend Prelate are perpetrated in connection with rabbit coursing, and, so far as I am aware, it is open to any of the numerous societies which exist for the prevention of cruelty to animals to attend the meetings, and if unnecessary cruelty is inflicted, to institute proceedings against the persons responsible. The law is already strong enough for that. I do not think we can take it for granted that the cruelty is really as great as would appear from the extracts which the right reverend Prelate has quoted. I very much doubt whether there is any more cruelty in rabbit-coursing than in rabbit-shooting. I go so far as to contend that
142
it would not be consistent on the part of those who habitually shoot or indulge in field sports, which in this country are becoming more artificial every day, to support a Bill which is directed mainly against the amusements of the working classes. Of course, all sport is cruel more or less, and those who, like my right reverend friend, never enjoy field sports of any kind may consistently support the Bill. But what is the case with the majority of us? My conscience is not clear; my withers are not unwrung; and I am so convinced that nearly every Member of this House is in the same boat that I cannot imagine that your Lordships will find it consistent with your conduct to vote for this Bill. I oppose the Bill chiefly because it is a piece of class legislation. My right reverend friend has alluded to certain demoralising sports which have been put an end to. That is quite true. But what is the difference between those sports and the ones you are now asked to deal with? Those sports were sports in which all classes of the country took an active interest, which was the case with cock-fighting and bull-baiting. The sport in question is essentially the sport of the working classes. Is it, then, fair for us, who have the opportunity of indulging in whatever form of sport or amusement we like, to dictate to those persons who are not so fortunate? Mainly on the ground of consistency I move that the Bill be read a second time six months hence.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out 'now,' and add at the end of the Motion, 'this day six months.'"—(Lord Newton.)
THE EARL OF DURHAM: My Lords, I have so seldom occupied the time of this House during the many years that I have sat in it that I trust you will accord me your indulgence on this occasion. I quite agree with my noble friend in deprecating the bringing forward of this Bill in your Lordships' House. It affects all classes of the community, and your Lordships have not the opportunity of judging what the feeling of the country is with regard to it. If we are to have a Bill of this sort let it come from the representatives of

143
the people. It is rather a curious coincidence that the three speakers on the Bill to night are at the present moment members of the same Committee, and I cannot say that what has taken place augurs well for the unanimity of that Committee. I willingly admit that the right reverend Prelate, who sits by my side on the Letting Committee, is most courteous, but there is a great gulf between us. The right reverend Prelate receives many letters at that Committee, and so do I, but they are very different. Many of mine are addressed to me by the working classes, and the writers nearly all say, "I wish you would tell the Bishop of Hereford what we think of him." They ask. "Why does the Bishop of Hereford interfere with our sports? We do not interfere with the varied devotional exercises of the clergy on Sundays, and we don't want them to attempt to legislate on our recreations during week-days." I must say that I have great sympathy with that view. The right reverend Prelate, in moving this Bill, informed your Lordships that he had received a memorial in support of it from a large number of those interested in education. I have taken the trouble to examine that memorial, and I find that 40 per cent. of the names attached to it are those of clergymen. I think it is very undesirable that the clergy should take such an active part in this matter. I think the gentleman who acted as honorary secretary in connection with this memorial is named Stratton, and, although the right reverend Prelate has told us that his main object is to prevent cruelty to animals, I am afraid those who support him and urge him on are more concerned in stopping the sport of their countrymen than in preventing cruelty. Only a few days ago this Mr. Stratton wished to stop the Eton beagles. Many of your Lordships have been at Eton, and I have no doubt those who think that the Eton beagles ought to be stopped will support this Bill.
The right reverend Prelate has referred to the cruelty of stag-hunting, but he has said nothing about the disappointment and the discontent which would be caused in many parts of the country if stag-hunting was done away with. Personally, I have given up stag-hunting, more from consideration for my
144
own neck than out of sympathy with the stag. But if stag-hunting were abolished, not only would the farmers and many members of the poorer classes in stag-hunting districts suffer, but men of business who hunt with stag-hounds in the neighbourhood of London would be unable to enjoy a day's sport, from which they return—as I did in my youthful days when I had my military duties to perform—with renewed vigour, clearer eye, and alert brain. There has already been very doubtful legislation of late years as to the definition of a place, and the right reverend Prelate's Bill would make it far more difficult to understand what a place is. He does not tell us what the area of confinement is. I do not know whether a deer in a park would be considered a wild animal or not. If not, it comes to this, that no person owning a deer park is on any account to hunt, course, or shoot deer in his park. With reference to the provision in the Bill which would make it illegal to shoot pheasants which have not been turned down two months, I would call your Lordships' attention to the curious experience of a friend of mine. A gallant General who is now in South Africa went to stay with a friend not far from London, who turned out 1,000 pheasants for shooting a day or two beforehand. At the first volley of the guns the birds rose and flew off to a neighbouring wood belonging to another landowner. How is it possible in such a case for that landowner to tell by looking at the birds whether or not they had been turned down so as to decide that they must not be shot at for a couple of months? How can a man discriminate between a pheasant which has been at large for two months and one which has not?
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: The phrase in the Bill is "to his knowledge."
THE EARL OF DURHAM: I do not see how he can tell.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: If he does not know, he is safe.
THE EARL OF DURHAM: I cannot find anything in the Bill on this point.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: Sub-section (a) of section 2 provides that—
"Any person who either takes part or assists in the hunting, coursing, or shooting of any animal, which has to his knowledge been kept in confinement, and is released for the purpose of such hunting, coursing, or shooting, etc."
THE EARL OF DURHAM: The chief sport to which the right reverend Prelate objected was rabbit-coursing, and he gave us several instances of what he called the intense cruelty involved. I do not live very far from Newcastle, and, whatever the cruelty of the sport, I object to the miners who engage in it in the neighbourhood of Newcastle and Gateshead being described as the "scum of the pits."
"THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: I quoted the words of an informant who expressly said that all the best part of the mining population would have nothing to do with the sport, but only the "scum of the pits."
"THE EARL OF DURHAM: The right reverend Prelate spoke of 2,000 rabbits a week being killed on Tyneside, and that shows, I think that a considerable number of miners do attend the rabbit-coursings. My point is that the miners who attend are not the scum of the pits. The Bill would not only interfere with an extremely popular sport, but would withdraw many raid its from the food of the people. I am constantly receiving applications from my poorer neighbours for rabbits. There is nothing they like more when sick; and if the coursing of rabbits is stopped, a source of food for the poorer classes will. In done away with. In support of this Bill, the right reverend Prelate quoted Colonel Coulson. To everyone who lives in the North of England, the name of Colonel Coulson is familiar as an opponent of all kinds of sport. He even opposed otter hunting, and his supporters are faddists of a somewhat extreme type. For my own part, I object to the Bill as putting an end to a sport in which my poor neighbours are interested, and which they cannot better for lack of means. I can afford to have a grouse moor, a deer forest, and anything I like, and why should I deprive my poorer neighbours from trying their skill by shooting at trapped birds, whether
146
they be pigeons, starlings, or sparrows? The right reverend Prelate constantly alluded to the cruelty of this kind of thing, but I do not think that either shooting trapped birds, or coursing rabbits is more cruel than the sports in which most of your Lordships indulge with the greatest freedom. I ask you to consider this matter in a broad and sympathetic spirit, remembering that physical courage and love of sport have been for centuries the distinguishing characteristics of the British race. My noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, in a speech a few days ago, said that the war had shown that physical courage had welded all classes together. Physical courage and love of sport are, to my mind, inseparable, and foster one another. That being so, I ask your Lordships not to destroy such sports as the poorer classes, unable in this matter to enjoy the facilities of their richer neighbours, are able to pursue. If you wish to reform the sports of the poorer classes, you can best do so by your own example. If you wish to create discontent, to cause class hatred, and have social disorder in this country, the best thing to do is to support the Bill now before the House.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, as I have not the honour of sitting on the Betting Committee, I may be able to introduce a little fresh water into what appear to be its rather divergent currents. I quite recognise that this Bill endeavours to peg out a fresh claim in the interests of humanity, and if I could see my way to agree with the principle of the Bill, I should take no exception to its coming from the right reverend Bench. I am not at all sure that I concur with my noble friend Lord Durham, or with the noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill, who see in the measure the first parallel of a general attack on field sports. The right reverend Prelate guarded himself by saying that the Bill aimed at the so-called spurious sports, but here we are met with the difficulty of defining what is legitimate, and what is spurious. There are some people who look upon sport as Lord Macaulay's Puritan looked upon bear-baiting, disapproving it, not because it gave the bears pain, but because it gave the men pleasure; but although one of his correspondents was displeased at the loud

147
laughter of the men at a rabbit coursing in Tottenham field, there was nothing of this sour mind in the Bishop's remarks. There is a widespread impression that stag-hunting is a cruel sport, and perhaps a few words from me, as I had some little experience in connection with au institution which has been much criticised, may be of some use in clearing away false impressions. The right rev. Prelate spoke of the death-blow given to stag-hunting by doing away with the Buck Hounds, and extended to them none of the glorifying clemencies of epitaph. Although the King has very properly given up stag-hunting in Berkshire, on account of the great increase in house property there, it is going on very flourishingly in many parts of the country. I am not prepared to take an affidavit that there are not disagreeable moments for the deer that are kept for hunting. Accidents will happen; but the whole opposition to the Queen's Buck Hounds, as manifested at the time I had charge of them, rested entirely on some very exceptional cases. The whole object kept in view in any well-managed and well-organised pack of stag-hounds is to avoid anything like disaster to the deer. The whole sport depends upon tins. I can assure our critics that the deer are as great favourites at stag-hunting establishments as the horses and the hounds; indeed, they are objects of universal interest and genuine attachment. I have met Mr. Stratton once or twice, and had some pleasant talks with him, and I am surprised to hear that he wishes to do away with the Eton beagles. What I understood he objected to was the hunting of carted deer. If I had thought stag-hunting anything like the cruel sport it has been represented to be, I hope I would have had the courage to give up my appointment, which I may say was a very pleasant appointment to me, and which I enjoyed very much. I agree with my noble friend Lord Newton that it is not more cruel to hunt the carted stag than the wild deer. The carted stag is always fit, whereas the wild deer is hunted when fat. Even if I agreed with the principle of the Bill, there are points in it which I believe would render it unworkable. The word "kept" in the Bill is very awkward; so, too, is the question of area consti-
148
tuting confinement which is involved. I should be very sorry to see stag-hunting included in a Bill of this sort. Rabbit coursing has already been dealt with by my noble friends, but this Bill would stop any shooting at bagged rabbits. We should render ourselves liable to prosecution for allowing our sons, home-from Eton or Harrow, to have a shot at a bagged rabbit. I will not enter-into the altruistic argument of my noble friend opposite, which may easily-be taken too far, but I agree that a great number of people who lead very hard-working lives and do not get much amusement would suffer if this. Bill were passed into law; and if the right reverend Prelate goes to a division, although I am in sympathy with the humanitarian ideas winch have led him to put it before your Lordships, I shall vote against him.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDON-DERRY: My Lords, I admit the humanitarian views of the right rev. Prelate, but I believe that on the subject of the cruelties of stag-hunting he has imbibed exaggerated opinions. I have myself had a good deal of experience of the sport, and I have never in my life seen anything approaching cruelty in it, but plenty of enjoyment to all classes. With regard to rabbit-coursing, I am ready to endorse all that has been said by my noble friend, Lord Durham. If rabbit-coursing is the only sport that can be indulged in by the lower classes in the country, in which I and my noble friend are interested, I do not see that it is the duty of your Lordships to discourage it. I think the correspondents of the right rev. Prelate must have exaggerated the cruelty of rabbit-coursing. It is ridiculous, of course, to say that all sport is not sometimes cruel. No doubt, it is at times, but we must consider whether the cruelty involved is not counterbalanced by the advantage the country reaps from it. It seems to me that this measure attacks the pleasures of the poor far more than those of the rich, and I shall, therefore, most cordially support the views of my noble friend who has moved the rejection of the Bill.
THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: While I entirely concur in the humane objects.

149
of the right rev. Prelate, I feel that many of your Lordships must experience a difficulty in voting for the Bill. Lord Durham seemed to complain because many of those who signed the memorial in support of this Bill were clergymen. Well, after all, is it very surprising that, if clergymen have reason to think that a certain practice is not conducive to the moral welfare of tile people, they should wish to see it abandoned? I do not think that justifies their being charged with being indifferent to amusements and sports of a healthy kind. I hope the right rev. Prelate will not go to a division unless he has reason to think he will receive sufficient support to avoid misconception as to the result of such a division. I think that the right rev. Prelate has done good work in raising this discussion, as he has drawn attention to possible abuses and put people on the alert for checking them.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: My Lords, as I have listened to the Various criticisms, I have felt that almost every objection which has been taken to the Bill has been either based on a misunderstanding of it, or might have been easily met by an Amendment in Committee. I am still of the opinion which I entertained when I entered the House this afternoon, that it is high time something should be done in accordance with the principle of the Bill. I desire to see the masses of our people brought wider such influences, that they will be able to get their pleasure without desiring to kill something and exulting in it. There is a very excellent substitute for the hunting of the tame leer in the drag-hunt. We have time testimony of many first-rate sportsmen in favour of the well-managed drag-hunt, and as your Lordships know, many good sportsmen join in it; and science is equal to supplying mechanical pigeons for those who enjoy this sport which would be quite as difficult to hit as live pigeons. The statements I read to your Lordships have been declared to be exaggerated. The noble Marquess who suggested this had no ground for saying so. I desire to assure the House that I have taken the greatest possible pains to secure that nothing which I have brought forward should have about it any tinge of exaggeration.
150
What I have read are plain, unvarnished accounts by credible witnesses. Lord Durham deprecated legislation of this kind being initiated in this House because your Lordships are not sent here by the masses; but there is something to be said on the other side. Surely tins House, which is in an independent position, and in no danger of going beyond the demands of healthy, public opinion, might very well initiate useful social legislation of thus kind, although I should be very glad to see such a measure introduced into the other House, and I hope if that course is adopted, that it may have the support of His Majesty's Government, and may be favourably received when it arrives in tins House. I recognise, however, that the House is not likely to lend me any great support on this occasion. Therefore I am content to withdraw the Motion for the present, mid to await a better opportunity.
Amendment and Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

RURAL POSTAL SERVICES.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYasked the Postmaster-General whether he could give a Return showing the postal districts within the area of which there was still, in parts, no daily delivery of letters; what distance (mileage) from the post town of these districts entitled residents therein to a daily delivery of letters; and under what conditions postmen in rural districts were provided with bicycles. Whilst acknowledging the general progress of the Post Office in recent years, he said that there were some districts which had been very much neglected. He referred especially to rural districts which were not very far from postal towns, and the conditions of which were normal. He did not claim that country districts ought to have the same advantages as busy urban districts, but he thought that when there were no natural difficulties, such as existed in the case of an island, or a mountainous region, there should be one daily delivery of letters. He gave an instance of houses standing at the roadside in his own district, where there was not a daily delivery, and drew attention to the fact that the provision of a bicycle, for facilitating the work, in this case would only cost 1s. extra per week.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDON-DERRY: My Lords, I must ask my noble friend not to press for the Return mentioned in his first Question, as it would entail an enormous amount of trouble without any satisfactory results. In regard to the daily delivery of letters in all parts of the United Kingdom, I am e ad of the opportunity of clearing up a misapprehension which, I think, has obtained as to the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject in the House of Commons in April, 1897. The impression seems to prevail that that speech gave an assurance that the Post Office would deliver letters daily to every house in the United Kingdom. That is erroneous. The words of my right hon. friend were that "the Post Office would take steps to secure that there should be a delivery," not necessarily every day, but still, a regular delivery at every house in the United Kingdom. The undertaking then given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been carried out as far as it is possible. It is estimated that between 22nd June, 1897, and the end of September, 1900, a house-to-house delivery has been accorded in the United Kingdom for about 57,250,000 of letters a year which previously were left at the Post Office to be called for, or at the house nearest to that of the addressee, or were delivered into roadside boxes. By 30th September, 1900, the arrangement for regular delivery to houses was complete in England, and is now practically in operation throughout Scotland and Ireland as well. Therefore, I think my noble friend will see that, with that vast amount of letters that have been dealt with since the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it would be asking my Department more than it would be well to ask for to request a list of all the districts in the United Kingdom without a daily delivery of letters.
In regard to the second Question put to me, I judge from the speech of my noble friend that he considers that letters should be delivered according to the distance of the recipient from the nearest post town. That, however, is not a line of argument which the Department can follow. We base our deliveries, not on the distance from the nearest post town, but on the
152
amount of correspondence that takes place, and the expense of its delivery. Suppose, for instance, that there was a particular house which had only a delivery of six letters per week. We would not be justified in incurring the expense of giving those six letters a daily delivery during the whole week. But in the case of districts we have arranged that there shall be a delivery daily, six times in the week; and in places where this is not at present so satisfactory as we would like, we take steps to add, if possible, to the number of deliveries, if it can be done without undue expense.
As to the third Question of my noble friend, bicycles are provided for rural postmen whenever it is considered that it is an advantage to them in the discharge of their duties, but the Department have to take the greatest care that bicycles are only given in districts where they can be used all the year round, and not merely where they can be used in summer time. The reason is that the recipients of letters expect them to be delivered with regularity; and with foot postmen they receive them with absolute regularity all the year round, the weather not affecting the matter at all. The number of bicycles used in rural districts is 450, and the Department are ready to add to the number, whenever it is proved that the conditions permit of their use.

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES— JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE.
Commons Message considered (according to order).
Moved, "That this House do concur in the following resolution communicated by the Commons, viz: 'That it is expedient that a Select Committee of this House be appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords, to consider the Standing Orders relating to houses occupied by persons of the labouring class, and the clauses usually inserted in Private and Local Bills, and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, in pursuance thereof; and to report whether any Amendments should be made in such Standing Orders and clauses, and especially whether any and what provision should be made for better

153
securing the re-housing of all persons of the labouring class who may be displaced in connection with the undertakings to which the Bills relate, whether displaced under the powers given by the Bills, or otherwise.'"—(The Lord Privy Seal [M. Salisbury]); agreed to; and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT—THE "SIDNEY THOMAS."
LORD MUSKERRY: I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is a fact that the "Sidney Thomas," a steamer of over 2,500 tons, is trading under the British flag without properly qualified and certificated officers; whether in clearing from ports in the United Kingdom, a certificated chief officer is signed on the Articles in order to comply with the law, but on reaching a foreign port, is displaced by an uncertificated person; and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government intend to take any steps in preventing such an abuse of the British flag.
THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD of, TRADE (The Earl of DUDLEY): My Lords, the facts of the case are, I believe, very much as my noble friend has stated them in his Question. With regard to the remedy, as I pointed out to my noble friend a week or ten days ago, the Merchant Shipping Act does not apply to a foreign country, and I am afraid therefore, we have no power at the Board of Trade to ensure that the provisions of that Act shall apply to ships trading between foreign ports. I understand, with reference to this particular ship, that, although she is registered in the name of a British subject, she in fact belongs to a Greek gentleman, who, when a certain mortgage is paid off, will transfer his vessel to the Greek flag.

SEAMEN'S CONTINUOUS DISCHARGES.
Moved, That there be laid before the House a return of the number of continuous discharge hooks issued since the continuous discharges came into operation.—(The Lord Muskerry.)
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I do not quite follow, from my noble friend's Motion, whether he is anxious that this
154
information should be given in the form of a Parliamentary Return, or whether he will be satisfied by my telling him tonight the number of continuous discharges that up to the end of last week had been issued. That number was 192,000. If that information satisfies my noble friend it will save the trouble of preparing a Parliamentary Return.
LORD MUSKERRY: I am quite satisfied.
Motion (by leave of the House) with-drawn.

MARINE INSURANCE BILL [H.L.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read, and discharged.

NAVAL PRIZE BILL [H.L.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): This Bill is practically a Consolidation Bill, for the purpose of bringing together certain Acts on the question. Although there are some Amendments, they are only verbal, and are necessary to bring into harmony the different Acts which it is sought to consolidate. These Amendments it would only be proper to discuss in Committee
Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Postmaster General what is the attitude of the Government towards the development of wireless telegraphy. I base my Question solely on the report of a speech recently delivered by Mr. Marconi, in which he said that when asked why, when he had been able to send messages 1500 miles by wireless telegraphy, they had not established a working communication between England and Ireland, his reply was that his system was available for such a distance, and that the simple reason why it was not in commercial use between England and Ireland was to be found in the monopoly of telegraphic communication that was claimed

155
in the United Kingdom by the British Post Office. I think the public would be glad to know that the monopolist power of the Post Office has not been used to the detriment of this invention, which promises to be of such great public advantage.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am not at all sorry that my noble friend has asked this Question, because at the present moment the Marconi wireless telegraphy is exciting great interest, not only in this country, but all over the world. It is impossible for me on this occasion to respond for the Government, inasmuch as there are two other very important Departments, the Admiralty and the Board of Trade, who are equally interested—with regard to the Admiralty I may say more interested—in this matter. Perhaps my noble friend will forgive me, therefore, if I reply merely as the head of my own Department, and not on behalf of the Government as a whole. At the Post Office we regard the question of wireless telegraphy as one of enormous importance, and we believe it will be of enormous advantage in the future with regard to the promotion of commerce of all sorts and kinds. We consider that it is an extraordinary discovery. Personally, I think it is the greatest discovery of the age; and we shall be only too glad, whenever the opportunity occurs to give it every facility, and utilise it as much as possible for the benefit of the British public. To my mind, the benefit of wireless telegraphy will arise in two ways. First, the transmission of messages between ship and ship on the high seas; and, secondly, communication between ships at sea and signalling stations. With regard to the former, the owners of the patents can do whatever they like, and they require no authorisation whatever from the Government or from my Department. But with regard to the communication between ships at sea and signalling stations on shore, anything of that kind would be an infringement of the rights of the Postmaster General, granted to him by Parliament, and which it is his duty to maintain. I received last year a deputation of a very important character,
156
bringing before me the great advantages which would accrue to this country were I to give a licence for communicating within the area over which the Postmaster General has jurisdiction. I told them that I sympathised with them, and, as far as my own Department was concerned, that I should be only too glad to give such a licence. But I had to consider the interests and the views of the other Departments to which I have alluded; and there is no doubt that at the present moment wireless telegraphy at the command of private companies might interfere very seriously with the experiments of the Admiralty; and until the doubts which the Admiralty at present entertain are removed I shall not consider myself at liberty to give that licence, which under other circumstances I should be glad to do. The First Lord of the Admiralty is fully cognisant of this matter, has discussed it, and, at the present moment, it is under his consideration. While on the subject, I would say one word with regard to the ordinary telegraph. With regard to the working of the Marconi system in the United Kingdom, I should not at the present moment be inclined to grant a licence for it. It has yet to be proved that the system can be worked more efficiently and more economically than our old system. I do not say what will be the case in the future, but I am convinced that at present it cannot be so worked, and I am not prepared to take any steps at the present time. I do not wish my noble friend to take it that I am adopting a non possumus line, and saying that it shall never be. In the course of time wireless telegraphy may be found to work effectively and profitably in this country; and, if that were the case, I need not say that I should unhesitatingly endeavour to utilise it on behalf of the Post Office. At present my advisers at the Post Office are watching most keenly its development, our engineering officers are watching all its resources and every improvement, and are reporting to me what is taking place; and, if I am convinced that it will be for the benefit of the country, I shall do my best to avail myself of it.
LORD LAMINGTON: The noble Marques assures us he will be very sympathetic to the system when it is perfected. Would it not be as well, however, to assist now in perfecting it by giving some encouragement?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY:I do not like a leap in the dark. I think our old system is working well, and I am waiting until I see that the new invention is reliable. I should not like to involve a public Department in anything that was risky. At present the Admiralty are making extensive experiments on the south coast, and the Admiralty desire that we should not give facilities for use within territorial waters until they are assured that these experiments can be carried on without any danger.
House adjourned at ten minutes before Seven o clock, till to-morrow, Eleven o'clock.