Sitting of 15 May 1902

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

  PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILLS (STAND-IXC ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz:—
  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Housing of Working Classes) Bill.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill.
  Ordered, that the Bills be read a second time tomorrow.

  GREAT CENTRAL AND MIDLAND RAILWAYS (SOUTH YORKSHIRE RAILWAYS) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  ISLE OF WIGHT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL [LORDS].
  Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
  Read the third time and passed.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL, NORTH METROPOLITAN TRAMWAYS BILL, YORK CORPORATION BILL.
  Read the third time and passed. [New Title.]
  COLWYN BAY AND COLWYN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  As amended, considered. A Clause added; Bill to be read the third time.
  PRIVATE BILLS.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 39, 129, and 230 be suspended, and that the time for depositing Petitions and Memorials against Private Bills, or against any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate, and for depositing duplicates of any Documents relating to any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate, also for depositing Documents relating to any Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the Recess.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  STANDING ORDERS.
  Ordered, That, for the remainder of the Session, three be the quorum of the Select Committee on Standing Orders.—(Mr. Halsey.)

  PLYMOUTH, DEVONPORT, AND SOUTH-WESTERN JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
  [LORDS] [NOT AMENDED] (BY ORDER).
  Considered; Bill to be read the third time.

  PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER.
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order nade by the Board of Trade under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, relating to the Pilotage District of the Corporation of the Trinity House of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Balfour and Mr. Austen Chamberlain.

  PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  "To confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, relating to the Pilotage District of the Corporation

  353
  of the Trinity House of Newcastle-upon-Tyne," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [No. 215.]

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL, CROYDON AND DISTRICT ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL, LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill to be read the third time tomorrow.

  DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LANDS (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time tomorrow.

  BEXHILL AND ROTHERFIELD RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill to be read the third time.

  BIRMINGHAM ASSAY OFFICE BILL [LORDS].
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time.

  DONEGAL RAILWAY BILL [LORDS].
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill to be read the third time.

  CHIGWELL, LOUGHTON, AND WOODFORD GAS BILL [LORDS].
  Reported, with Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  WATERFORD AND BISHOP FOY ENDOWED SCHOOLS BILL [LORDS].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to Great Eastern Railway Bill, without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to enable the South Eastern Rail-way Company to make new railways and widenings; to enable that Company and the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company to acquire and to hold additional lands; to enable the Crowhurst, Sidley, and Bexhill Railway Company to raise additional capital; and for other purposes." [South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill (Lords).]
  And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the periods limited by The Renfrew Burgh and Harbour Extension Act, 1899, for the compulsory purchase of lands and the completion of the works by that Act authorised; and for other purposes." [Renfrew Harbour Bill (Lords).]

SOUTH EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAYS BILL [LORDS],
  RENFREW HARBOUR BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bill.
PETITIONS.
  BURGH POLICE AND PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Dunfermline, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES. BILL.
  Petitions against: From Long Sutton, and Ardsley; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Turton, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Scotland Northwich; and Nottingham (two); to lie upon the Table.

  ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Petitions against establishment: From Peterhead; Kingussie; Dunfermline

  355
  (two); Aberdeen; Strathpeffer; and Dingwall; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Waltham-stow; and Dunfermline; to lie upon the Table.
  STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS).
  Petition from Wandsworth against alteration in respect of the Consents required with Tramway Bills; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY TRADING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Annandale in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TEACHERS' PENSION FUND (IRELAND).
  Return [presented 30th April] to be printed. [No. 179.]
  EAST INDIA (PROGRESS AND CONDITION).
  Copy presented, of Statement exhibiting the Moral and Material Progress and Condition of India during the year 1900–1901. Thirty-seventh Number [by Act]; to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [No. 180.]
  COMMONS ACT 1876 (CHIPPING SODBURY, OLD SODBURY, AND LITTLE SODBURY, GLOUCESTERSHIRE).
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Agriculture upon an application for a Provisional Order for the regulation of the Commons in the parishes of Chipping Sodbury, Old Sodbury, and little Sodbury, in the county of Gloucester [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 181.]
  MARRIAGES, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS (ENGLAND).
  Copy presented, of General Abstract of Marriages, Births, and Deaths registered in England and Wales in the year 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN SCOTLAND (TECHNICAL EDUCATION).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 10th July, 1901; The Lord Advocate]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 182.]
  EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 14th May; Mr. Gerald Balfour]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 183.]
  RAILWAYS (CERTIFICATES) (LISKEARD AND LOOE RAILWAY COMPANY).
  Copy presented, of Draft Certificate of the Board of Trade authorising the Liskeard and Looe Railway Company to raise additional capital [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  ALIENS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 18th February; Mr. Jesse Collings]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 184.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2795 to 2797 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY (WATER-TUBE BOILERS).
  Copy presented, of letter from Messrs. Delaunay, Belleville, and Company, commenting on the Report of Trials of H.M.S. "Hyacinth" and H.M.S. "Minerva" [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Farmers and Local Authorities—Milk Supply Regulations.
  MR. TOLLEMACHE: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the loss and inconvenience caused to dairy farmers owing to the manner in which urban authorities occasionally use their powers in connection with the milk supply in their respective districts; whether he

  357
  is aware that a clause enabling a farmer, who can prove unfair treatment by an urban authority, to recover compensation has been introduced into several local Acts, among others into the Leeds Corporation Act, 1901, and The Brighton Corporation Act, 1901; and, seeing that a similar clause dealing with infectious diseases has been introduced into the London County Council Bill of this session, whether he will, in conjunction with the Local Government Board, endeavour to secure the insertion of similar clauses into all future Bills promoted by focal authorities.
  (Answer.) My answer to both Questions is in the affirmative.—(Board of Agriculture.)

China Operations, 1901—Taku Bombardment—Distribution of Prize Money.
MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state when the prize money in connection with the Taku bombardment and capture of four Chinese destroyers will be distributed; and how many officers and men will be entitled to share in the distribution.
(Answer.) I am advised that no prize money was, in fact, earned in connection with the operations referred to in the hon. Member's Question, and therefore the question of a distribution does not arise.—(Admiralty.)

Coronation Functions—Accommodation for Members.
COLONEL LOCKWOOD: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will grant the use of Westminster Hall, on the 26th and 27th June, for the purpose of providing luncheon and refreshment and accommodation for Members of Parliament and their friends.
(Answer.) if, as I understand, it is the general wish of the House that luncheon and refreshment accommodation should be provided in Westminster Hall for Members and their friends on the 26th and 27th of June, I shall be pleased to grant the use of the hall for that purpose.—(Office of Works.)

Victoria and Albert Museum.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: To ask the First Commissioner of Works what was the date on which Her late Majesty laid the foundation stone of the Victoria and Albert Museum; what is the amount of the building contract; how much of that money has been spent; at what dates are the different parts of the building to be completed; and what penalties, if any, are imposed by the contract upon the builders in case of delay in completion of their contract.
(Answer.) The date was 17th May, 1899, but the formal stone-laying was hastened to meet the convenience of Her late Majesty before any progress had been made with the drawings, or the temporary buildings in occupation on the site had been removed elsewhere. The amount of the building contracts and arrangements is, so far, about £76,000, of which £52,000 has been spent. The present contract for carrying the building up to the ground floor is to be completed in October next, and will, it is expected, be then finished; the contract for the superstructure of the main building will be made in the autumn and will extend over about four years. The penalties under the two principal contracts already made are £35 per week.—(Office of Works.)

Civil Servants and the Coronation.
MR. ALFRED DAVIES: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether arrangements can be made under which retired civil servants will be granted the privilege of purchasing tickets which have been issued to the Civil Service Departments for the purpose of affording members of the Civil Service opportunities for witnessing the Coronation procession.
(Answer.) I have no control over the distribution of the tickets issued to the Civil Service Departments; but no provision can, I fear, be made for retired civil servants independently of what may be afforded them by the Departments in which they served.—(Office of Works.)

India—Thibet-Sikkim Frontier.
MR. WEIR: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, seeing

359
that the boundary pillars which were put up on the Thibet-Sikkim frontier, in accordance with a treaty signed at Darjeeling, have been destroyed by the Thibetans, will he say whether any correspondence has taken place on the subject, and whether any steps will be taken to secure the restoration of these boundary pillars.
(Answer.) The answer to both the hon. Member's Questions is in the affirmative. Whenever the political officer for Sikkim next proceeds along the frontier he will erect or restore boundary pillars where necessary.—(Foreign Office.)

Brussels Sugar Convention—Position of India.
SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the statement made in a memorandum attached to a Bill laid before the German Reichstag referring to the abolition of sugar bounties consequent on the Brussels Convention; whether, as alleged in this memorandum, an express undertaking was given by the British representatives at Brussels that British India will, in consequence of the abolition of bounties, abandon the differential treatment of sugar imported from Germany; and, if so, whether the Indian Government was previously consulted in the matter and approved or disapproved the alleged undertaking.
(Answer.) The position of India with regard to the Convention was the subject of several declarations made in the course of the Conference, and also of a final declaration by the British Government which is embodied in the Final Protocol accompanying the Convention. The combined effect of these declarations is that the Government of India will adhere to the Convention if, after full consideration, they think it advisable to do so. In accordance with the undertaking given by His Majesty's Government in the Final Protocol the Convention has been forwarded for examination to the Government of India. Should India adhere to the Convention, its countervailing duties, as regards States which abolished their bounties in accordance with the Convention, will necessarily be discontinued. The Government of India has been consulted throughout, and approved the arrangements that have been made.—(India Office.)

Medical Examination of Steamship Passengers Leaving Calcutta.
MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India, in view of the fact that the shed in which passengers, leaving Calcutta by outward bound steamers, assemble for medical examination had been out of repair for several months prior to the 8th January last, and that passengers had to await the arrival of the medical officer for examination in the open street, will he ascertain whether the shed has yet been put in repair; and will he consider the expediency of taking such steps as may be necessary to require the punctual attendance of the medical officer, especially in connection with the morning sailings.
(Answer.) I have no knowledge of the allegations made by the hon. Member. I will bring them to the notice of the proper authority in India.—(India Office.)

Indian Criminal Law—Detention of Suspected Persons—Natu Brothers.
MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India, having regard to the fact that the Natu Brothers, of Poona, were arrested in July, 1897, on suspicion of being concerned in a murder case, and kept in prison for a period of two years without being brought to trial, will he consider the expediency of introducing legislation such as will extend to His Majesty's subjects in India the right to be brought to trial within a reasonable period after arrest.
(Answer.) The Regulation 25 of 1827, under which the Natu brothers were detained, is only applicable to the special class of cases set forth in that Regulation; and I do not propose to recommend any fresh legislation for the Amendment of that Regulation.—(India Office.)

Khairpur Native State.
MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can lay upon the Table of the House any Papers relating to the Government of the Native State of Khairpur since the British Government placed at the disposal of His Highness Mir Sir Faiz Mahomed Khan the services of a native British officer, viz., Khan Bahadur Kadirdad Khan, CLE., late Deputy

361
Collector of Nanshahro Sub-Division, to fill the office of Vazir to His Highness, for the purpose of assisting in the promotion of the good government of the State of Khairpur; and, if not, will he make inquiry as to the character of the administration of Khairpur.
(Answer.) I have received the annual Administration Reports of Khairpur and the favourable reviews passed upon them by the Government of Bombay. I find no reason for laying Papers on the Table, or for instituting any special inquiry in regard to the government of the State, and am satisfied that the Government of India and the local government are exercising the requisite supervision over its affairs.—(India Office.)

Bengal-Nagpur Railway—Assault on a Hindu Clerk.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the case in which the district traffic superintendent at Kharagpur was prosecuted for assault before the joint magistrate of Midnapur, by a Mahratta Brahmin clerk whom he had beaten; and, seeing that although the defendant admitted the assault the magistrate dismissed the case, will he ask the Government of Bengal to move for a revision of the case by the High Court; and will he state what action he proposes to take with reference to the conduct of the magistrate.
(Answer.) I have to refer the hon. Member to my answer to the Question on the subject of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division, given on the 6th inst., which was as follows:—"I have no official information on the subject, but I understand from the newspapers that the occurrence referred to has formed the subject of an enquiry in Court. I see no necessity for interfering in the matter, which is entirely within the competence of the local authorities. I am also aware that the ttention of the Government of India has been specially directed to the recurrence of assaults of this kind."—(India Office.)

Indian Criminal Code—Native Jurors.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Secretary of State for India, is he aware that, while not only any European British subject, but even any European or American, whether British subject or not, placed on trial before the High Courts in India, can claim to be tried by a jury consisting of not less than one-half of his own countrymen, no such claim can be made by a native of India in a similar case. And, seeing that the Indian National Congress has for some years past asked for a similar concession to the natives of the country, will he ask the Government of India to make suitable alterations in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(Answer.) I am aware that the law is substantially as stated in the Question. The point raised was very fully considered by the Legislative Council of the Governor General when the Criminal Procedure Code was last revised in 1898, and it was then pointed out that the law in respect of juries at trials before the High Courts has been uniform for over a century. No miscarriage of justice has ever, so far as I am aware, been alleged to result from the law as it stands in respect of the trial of natives by jury in High Courts, and as the jury panel of these Courts always includes a large number of native jurors, I believe that cases in which natives are accused are almost always, if not always, heard by a jury containing an adequate proportion of natives. I am not prepared to instruct the Government of India to make any alteration in the law.—(India Office.)

Civil Service—Clerks in Comptroller's Department.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Comptroller and Auditor General has applied to that Department for permission to recruit the ranks of the higher division clerks in the Exchequer and Audit Department by means of men selected after passing a higher division (Class 1) examination; and, if so, what reason does the Comptroller and Auditor General give for applying for such officers to superintend the audit of

363
Public Accounts instead of men, examiners and second division clerks, who have many years practical experience in the auditing of these Public Accounts.
(Answer.) The Comptroller and Auditor General has applied to the Civil Service Commissioners for two officers to be selected by means of open competition under Class 1 to fill impending vacancies in the Directing Branch of his Department. This course is in accordance with the Scheme under which his Department is organised, and is in his opinion desirable in the interests of the Department.—(Treasury.)

Belfast Telegraphists' Grievances.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that a deputation from the telegraph staff at Belfast asked permission to see the postmaster and surveyor on the 26th ultimo, and that in response to the postmaster's request a statement of the matters complained of was handed to the superintendent of telegraphs on the 30th ultimo: whether that statement has yet reached the postmaster, and whether the postmaster has received the deputation; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay.
(Answer.) Such an application was made to the postmaster, but he asked for certain particulars to be furnished by the memorialists. When this is done he will receive the deputation.—(Post Office.)
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that a number of the male telegraphists at Belfast have complained to the postmaster and surveyor of being detained on overtime, and refused an opportunity to obtain refreshments after they had been on duty without food for from five to six hours: whether he is aware that the work necessitating this detention was notified in the Post Office Circulars and admitted of proper provision being made therefor; and can he explain why two telegraphists are charged with insubordination and recommended for special punishment because they protested against such detention and enforced fasting.
364
(Answer.) The Postmaster General is assured that it is not the case that a number of telegraphists have complained, and been treated as alleged. Two telegraphists only were reported for objecting to overtime, and behaving in an insubordinate manner. The matter is still under investigation. I should add that the work necessitating this overtime, which was not excessive, was due to sudden pressure for which previous provision could not be made.—(Post Office.)

G.P.O., East Central Section—Extra Duty.
MR. HAY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware that the extra duty performed between 8 p.m. and midnight in the East Central Section, General Post Office, amounting to 6,384 hours from 15th January to 15th April last, devolved almost entirely upon the sixty-one sorters attached to the 11.45 a.m. to 8 p.m. attendance, few other officers being available; and whether he will recommend an increase of twenty officers to the established staff of the section for the purpose of decreasing the amount of extra duty, and, in accordance with the recommendation of the Tweedmouth Committee, reducing the number of auxiliary sorters, eighty of whom are employed on half-time, from 5 to 9 p.m. in this section.
(Answer.) The Postmaster General is aware of the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Member. During the period referred to the extra duty averaged eight hours a week for each man. It is not of such a nature as to justify provision being made for it by an addition to the permanent staff, and the arrangement suggested would entail a serious waste of force.—(Post Office.)

Post Office Sorters—Overseers' Class.
MR. BELL: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in carrying out the promise given in answer to representations made by the London sorters in January 1901, that examiners of sorting should in future be of a higher grade than the sorters, all

365
the sorters performing this duty will be withdrawn; and whether, in filling up the vacancies of two overseers on this class in the Inland Letter Section. Mount Pleasant, the senior officers on the acting overseers list willing to undertake the duties will be appointed, and not the junior officers who have been performing the duties of examiners of sorting, as in all cases these officers are over 800 down the sorters' list for promotion.
(Answer.) All the sorters performing the duty in question have been withdrawn, and all the vacancies on the overseers' class have already been filled.—(Post Office.)

Scotch Crofting Counties—Medical Officers.
MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate if the Secretary for Scotland will grant a Return showing the names of the parishes in each of the six crofting counties in which the parochial medical officer has been dismissed by the Parish Council within the last seven years; the Return to distinguish cases where a cause for dismissal was assigned from cases where no such cause was assigned.
(Answer.) The Secretary for Scotland will be prepared to grant the Return proposed by the hon. Member.—(Scottish Office.)

Llansadwrn (Carmarthenshire) Charities.
MR. ALFRED DAVIES: To ask the hon. Member for the Tonbridge Division of Kent, as Charity Commissioner, whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Assistant-Charity Commissioner, Mr. Marchant Williams, for the parish of Llansadwrn, Carmarthenshire, dated the 24th April, 1899, in which, on page 6, it is stated that under Cornwallis's Charity the poor of Llansadwrn have only received from 1794 to 1898 £5 7s. 6d. per annum instead of the following sums, to which they were entitled and which could have been paid them from the Charity, viz.: £7 9s. 7d. per annum from 1794 to 1829; £7 18s. 2d. per annum from 1829 to 1874; £7 11s. 1d. per annum from 1874 to 1888; £7 4s. 3d. per annum from 1888 to 1898; and whether he will take stops to recover for the poor of Llansadwrn the difference between what has been paid during these
366
years, and also for 1899 and 1900, amounting to about £240, and to ensure in future the correct amount of £7 4s. 3d. per annum being paid.
(Answer.) The Commissioners duly considered the Report to which the Question refers, and, on the 5th May, 1900, they called upon the trustees for explanations, and required them to make application for a scheme to regularise the administration of the charity. In default of such an application, the Commissioners, on the 24th August, 1900, certified the case to the Attorney General under the provisions of Section 20 of The Charitable Trusts Act, 1853. Thereupon the trustees made application to the Commissioners for a scheme; and a scheme has accordingly been drafted by them, and is now under consideration. Before finally settling the scheme the Commissioners will again carefully consider the particular matters to which the Question refers.—(Charity Commission.)

Education Department—Statistical Report.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: To ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education when the Abstract containing the Statistics of the Report of the Education Department will be circulated.
(Answer.) The Blue book referred to has been in the printers' hands for two months. I hope it will be ready for circulation shortly.—(Board of Education.)

Elementary School Teachers—Case of Mrs. Morgan, of Worcester.
MR. YOXALL: To ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. M. E. Morgan, whose work as mistress of St. Michael's Infant School, Broadway, Worcester, has received favourable comment from His Majesty's inspectors, who has been dismissed, without assigned reasons, by the managers of the school; and, whether, considering that Mrs. Morgan is nearly sixty-four years of age, is unable to obtain a disablement allowance, is left without occupation or moans of subsistence at so advanced an age, and cannot enjoy a superannuation allowance until September. 1903, he will cause representations to be

367
made to the managers of the school upon this treatment of the teacher, and particularly upon her dismissal, without assigned cause, at a date comparatively near the date of her superannuation.
(Answer.) No information on the matter referred to in the Question has reached the Board of Education. As the hon. Member is aware, the Board of Education have no power to interfere in the dismissal of teachers by managers of public elementary schools.—(Board of Education.)

Admiralty Contracts—Thames Ironworks Company.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Thames Iron Works was successful in its tender for a man of-war or a cruiser from among the ships recently put out to contract by the Admiralty; and, if not, what was the reason that it did not receive an order.
(Answer.) The tenders of the Thames Ironworks Company were not accepted because other tenders reached the Admiralty at the same time, the terms of which were more advantageous to the public service than those of the Thames Ironworks Company.—(Admiralty)

Early Irish Statutes.
MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the early Irish statutes, mentioned in the last Reports of the Irish deputy keepers, are in course of printing; and whether they will be published.
(Answer.) Some difficulty was experienced in connection with the supply of suitable type for printing the text of the statutes, but this has been overcome and the work is now in hand. The volumes will be published without unnecessary delay.—(Irish Office.)

Irish National School Teachers—Case of M. O'Grady, Gortgill, Antrim.
MR. WILLIAM M'KILLOP: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether all the cases reserved by the Commission of National Education (Ireland) for special consideration have been dealt with; and, if so, what has been the result in the case
368
of Michael O'Grady, the principal teacher of Gortgill National School, County Antrim.
(Answer.) The cases reserved for special consideration have been dealt with. In the case of Mr. O'Grady no increase can be given except as provided for under Rules 10 and 11.—(Irish Office.)

Irish Fisheries.
MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number and names of the boats used by the Government for the protection of the coast fisheries of Ireland, and whether he can also say where they are at present stationed.
(Answer.) The steam cruiser "Helga," the property of the new Department, and the "Granuaile," the property of the Congested Districts Board, which is occasionally placed at the disposal of the Department for the purpose. These vessels are employed solely in Irish waters, but are not stationed at fixed points.—(Irish Office.)

Irish Poor Law Inspector—Mrs. Dickie.
DR. MACDONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mrs. Maria Dickie has been appointed to the position of lady inspector of boarded-out children of Irish Unions by the Local Government Board; will he state whether any of the Local Boards were consulted as to this appointment; and, in view of the fact that the religion to which the majority of these children belong is Roman Catholic, will he say to what religious persuasion this lady belongs, and what experience she has enabling her to perform the duties of the office.
(Answer.) Mrs. Dickie has been appointed to the position mentioned. The appointment of such an officer was strongly urged by an influential deputation received by me in January last. The deputation was representative of philanthropic associations and of many members of Poor Law Boards. I had no information as to the lady's religion when she was appointed, nor did I make

369
inquiry into the matter. I now understand, however, that she is not a Roman Catholic. She is highly qualified for the post, having had considerable experience of Poor Law work in England and of relief administration in connection with the Factories Acts. As inspector of boarded-out children she will have to work amongst Protestant Ladies' Visiting Committees in Ulster as well as Roman Catholic Committees elsewhere.—(Irish Office.)

Army Clothing Factory, Pimlico—Inadequacy of Exits, Etc.
CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, seeing the inconvenience to the workers in the Royal Army Clothing Factory, Pimlico, caused by the north gate being closed when the men leave for dinner, and seeing that about 60 per cent. of the women workers leave the depôt by the south gate, and that the men's dinner hour is twelve o'clock, that of the women being 12.15, he will consider the advisability of opening the north gate for the men.
(Answer). I would refer the hon. Member to the answer already given to this Question, † to which I have nothing to add.—(War Office.)
CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been drawn to the state of the roof of the hall in which the women work in the Royal Army Clothing Factory, Pimlico, which lets in the rain, causing water to lie in pools on the floor of the pressing room; and whether he will see that the necessary repairs are executed without delay.
(Answer.) The roof of the hall is in good condition. The pressing shed where the women work is not in the hall, and its roof is in good condition. Recently the gutters overflowed through a temporary block; they have been overhauled and cleared out.—(War Office.)

St. Helena Garrison—Water Supply, Sanitation, etc.
MR. LAURENCE HARDY: To ask the Secretary for War
† See preceding Volume, page 424.
whether he is aware that the garrison of St. Helena is suffering from an epidemic of enteric fever which has been caused by a failure of the water supply and by deficiency in the supply of milk and other necessaries; whether he can give statistics as to the cases of enteric fever amongst the British troops in the island; and whether he will take immediate steps to secure that a good water supply, and milk and other necessaries shall be provided.
(Answer.) There were ninty-eight cases of enteric fever among the garrison at St. Helena on the 9th May. No report has reached me of the failure of the water supply or deficiency in the milk supply or other necessaries. Supplies of tinned milk and medical comforts have always been available there, and every possible precaution is being taken.—(War Office.)

Army Criminal Statistics.
MR. HAY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of soldiers now undergoing punishment in the local and convict prisons of the United Kingdom.
(Answer.) 712; but this number includes soldiers convicted of ordinary criminal offences by civil courts.—(Home Office.)

Army—Committals for False Attestation on Enlistment.
MR. HAY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the number of prisoners now in local and convict prisons in the United Kingdom who have been committed for false attestation on enlistment; and whether he will take steps whereby the merits of each case could be investigated, with a view to a recommendation being made to the proper authorities that the most deserving should be released or handed over to the military authorities, or will he explain why this cannot be done.
(Answer.) 153. I am afraid it would be impossible for me to select a special class of offenders and inquire into all the circumstances of their convictions. If in any particular case any representation

371
for a remission of sentence is made to me on grounds stated it will be carefully considered.—(Home Office.)

QUESTIONS IN TUE HOUSE.

  South Africa—Extension of Natal Boundaries.
  MR. FULLER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the proposed incorporation of certain portions of the Transvaal Colony with the self-governing Colony of Natal, he can state whether it is proposed to take steps to ensure the representation of the white population of the acquired territory in the Natal Legislature; and, further, whether he can state the date at which the transfer of territory will take place.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): A Rill providing for the annexation of the new territory has, I understand, been just passed by the Natal Legislature. A clause of the Bill provides for franchise rights equal to those accorded to the present inhabitants of Natal. As to the date at which the transfer of territory will actually take place, I can give no information at present.

  Censorship.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether all letters and other documents passing in the mails to and from South Africa, and all telegraphic messages sent to or from that country, are subject to military censorship in South Africa; who is the chief official of the censorship department; who are his principal assistants, and in what ports or places do they perform their functions; and are the mail steamers arriving at or leaving British South African ports boarded by military officials for the purpose of examining and searching passengers and their luggage.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): All private letters and telegrams passing into and out of South Africa are subject
  372
  to censorship. The chief censor is Major Trench, R. A.; the names of his present assistants have not been communicated to us. Major Trench is at Army head-quarters; other censors are at the coast towns and all important inland places. Mail steamers are boarded by the staff of the Embarkation Staff Officer. It is not known how far they examine passengers' luggage, but we have had no complaints.

  Convict Prisons—Civil and Military Prisoners.
  MR. GALLOWAY: I wish to ask the Home Secretary a Question of which I have given him private notice. There is a printed answer in the Votes, † which states in reply to the Question whether there is any distinction in the treatment in convict and local prisons between soldiers sentenced to penal servitude for military offences and criminals sentenced by a civil Court for the worst offences—that "the rules for carrying out of sentences of penal servitude do not differentiate between different classes of convicts, except in so far as a convict may be placed in the star class." I wish to ask the Home Secretary whether this answer refers to all soldiers, no matter what the nature of their offence may be. We have had repeated assurances given by the right hon. Gentleman, as well as by the Secretary for War, that soldiers convicted of offences against military law of the war should be kept separate.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's Question is altogether contrary to the spirit of the new Rules. The hon. Member is referring to a Question which has been answered in print. He may-put down a Question on the subject in the ordinary way, but cannot ask a supplementary Question upon the printed answer.
  MR. GALLOWAY: I respectfully submit that I have only done so because the answer indicates an entire reversal of the policy repeatedly announced by the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for War.
  † See page 175.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): Perhaps the House will permit me to answer the Question, because this is a matter of some importance. I think the answer on the printed paper is, perhaps, somewhat short, and might have been more explanatory. As regards the second part of the Question, the assurances given have referred entirely to soldiers not sentenced to be discharged the Army, and who are to return to the colours; such soldiers are kept separate from the ordinary criminal, and wear a different dress. It is not the offence but the sentence of discharge which places the prisoner in the same category as regards treatment in prison as the criminal, and all sentences of penal servitude carry discharge.

  War Office Contracts—Officers' Helmets.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, if he can say whether a contractor named Louis Silberston, who was imprisoned in 1899 for attempting to bribe the police officials in connection with a contract for the supply by him of police helmets, is, notwithstanding, now supplying helmets to the officers of certain infantry battalions, and is, moreover, still indirectly connected with the War Office contracts for helmets and caps.
  MR. BRODRICK: Officers are not supplied with helmets by the War Department. Silberston was removed from the War Office list of contractors, and there is no information to show that the Department is dealing with any firm in which he has interest, pecuniary or otherwise.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that officers commanding regiments usually give instructions to officers as to where they shall purchase their helmets, and is it not the fact that in many battalions the officers are now getting helmets from this man?
  MR. BRODRICK: I am not responsible for any suggestion which may be made by commanding officers
  374
  to the other officers, nor am I responsible as to where an officer chooses to purchase any portion of his uniform.

  Galashiels Army Contracts.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether his attention has been called to a correspondence between the secretary of the Galashiels Textile Factory Workers' Union and the Director of Army Contracts on the subject of the rate of wages paid by Messrs. William Brown and Sons, Wilderband Mills, Galashiels, to workers employed on Army contract goods; whether he is aware that this firm have reduced the wages on Government work by about 12½ per cent.; and whether the Department proposes to take any steps to rectify this alleged contravention of the conditions applicable to Government orders, and to put a stop to the injury done to the workmen by such a contravention.
  MR. BRODRICK: This matter has been carefully considered, and it is held that the contract conditions have not; been infringed by the firm.

  New Budget Proposals—Corn and Grain Duties.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, having regard to the fact that the Finance Bill as circulated does not contain in the Schedule a complete list of articles upon which the new corn and grain duties are being levied, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House an exact copy of the official list as circulated by the Customs authorities.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): All the articles on which the duties are being levied are included in the Schedule.

  Motor Cars—Speed Regulations.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that motor cars in and around London frequently travel at rates of speed in excess of that allowed by

  375
  regulation; and whether he will instruct the police to put the law strictly into operation against such offenders; and whether he will also order every motor car to be distinctly numbered so as to secure prompt and effective identification.
  MR. RITCHIE: Strict orders have been given to the police in respect to the infringement of the law by motor-cars, and prosecution will follow in all cases where possible; but doubtless the hon. Member is aware of the very great difficulty that exists in estimating correctly—or even approximately—the pace at which a motor-car is travelling. As regards the numbering of the cars the matter is one in which I have no authority to make any order.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say under whose jurisdiction this particular question of the numbering is placed?
  MR. RITCHIE: If any one has any power in the matter it would be the President of the Local Government Board, but I doubt very much whether, under the existing legislation, he has any power.

  Trans-Atlantic Shipping Combination.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of any option or contract existing giving the American Combine the right to take over the shares or fleet of the Cunard Company; and, if not, whether he will take steps to ascertain the facts of the case.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): I have reason to believe that no such option or contract exists.

  Telegraph Messengers—Drill Arrangements.
  MR. CREMRR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether in the telegraphic and postal service the boys' brigades were, upon their formation, provided with imitation guns; whether they are now armed with real guns; and, if so,
  376
  whether the Board of Education or the War Office supplies the guns and pays the drill sergeant for his services; how many hours per week the boys are engaged in military drill; and whether they receive any extra pay for the time they are so engaged.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The telegraph messengers attached to the larger post offices are regularly trained in simple drill and physical exercises, but they are not formed into Brigades. It does not appear that imitation guns have ever been used in this training. The older boys carry disused carbines, of which the strikers have been removed, lent by the War Office. The younger boys use sticks when performing physical exercises. As a rule, the instruction is given by the Post Office Inspectors of Messengers, or other Post Office servants. Occasionally, Military Instructors are employed, but they are paid by the Post Office. Each boy is drilled for an hour once a week, or at rather longer intervals, during the drill season, from the 1st of March to the 30th of November. The boys are paid for the time occupied by their attendance at drill.

  Military Drill in Public Elementary Schools.
  MR. CREMER: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education if he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the joint circular recently issued by the Board of Education and the War Office in regard to the teaching of military drill in public elementary schools; and if he will state what authority these departments possess to act in concert upon the subject.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir JOHN GORST, Cambridge University): A copy of the model course of military training for use in the upper departments of Public Elementary Schools was yesterday presented to Parliament. It is, as appears on its face, issued by the Board of Education only, under their general powers.

  The Coronation—Arrangements for Members of Parliament.
  COLONEL LONG: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can arrange with the Commissioner of Police that Members of Parliament living west of Westminster Abbey shall be allowed on the 26th and 27th June to drive by Chelsea Embankment, Grosvenor Road, and Abingdon Street to the public entrance of the House of Commons; those going to the Abbey to walk through the path between St. Margaret's and the Abbey, and those going to the House of Commons stand, on showing their tickets, to pass through Westminster Hall and New Palace Yard to the corner gate and be allowed by the police to cross to the stand opposite up to some named hour; and will he also arrange that the carriages of Members of Parliament should be parked in New Palace Yard.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): I shall be happy to do what I can for the convenience of hon. Members, and have entered into communication with the Commissioner of Police on the subject, and have asked him to consider these suggestions in due course.
  COLONEL LONG: Can the time be extended to half-past nine?
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I do not think that is possible. But it does not rest with me.

  Irish Prison Warders—Hours of Duty.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what are the number of hours on duty per week of the warders in the local prisons in Ireland, such as Sligo, Galway, and Castlebar; and in the case of unmarried warders can he state how many hours are they obliged to remain within the precincts of the prison each week.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): Under ordinary circumstances the number of hours for duty in the prisons named
  378
  varies from sixty-five to seventy per week in summer, and somewhat less during the remainder of the year. Unmarried warders are required to remain within the precincts of the prison for the same number of hours, and also every night. It is not obligatory to remain on the premises during the interval between day and night duty.

  Treatment of Irish Political Prisoners.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether in framing the new prison rules it is proposed to make arrangements by which prisoners convicted under the operations of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act will be treated in a different manner from prisoners convicted under the ordinary law; and whether copies of the altered prison rules have been supplied to the prisoners at present serving their sentences.
  MR. WYNDHAM: All prisoners in Ireland are being classified as in England; but prisoners cannot be treated as a separate class on the ground that they have been convicted under a particular statute. Prisoners are not entitled to copies of the rules, but an abstract of the regulations relating to the treatment of prisoners is posted up in each cell. The hon. Member for East Mayo having recently made inquiries on the subject, I find that he was allowed to exercise by himself in Dundalk prison in 1888. This was done on medical grounds; he was in hospital. It is within the discretion of the governor to allow any prisoner of any class to exercise by himself or to allow several prisoners of the same class to exercise with each other and apart from the rest of the class.
  MR. DILLON: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the fact that there was a general regulation applying to all prisoners convicted under the Coercion Act that they should wear their own clothes and not be exercised with other prisoners?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The rule as to wearing their own clothes was affected by a general change in the prison regulations which authorised all

  379
  prisoners, whether convicted under that or any other statute, to wear their own clothes if there was no reason for making them wear prison dress. There was no general regulation that prisoners under the Crimes Act should be treated as a separate class. The hon. Member himself was afforded certain privileges, which it was in the discretion of the governor to confer.
  MR. TULLY: Why were alterations against the Coercion Act prisoners made in the new rules issued the other day?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The rules have been altered to bring them into line with the rules in force in English prisons.

  Illegal Fishing off the Irish Coast.
  MR. POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has made application to the Admiralty for gunboats to assist in preventing illegal fishing off the coasts of Ireland; if so, what has been the result of such application; whether he is aware that for years the Admiralty have placed gunboats at the disposal of the Scotch fishery authorities for the protection of the Scotch fisheries; and, if so, whether he has pressed that fact on the attention of the Admiralty.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The question of providing additional protection to the Irish fisheries against the depredations of trawlers is engaging attention, and an inter-Departmental correspondence on the subject is in progress. Under the circumstances, I would ask the hon. Member to defer the Question until after the holidays.
  MR. POWER: I should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that at present the Admiralty does nothing for the Irish fisheries, although they place gunboats at the disposal of the Scottish Fishery Board. The "Helga" and the "Granuaile," the only vessels in Irish waters, are provided out of Irish funds.

  Annaghmore Riots.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord
  380
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has any objections to stating how many of the rioters at Annaghmore, county Armagh, have been identified; and whether he will ascertain from the Roman Catholic clergymen and leading Roman Catholic laymen in the district their views as to the urgent necessity for the re-establishment of the police barracks.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have nothing to add to the replies given to the previous Questions of the 1st and 2nd instant on the same subject. †
  MR. MACVEAGH: Whom has the right hon. Gentleman consulted?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Those who by experience are best qualified to judge.
  MR. MACVEAGHrose to put another Question.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Question on the Paper has been answered.

  Irish Evictions and Eviction Notices.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the Returns of evictions and eviction notices in Ireland for the quarter ended 31st March last; and whether, in view of the fact disclosed by these Returns, viz., that 536 eviction notices were filed under Section 7 of the Land Act of 1887 for the three months named, he will consider the advisability of introducing a clause into the new Bill, repealing or modifying Section 7.
  MR. DELANY: At the same time, may I ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, having regard to the fact that, as shown by the Parliamentary Return, 536 tenancies, as well as sub-tenancies depending on them, have been determined during the three months ending 31st March last, by ejectment notices forwarded through the post, under Section 7 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, whether, pending the passing
  † See preceding Volume, pages 445 and 570.
  of the Land Bill into law, the Government propose taking any steps to suspend this mode of eviction in Ireland.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The number of notices under Section 7 was 536, as stated. The number of actual evictions in the same period was 69. The effect of a notice being to determine the tenancy, the tenant must redeem before he can apply to have a fair rent fixed. Such redemptions are, it is believed, frequent, and it is not correct to assume, as is often done, that the tenant is dispossessed of all rights in his holding. It is not proposed to legislate in the direction suggested.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentle man aware that over 2,000 of these notices were served last year, and that the practical effect is to convert the tenant into a caretaker?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the number of the notices served under the Act of 1887 and the number of redemptions?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I think the number served is already within the purview of the House, but I do not see how it is possible to arrive at the number of redemptions.

  Irish Law Officers and Private Practice.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, having regard to the fact that, under the provisions of Section 28 (B) of the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act of 1884 applied to Irish local governmnent elections under the Act of 1898, the Attorney General for Ireland is bound to be represented at the trial of a municipal election petition by a barrister or solicitor of not less than ten years standing, will he state whether the barrister who, at the hearing of the recent election petitions in Arran Quay Ward, Dublin, where corrupt practices were alleged on both sides, represented the Attorney General is a barrister of ten years standing.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The Act of Parliament was strictly complied with. The Chief Crown Solicitor, Sir Patrick Coll, a solicitor of much more than ten years standing, appeared for and represented the Attorney General at the hearing of the Petition. Owing to the many demands, however, on Sir Patrick Coil's time, it is sometimes necessary for him to instruct counsel to assist him, and in such cases the selection of the counsel rests with him. To the counsel so selected the provisions as to standing have no application. Nothing, however, will thereby be added to the liability of the County Council, as the proper and usual legal cost and expenses will only be charged against them.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that twice within the last few weeks the Solicitor General for Ireland has been absent from Ireland and has failed to discharge the duties of his office in that country owing to his appearance as counsel before Committees of the House of Commons; and, seeing that Law Officers of the Crown in England, having regard to their position as Ministers of the Crown, do not appear before such Committees, even when they do not sit for constituencies in the House of Commons, will steps be taken to assimilate in this respect the practice regulating the conduct of the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland to the practice in England.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Solicitor General for Ireland, unlike the Solicitor General for England, is permitted to take private practice. I cannot admit that he has failed to discharge his duties, but it is true that on one occasion he, owing to an unforeseen clashing of dates, appeared in England whilst a case for the Crown was proceeding in Ireland. The selection of private cases in which he may elect to appear rests within the discretion of the Solicitor General. I am sure that in exercising that discretion he will in future avoid even the appearance of conflict between his private practice and public duties. It is not proposed to assimilate the conditions of tenure and salary of this office to those of the Solicitor General for England.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the case of R. v. Lynam, in which an application was made on the part of the Crown to the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland that the defendant should give bail to be of good behaviour, and to the comments of the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland on the absence of both the Law Officers of the Crown; whether he is aware that Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, who, according to practice, represents Mr. Attorney General for Ireland in Crown cases in which that official is unavoidably absent, was, at the time of the hearing of the case mentioned, engaged as counsel in his private capacity before a Committee of the House of Commons; and whether the Irish Government will in future direct that the primary attention of the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland should be devoted to the duties of their offices.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir. That is the case to which I referred in reply to the previous Question. I cannot accept the version given of the Lord Chief Justice's remark. There is no occasion for, or need of, the direction suggested.

  Mallow Police and Public Meetings.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state by whose direction, and under what authority, a police sergeant called on the proprietor of the Hibernian Hotel, Mallow, last Wednesday, prior to the holding of a public meeting to be addressed from the windows of the hotel in connection with the forthcoming election for district councillors, and warned him that if any speeches were so delivered the renewal of his licence would be opposed; will he state whether it is intended to institute proceedings against any one of the speakers for language used at the meeting; and, seeing that it is the ordinary practice to address public meetings of electors from hotel windows during contested elections, will instructions be given to the police in Mallow
  384
  not to interfere with the holding of such meetings during the further progress of this election.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There has been no interference with meetings addressed from the windows of this hotel, nor is it intended to take proceedings against any of the speakers. Language of a reprehensible kind was used by some of the speakers, directed against local magistrates. The police merely gave notice to the owner lest he might be unwittingly betrayed into allowing licensed premises so to be used that they would feel justified in opposing, the renewal of his licence.

  Navigation Laws.
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the effect of the Atlantic Shipping Combination, he has considered the desirability of re-enacting the navigation laws.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I cannot say that the subject of the Question has not been considered by the Government, but we certainly have no proposals to make at present to the House in the direction of re-enacting the navigation laws.

  Hire of Transports.
  MR. GALLOWAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will state how many vessels included in the recent North Atlantic Shipping Combine have been employed directly or indirectly for the transport of troops, stores, horses, or mules by the English Government or by any of the Colonial Governments during the present war; and, in the event of these ships or any of them passing under the direct control of a Foreign Power, what steps the Government propose to take to obtain transports that would be available by this country under similar circumstances in the future.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that twenty-one transports on time have been chartered, besides eleven freight ships for conveyance of troops and horses and

  385
  stores exclusively employed for a specified voyage from companies which have joined the combination.

  Steamship Subsidies Committee—Private Bill Procedure Committee—Committee on Arrangement of the Estimates.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he can now make any statement as to the reappointment of the Select Committee on Steamship Subsidies.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it will be desirable that an evening sitting, early in the week after we return should be devoted to the appointment of this Committee and of two other Committees which have been promised by the Government, and the reference to which I will put down before the holidays. One has regard to Private Bill Procedure. The other question is to consider whether any scheme is practicable for improving the machinery for looking into the details of Estimates, apart from policy. I will put down the references for the Tuesday or Wednesday evening after we return, putting steamship subsidies first.
  MR. CHANNING: In what order will they be proposed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Steamship Subsidies Committee first.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman adhere to the original terms of reference, or will he enlarge the scope of the inquiry?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have considered that question. On the whole I am disposed to think it is much better to leave the reference where it is, and to get the information which the Committee are in a position to give us as soon as possible. To alter the reference would necessarily increase the time the Committee must sit.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: With regard to the Committee on Private Bill Procedure, will the right hon. Gentleman await its Report before making the sessional Orders Standing Orders? What will be the reference to it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I propose that the reference to the Committee on Private
  386
  Bill Procedure shall not include any power of altering the arrangements we have made to take private business at the beginning of the evening sitting. I consider that is fundamental; the House has decided the matter, and I do not intend to refer it to the Committee.

  Business of the House.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what will be the business after Whitsuntide.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I propose to take Supply on the Monday on which the House meets. At the afternoon sitting the Supply will be Class 4, the Education Estimates; and in the evening Class 5, the Consular and Diplomatic Votes. On Tuesday, the 27th, we shall begin the discussion in Committee on the Finance Bill, and continue that from day to day. One of the evening sittings, on Tuesday or Wednesday, as I have already said, will be devoted, among other things, to the discussion of the three Committees, the references to which will be put on the Paper.
  MR. CREMER: When is it proposed to again take the Loan Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I take it that the Committee stage of the Bill will be quite uncontroversial; as at present advised, I shall not take the Third Reading until we have disposed of the Committee on the Budget.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I should like it to be quite clear whether other Votes in Class 5 as well as the Consular and Diplomatic Vote will be taken at the evening sitting of Monday week.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, I do not think there is any objection to that.

  West Indies Disaster—Government Relief Measures—Motion for Adjournment.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to the measures which have been adopted by the Government for the relief of the people of Martinique and St. Vincent,

  387
  and whether his attention has been called to the precedent of the earthquake of Lisbon, on 24th November, 1755, when this House, on a message from the King, voted £100,000 to the relief of the sufferers by that disaster.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am well aware of the precedent. I think it was in 1755. That is not a very recent date, nor has it any very special relevance to the present subject. With regard to St. Vincent, the hon. Member will have noted that the Lord Mayor has consented to open a relief fund at the Mansion House. Canada, Jamaica, the neighbouring West India islands, and Mauritius have already given or promised help in money or in kind, and I do not doubt but that other colonics will be equally generous. In addition, the, Governor has already been authorised to spend what he considers to be necessary, and His Majesty's Government, without naming at this moment any definite sum, are prepared to supplement the contributions from other sources to whatever extent may be deemed necessary, and to augment to that extent the small West India deficit grant which is annually voted by this House. I ought to add that in the above I have not taken account of the most sympathetic manner in which the United States Government have—to use their own language—
  "Expressed their desire to share in the work of aid and rescue."
  As to the exact manner in which this offer can best be accepted, the Governor of the Windward Islands is being consulted. With regard to Martinique, Lord Lansdowne, on May 12th, telegraphed to our Ambassador at Paris, to say that—
  "It would give His Majesty's Government pleasure to afford assistance in any manner which might be found convenient to the sufferers by the Martinique calamity. If we can do this by the loan of medical officers, or by gift of such supplies or medical comforts as can be provided from British possessions in the neighbourhood, we are prepared to act at once."
  To this the French Government have replied that they—
  "Accept with gratitude the offer of His Majesty's Government to send provisions and medical comforts to Martinique from neighbouring British possessions."
  MR. DILLON: Do I understand that the Governor of the Windward Islands has been authorised to expend public money to any extent he may think necessary? I would ask the right hon. Gentleman also to state whether that expenditure will apply both to Martinique and St. Vincent. I think it would be a very unfortunate thing if a distinction were drawn.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In the nature of the case there must be a distinction drawn between our own colonies and the colonies of other countries. We are prepared, as I have said, to give assistance by the loan of medical officers, and the gift of medical comforts and of provisions, to the sufferers at Martinique. As regards the first question, the hon. Gentleman has accurately interpreted the answer I gave.
  MR. DILLONthen rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz.—
  "The refusal of the Government to take adequate steps to relieve the surviving inhabitants of Martinique."
  but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. Speaker called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and less than forty Members, but more than ten having, accordingly risen, and a division being claimed,
  (2.49.) Question put, "That leave be given to move that this House do now adjourn. "
  The House divided:—Ayes, 54; Noes, 124. (Division List No. 175.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E

  Crean, Eugene

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc, Stroud

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Delany, William

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Boland, John

  Doogan, P. C.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Caine, William Sproston

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Jones, William (Carnarvon)

  Caldwell, James

  Ffrench, Peter

  Joyce, Michael

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Levy, Maurice

  Lundon, W.

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

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

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

  Weir, James Galloway

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Reddy, M.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

  Murnaghan, George

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Roche, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Mr. Dillon and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

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

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

  Sullivan, Donal

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood. Capt. Sir Alex. F.

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

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Mount, William Arthur

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  O'Neill, Hon Robert Torrens

  Arrol, Sir William

  Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S. W

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Austin, Sir John

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Percy, Earl

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Purvis, Robert

  Beach, Rt. Hn Sir Michael Hicks

  Greene, Sir E W (B'ry Sedm'nds

  Randles, John S.

  Beresford, Lord Chas. William

  Gretton, John

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hain, Edward

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G. (Mid'x

  Rigg, Richard

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Russell, T. W.

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Rutherford, John

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Cavendish, V. C. W Derbyshire

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffi'ld, Brightside

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Horner, Frederick William

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.

  Lawson, John Grant

  Spear, John Ward

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

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

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Cranborne, Viscount

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

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Denny, Colonel

  Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cum. Penr

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Dixon-Halland, Sir Fr'd Dixon

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfrie-shire

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Middlemore, J'hn Throgmorton

  Sir William Walrond and

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Mitchell, William

  Mr. Anstruther.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill intituled "An Act to amend the Law relating to County Courts in Ireland." [County Courts (Ireland) Bill (LORDS).]

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.

CIVIL SERVICE AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1902–3.

  CLASS I.
  1. Motion made, and Question proposed "That a sum, not exceeding £37,800, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1903, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces and Marlborough House."
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that perhaps he might be permitted to say, on the first occasion on which the Chairman of Committees had taken the Chair since his recent illness, that every. Member of the Committee entertained a feeling of gratitude at his restoration to health, and on his being enabled to preside in his courteous manner over the Committee once again. On the Vote before the Committee, he desired to move that it be postponed, for reasons which the Committee would at once see if they turned to page 6 of the Estimates. They were asked, in the form in which the Vote was presented, to vote a blank page which had always been accustomed to contain details of the salaries, wages, and allowances. They had heard from the hon. Member for Oldham and the hon. Member for Exeter during the week about the lack of control which the House exercised over public money; and the presentation to the Committee of a blank page, with the request to vote public money, was remarkable evidence of that. He had taken the trouble to look up the Estimates for previous years, and he found that last year, for the first occasion for as many years as he had been able to look back, the Estimate was also presented in blank. No attention was called to it last year, as hon. Members considered that, owing to the recent decease of her late Majesty Queen Victoria, there might be reasons, as to which it was not desirable to inquire, why the Estimate was presented in that form. But the Estimate was now again presented in blank, and if the Committee did not refuse to pass it in that form, it might become a precedent, which might extend in many other directions. There were two funds voted by the Committee without particulars being supplied as to the manner in which the money was spent. One was the Civil List which was granted to His Majesty, and no details were required as to that, as it was for the King to spend it when and how he pleased. The second fund was what was called the Secret. Service Fund, and for many years the House had been extremely jealous as to the amount of money allowed for that purpose, and it was one of the great principles of the House of Commons to watch it very carefully and jealously in order that the amount of secret service money should not increase too much. The Committee gladly passed
  392
  those two Votes without any account being required, but it was entirely a novel proceeding, and he submitted a very dangerous one, to present a Vote to the House in the form of a complete blank. He trusted, therefore, that the Committee would support him in his Motion that the Vote be adjourned until the particulars had been placed on the Paper. He moved his Motion, in the first place, on pure principle, because he thought it was a matter in which the Committee should stand on its rights; and in the second place, because the Vote had increased during the last few years to a very serious extent. The total of the Vote before the Committee was 60 per cent. higher than the Vote for the same Department four years ago, and surely, therefore, it was a case in which particulars should be supplied before the Committee proceeded to consider it. Lastly, he claimed that if the Government agreed to postpone the Vote, they should undertake that it would not be guillotined at the end of the session, but that it should be brought up when there would be a proper opportunity for considering it. He moved that the consideration of the Vote be adjourned.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot put the motion in these terms, as it would be a quite unusual thing to do in Committee. I could put the question that I report progress and ask leave to sit again, but then the debate would be confined to that Motion. Perhaps the better way would be for the Minister in charge to reply, and then if the hon. Member is not satisfied, he can remove to report progress.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's)said the hon. Member desired to postpone the Vote on two grounds. One was that full details of expenditure had not been given either in the present year or last year with regard to the items of expenditure, and the other was that there was a large increase in the Vote over what it was four years ago. The Estimate was presented in a slightly different form from that of last year, but there was no objection taken to it by the Public Accounts

  393
  Committee. He could assure the hon. Member that every detail which had been previously given appeared on the Estimate. If the hon. Member would turn to pages 4 and 5 he would see all the details of expenditure under the various heads. The particulars as to the new works were contained in page 5.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he referred to item A—salaries, wages, and allowances.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid he believed that these items were given in detail in no other Votes, but he would be glad to give the hon. Member any details he required as to them. He could assure the hon. Member that there was no desire whatever, on the part of the Government or of his Department, to keep any details from the criticism of the House of Commons. He thought he would have the Committee with him when he stated that the Estimates in Class 1 were more detailed than the Estimates of any other Department. He also wished to point out that the Votes for which he was responsible instead of being given in one Estimate, as was the case in many other Departments, were given under no less than eight Estimates. For instance the Vote for the Local Government Board, which was a very large service compared with the relatively small amount of money for which he was responsible, only appeared in one Estimate. Certainly, there was no intention on his part, or on the part of the Government, to withhold any information from the Committee. Then with regard to the increase in the Vote, the hon. Member had taken the Committee to a period four years ago. A great deal had taken place during the last two years, and the expenditure was undoubtedly higher than it was four years ago, but it was owing to one reason, and one reason only, and that was the accession to the Throne last year, and the large amount of money that had to be spent in connection with it. The amount of money taken last year, including Supplementary Estimates, was £104,600; this year there was a decrease of £31,800, and although the Vote for £72,800 was higher than the normal Vote for the service, it was entirely accounted for by the extra expenditure
  394
  necessary in consequence of the change of occupancy of the Throne and the accession of His present Majesty. Those, extra sums would disappear from the Estimates in future years. They were foreshawdowed last year, he thought, by his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a statement to the House, and his right hon. friend then said that they would cover a period of two years, because it was quite impossible to carry out the necessary work in one financial year. The hon. Member might accept his assurance that the expenditure was abnormal, and that it was only connected with the accession of His present Majesty to the Throne. He looked forward to the normal expenditure of £50,000 or £60,000 a year as likely to prevail in the future. Any hon. Member who had followed the Estimates for many years would admit that there was less variation in the amount of the Estimates in his Department than in any other Department. Naturally, there were public improvements to be carried out; but in a time of great stress it was natural that the Department connected with buildings, parks, and public spaces should go to the wall. But so far as the Votes for which he was personally responsible went, there had been during the last few years very little variation in them. The variation in the Vote before the Committee was, as he had already said, accounted for by the accession of His present Majesty and the necessary preparations which had to be made in the Royal Palaces. If the hon. Member withdrew his Motion, he would be quite prepared to give him full details of the extra expenditure. There was no desire to conceal anything in the Vote from the cognisance of the Committee; and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with the explanation he had given and allow the discussion to proceed.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had not realised the point which he had endeavoured to make. He did not question the amount of the Vote in any way. His complaint was that Item A, both this year and last, was presented in blank, which was not according to precedent. He had expected

  395
  the right hon. Gentleman to have said that that was due to an error on the part of the printers or somebody. This item was for salaries, wages, and allowances, and two years ago these Estimates contained a complete list of the officers who received the money; now it was presented in blank, and the Vote certainly ought not to be allowed to proceed until the particulars were before the House. He was not in any way protesting against the increase as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, but simply to Item A being presented in blank. In order to raise the question he moved that the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that it would be more convenient if the hon. Gentleman moved a reduction, which would enable the whole matter to be discussed, rather than to report progress, which would restrict the discussion to this particular point.
  MR. WHITLEYaccepted the suggestion, and moved to reduce the Vote by £500 in respect of Item A.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries, Wages, and Allowances) be reduced by £500."—(Mr. Whitley.)
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESthought the hon. Gentleman had moved the reduction under a misapprehension. He had said there were no details under this head, whereas, as a matter of fact, the old details were there in a different form. Instead of being carried out horizontally, they were put in vertically. That was almost the only change. But then came the question of whether the details were sufficient. It was perfectly true that the details were not so rich in this as in other Votes. He thought the particulars were sufficient, but that, of course, did not prejudice the right of the hon. Member to criticise and examine them. The hon. Gentleman was pressing for further information, and the right hon. Gentleman had rather put the responsibility on the Public Accounts Committee. The Public Accounts Committee was not in the least responsible for the form of
  396
  this Estimate. It must be clearly understood that this was a form adopted by the Treasury, and for which the Public Accounts Committee was in no way-responsible.
  MR. GODDARDsaid the explanation given by the hon. Member for King's Lynn did not quite dispose of the point. It was not a fact that all the information given in the Estimates two years ago was given in this Estimate. All the information given by the vertical columns was that this sum was divided between the various palaces. They did not give, as in former Estimates, the number of officers employed. No doubt the information could be obtained by constantly pestering the right hon. Gentleman until they got what they wanted, but that was not so satisfactory as the old method of having the information set out in the Estimates. In the old form, instead of this blank page there were full details showing how this money was expended. There might be certain officers employed with regard to whom some criticism might be necessary, but that could not be ascertained until the Vote was brought up in the House, and then the information could only be obtained by questions, and in the event of the Vote not coming on, but being guillotined, there would be no information at all. The Public Accounts Committee had not taken any notice of this change because they were engaged in seeing that the money voted was properly expended, rather than looking after the form of the account, and attention had not been called to the alteration. He thought his hon. friend was quite right in moving the reduction, and unless the right hon. Gentleman gave an undertaking that in future the old form of the Estimate should be reverted to, he should support the Motion.
  MR. NANNETTIsaid in his opinion the hon. Member had made out a good case. This change was the thin end of the wedge, and would supply for future years a precedent for inserting blank pages in other Votes. He trusted the hon. Member would press his Motion to a division. The House when voting public money was entitled to know how it was spent.
  MR. WHITLEYcontended that not only the salaries but also the number of persons to whom those salaries were paid should be set out. How were the Committee to know whether the £1,400 put down to Hampton Court Palace went to one man or twenty men? Members were deprived of that information by the absence of this page of details, and he should certainly press his Amendment to a division.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERthought that if an assurance were given that the details required would be given next year the Amendment might be withdrawn. There was no suspicion that anything was wrong this year, but the omission of these particulars opened the way to things which might be important in the future.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLASthought the particulars would not be of very great convenience to the Committee. Most of the persons concerned, though most excellent servants, were in extremely humble positions. There was not a single case in which the salary exceeded 30s. a week, and the men included turncocks, night watchmen, coal porters, stokers, and, he believed, a rat catcher. Surely it was not desirable that the time of the Committee should be wasted by discussing such details, when the excess of the present Estimate over that of four years ago was only about £50.
  (3.35.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 87: Noes, 139. (Division List No. 176.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Reddy, M.

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Rigg, Richard

  Blake, Edward

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Boland, John

  Jones, William Carnarvonshire

  Roche (John)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Joyce, Michael

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Burns, John

  Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.

  Runciman, Walter

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Leamy, Edmund

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Caldwell, James

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Levy, Maurice

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Carew, James Laurence

  Lough, Thomas

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Channing, Francis Allston

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Tennant, Harold John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Mansfield, Horace, Rendall

  Thomas, J. A (Glam'rg'n, Gower

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Mooney, John J.

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

  Delany, William

  Murnaghan, George

  Tully, Jasper

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Dillon, John.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Weir, James Galloway

  Doogan, P. C,

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  White, Luke (York, E. B.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

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

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Elibank, Master of

  O'Brien, Kendal, Tipp'rary, Mid

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

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Woodhouse, Sir J T(H'dd'rsf'd

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

  Mr. Whitley and Mr. Wallace.

  Hayne, lit. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Partington, Oswald

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Cavendish, V. C W (Derbyshire

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bignold, Arthur

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worcr

  Austin, Sir John

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

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

  Campbell, Rt Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Colston, Charles Edw. H. Athole

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Purvis, Robert

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hogg, Lundsay

  Randles, John S.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Horner, Frederick William

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas, Thomson

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lawson, John Grant

  Rollit, Sir Albeit Kaye

  Elliot, Hon. A Ralph Douglas

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Ropper, Colonel Robert

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Russell, T. W.

  Fergusson, Rt. H n. Sir J. (M'ne'r

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Rutherford, John

  Fielden, Edward, Brocklehurst

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Finch, George H.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone. W.)

  Fisher, William Haves

  Lucas, Reginald. J.(Portsmouth

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

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Macartney, Rt. Hn W G. Ellison

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W.

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Galloway, William Johnson

  MacIver, David, Liverpool

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

  Gardner, Ernest

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Spear, John Ward

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

  Maxwell W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Stanley, Edward Jas. Somerset

  Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby (Line.)

  Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mitchell, William

  Talbot, Lord E. Chichester)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Green, Walford D.(W'dnesbury

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Walker, Col. William Hall

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

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Gretton, John

  Mount, William Arthur

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Hain, Edward

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E. Taunton

  Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.

  Murray, Charles J. Coventry)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und Lyne

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Midd'x

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

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

  Nicholson, William Graham

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

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Nicol Donald Ninian

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

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

  Sir William Walrond and

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

  Percy, Earl

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Question put and agreed to.

  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. CALDWELLcontended that the same proportion of money should be spent upon Holyrood Palace as upon the other Royal Palaces in England. Her late Majesty occasionally made Holyrood Palace her residence. This palace ought to be kept in a reasonable state of efficiency, but only £470 was being expended upon new works. Amongst other small items was one of £150 for an addition to a greenhouse in the palace gardens at Holyrood, and £120 for improvement of fire appliances. How far would that go for additional greenhouses? The amount was ridiculous. The sum of £200 for the renewal of kitchen apparatus was certainly very economical, and practically nothing was being done to keep the buildings in an efficient state of repair, or to prepare them even for a temporary Royal residence. He thought they had a right to complain of the great need for expenditure in preserving the national buildings. If the First Commissioner of Works would compare the expenditure
  400
  upon these buildings in Scotland with other places, he would find that Scotland did not get its fair share. He hoped the House would receive some assurance that Holyrood Palace would be kept in an efficient state.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid that he did not feel inclined to quarrel with the argument that a larger amount should be spent at Holyrood. He would like to see more money spent on all the public gardens in Scotland, but he had to do the best he could with the sum at his disposal. He thought the hon. Member opposite would admit that some progress had been made in the direction he desired in the course of the last year or two. This year the sum asked for was higher than in the past, and one reason it was not larger was that it was not necessary to include proposals for structural alterations necessary at Holyrood for making it suitable for a residence for the Royal family. The hon. Member opposite had often brought forward the wishes of his Scotch friends with regard to Holyrood Palace, but he

  401
  thought the hon. Member would admit that since he had been First Commissioner of Works they had succeeded in making the palace at Holyrood and the gardens far more popular than they had hitherto been. A request which had often been made in the House had just been granted, namely, that in future the gardens at Holyrood would be open to the public at certain hours of the day; and further, if found possible to make arrangements, His Majesty would be pleased to allow bands to play in the gardens at Holyrood. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark might rest assured that Holyrood would not be forgotten.
  MR. CALDWELLexpressed his satisfaction with the right hon. Gentleman's reply.
  MR. JOHN BURNSdrew attention to an item of £150 for the construction of a new outside larder at Kensington Palace. The occupants of Kensington Palace were as a rule pensioners, and got their quarters free. It was often the practice of these people to put up such things as washhouses and outside larders, and the fine old building was being completely spoiled simply to please tenants who were having a good time of it at the nation's expense. These people ought not to be allowed to vandalise the nation's property, and he objected to Kensington Palace being spoiled by the construction of outside larders. Near to Kensington Palace was a beautiful building known as the Orangery, and near it were being erected a number of temporary buildings. He knew very well what temporary buildings became when they were erected near palaces occupied by free tenants. It might at first be a temporary iron building, then later on lath and plaster, and subsequently brickwork, until it assumed the shape of a permanent building out of keeping altogether with the original building. He trusted that Kensington Palace would be left intact as bequeathed by her late Majesty the Queen, and that it would not be allowed to be spoiled by the erection of outside larders. In past years he thought the right hon. Gentleman deserved the thanks of everybody for the steps he had taken to keep Hampton Court Palace, as it should be kept, as an old building, without having grafted
  402
  upon it those brick and mortar excrescences which had been dabbed on in the past. The right hon. Gentleman this year appeared to be departing from that artistic taste, for there was on the Estimate an item of £200 for the enlargement of the stud groom's house. He did not wish to see Hampton Court Palace destroyed by the erection of such buildings. The question whether Hampton Court or Fontainebleau was the more beautiful was one on which art critics were divided, but it was certain that no French Government would allow a stud-groom's house to be grafted on to the original building of Fontainebleau. He asked the Chief Commissioner of Works to save this£200. It was wanted for war and many other things. If the stud groom wanted a larger house, he should get one elsewhere. During the past four or five years the First Commissioner of Works had really improved Hampton Court, not by spending money on new erections, but by pulling down a number of so-called improvements which were carried out by his predecessors at the express wish of the tenants. It was now proposed to erect a brick and mortar excrescence which would offend the esthetic sense of the Bank holiday makers. He objected to the Palace being treated according to the ideals of the South African plutocrats who were erecting monstrosities in stone and iron in Park Lane.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid he had looked very carefully into what was proposed with regard to the addition at Kensington Palace. The structure referred to was required to take the place of one which was about to be taken down. With regard to the buildings between the Orangery and the Palace to which the hon. Member for Battersea referred, he had to say that they had nothing to do with the occupants of the Palace. He thought all of them were put up before he was Commissioner of Works, and they were very useful for a purpose with which he sympathised a good deal, namely, giving pleasure to the working classes and children. They were sheds used for keeping the small yachts which were so often to be seen racing on the pond. If these were the sheds to which the hon. Member referred, he could assure him that they

  403
  were not put up for the convenience of the tenants whom His Majesty allowed to occupy the Royal Palace. The proposed building was absolutely necessary, and he could assure the hon. Member that it would not in any way be an eyesore. As to the studgroom's house at Hampton Court, he did not wish any one to go away with the idea that it was for a sinecure. It was a labourer's cottage, and it was found to be insanitary. There were, he thought, only two rooms in the house, and was it consistent with morality to allow a man and his family to live there? They were allowing the erection of another bedroom.
  MR. RUNCIMANcalled attention to an item of £450 for the ground rent of two houses at 77 and 78 Pall Mall, which were purchased originally for the purposes of the War Office on the outbreak of the war in 1898, because the War Office was stated to be short of accommodation. The cost of purchasing the leasehold of these houses was £6,700, and they now discovered that the houses had been transferred from the War Office to the use of Prince Christian. These houses now appeared as a "grace and favour" residence. He should like to know whether the sanction of the Treasury was obtained for the transference, and whether the alterations on the houses to make them suitable as a residence were to be paid for out of the War Office Vote, the Civil List, or the Vote the Committee were now dealing with.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid he did not think this came within the Vote now before the Committee, but, as he did not wish to be discourteous to the hon. Gentleman, he would state what the nature of the transfer was. It was perfectly true that the buildings were originally purchased for the War Office and were found to be inadequate for the purpose. At that time there was a great demand for a site for a physical laboratory, and the Royal Society were most anxious to acquire Bushey House for that purpose. The late Queen had allowed the use of Bushey, taking in exchange the use of the houses in Pall
  404
  Mall as a grace and favour residence. Both properties, however, still remained State properties. He understood that the transfer was appreciated by the Royal Society and by the scientists of the day, as Bushey House afforded, he thought, an extremely useful home for their delicate scientific instruments, and one which it would have been absolutely impossible for them to procure except by the expenditure of a very large sum of money.
  MR. RUNCIMANasked whether he was to understand that Prince Christian could not be accommodated in Bushey House.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: No; the Royal Society will utilise the house for scientific purposes.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I have no ill feeling in this matter——
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think that this matter can be properly discussed on this Vote. The Minister in charge of the Vote says it does not come under it.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I would ask an explanation of the £450, which I understand is ground rent for the two houses in Pall Mall.
  MR. GODDARDsaid that, if there was ground rent charged in the Vote, it could clearly be discussed. He hoped the Committee would receive some information in reply to the question why buildings bought for the War Office had been transferred to a different purpose. In the Civil Service Vote, money, he thought, amounting to £1,200 was voted to be expended on these buildings for the purpose of the War Office. It would be interesting to know whether that expenditure was made by the War Office. Probably it was, and if so was the expenditure on alterations suitable for the purpose to which the property was now applied?
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid he was not satisfied with the reply received from the First Commissioner of Works. So far as he could find out, the buildings had

  405
  never been used by the War Office, so that there had been no opportunity of testing whether they were suitable for the purpose for which they were bought. The Committee had a right to know why the War Office had not occupied them, and why they were transferred to be used as a grace and favour residence. He had no objection to Prince Christian being provided with a good residence, but the objection was to this being provided out of War Office Funds.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid that arrangement was a pure exchange, and that matter had not been dealt with without the consent of the Treasury, who thought the arrangement a very desirable one. He himself believed that it was extremely advantageous to the State.
  MR. NUSSEYsaid they did not object to the exchange, but to the manner in which it had been done; because it was misleading if moneys voted under one Estimate were transferred to another, and entirely different, Estimate. The right hon. Gentleman assured them that all this had been sanctioned by the Treasury, but there was a still higher sanction required, viz., that of the House of Commons.
  MR. HENRY J. WILSONsaid that, so far as he could understand this involved business, the transaction appeared to be part of the expenses of the South African War; and, if so, he thought it was very extraordinary.
  MR. CREMERhoped that before this Vote was passed the First Commissioner would give the Committee some guarantee that the Estimates would be presented in future in the form that hon. Members had had them not so very many years ago. There was an absense of information from the Treasury Bench. It was very easy to raise a laugh, and talk of the royal ratcatcher, the turncock, and the housemaid——
  THE CHAIRMAN: The division recently taken must be accepted as having
  406
  settled something; and I take it that that division settled the question which the hon. Gentleman is about to go back upon.
  MR. CREMERsaid he bowed to the decision of the Chairman, but he was bound to say that——
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not contravene my ruling.
  MR. CREMERsaid what he wanted was some guarantee that the original form of these Estimates should be restored and more detailed information supplied. Further, he wanted some information in regard to the contracts for furniture and buildings. He had raised this question some years ago when he understood that there were only two firms which supplied new furniture for, and repaired the old furniture in, public buildings and royal palaces, and that they practically fixed their own prices for the new, and charged what they pleased for repairing the old. He was then promised that public tenders would be invited for such work, both from east and west-end cabinetmakers; but there was no evidence that that promise had been given effect to. It was the same with regard to the contracts for the erection and repair of buildings.
  MR. WEIRwished the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner to give the House some information as to the restoration of the fine old tapestries in the Palace of Holy-rood. Two years ago the right hon. Gentleman had promised that that should be done. He noticed that this year there was an increase in the estimate for new works, repairs, etc., on Holyrood of over £400, which was a step in the right direction. He also wished to ask whether arrangements had been made to put the ancient palace in such a condition as to make it fit for the King on the occasion of his visits to Scotland.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid that, in regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Dewsbury, he would ask whether the matter did not stand thus: that the public had acquired those houses in Pall Mall at a cost of £450

  407
  ground rental. Of course they understood that the War Office had purchased these houses and then found that they were not suitable for their purpose. It would scarcely have been a transaction brought about by the War Office unless they had purchased two houses totally unfit for the purpose intended.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid that the houses had been bought by the War Office because they required more accommodation; but when the war broke out it was found that the houses so acquired were inadequate to the requirements. Hence the exchange was made, and the payment of the £450 per annum was, he considered, a fair arrangement. In reply to the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, he could say that the repairs of the tapestries on the first floor of the palace of Holyrood had been completed, and that the repairs of the others were in course of being proceeded with. As to the hon. Member for Haggerston's inquiry as to contracts for new buildings and repairs of old buildings, these contracts were triennial, and were obtained after public advertisement. On the last occasion seven or eight firms tendered, and the lowest tender, which was on a schedule of prices, was accepted. He might add that there was a provision in the contract that the current rate of wages prevailing in the district was to be paid to the workmen. In regard to furniture, everything possible that could be acquired by public tender was so acquired, but there were some articles required for State purposes which could only be obtained from certain firms.
  MR. JOHN DEWARthought that the method of carrying out the transaction in regard to the houses in Pall Mall was extremely likely to cause confusion, and he imagined that the matter might be put right by the charge for the alterations at Bushey House being made a capital charge against the Scientific Department.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid that he would consider the latter suggestion.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  2. £66,200, to complete the sum for Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens.
  MR. RENSHAWhoped the First Commissioner of Works would give them some information upon the position of affairs in regard to Richmond Park and its use by Volunteers. He supposed there was no division of opinion among Members as to the great value attaching to the park and the necessity of preserving its conspicuous natural beauties. He understood that reference had been made to the importance of regarding the sacred character of the heronry in the park. Much as he valued that heronry on account of its being one of the few in the neighbourhood of London, he yet thought that if the existence of the herons and of deer in Richmond Park was the only reason which prevented the free use of that Park for so great a national institution as the Volunteers, a body who were doing a great work for the public, it was not sufficient. They ought to have some clear statement as to what other reason there was which prevented the use of the park by the Volunteers. He had noticed in the newspapers that representations had been made to the First Commissioner of Works by the Mayor and Town Council of Richmond in which they urged that Richmond Park should be maintained in its present state, and that the Volunteers should be prevented from using it because of the injury to the town of Richmond. The State paid £4,000 or £5,000 for the maintenance of this park, but he did not think the Town Council of Richmond provided a single halfpenny; therefore he thought they ought not to put the interests of the locality before the national interests.
  MR. LOUGHreferred to the restrictions in force with regard to the admission of cyclists to Hyde Park and Regent's Park. There appeared to be some quite unnecessary restrictions upon cyclists, and the way they were treated was almost absurd. They were absolutely excluded at first, but in consequence of discussions in the House various concessions had been obtained but there still remained some restrictions as to hours. In Hyde Park they were admitted up to two o'clock in the afternoon, but from two to seven they were excluded. The result was that very

  409
  frequently innocent cyclists returning from business found themselves stopped and treated as if they were criminals. He wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to yield to the needs of cyclists who had placed their case before him by a deputation which waited upon him recently. Years ago, when people were only learning to ride bicycles, there used to be a great many accidents, but now anybody could ride a bicycle. He would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether those restrictions on cyclists were going to be removed, and whether in future the Royal parks were going to be opened as freely as those parks under the control of the London County Council. He should also like to know if the position of the motor cyclist had been made clear. He believed that the riders of that horrible invention found themselves in a most unhappy position. If a motor car had four wheels it could rush into the parks at any hour, but if it only had two wheels it could only enter the parks at certain hours.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked what were the duties of the rangers of Regent's Park and Hyde Park. It was quite clear from the Estimates that they did no work whatever. There was a bailiff of the Royal parks, an assistant bailiff, superintendents and assistant superintendents, but he desired the right hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee what the rangers did. If they could be told what the rangers and deputy-rangers did, and their duties justified them being retained, well and good, but if not they should be abolished.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he had always regarded the rangers of the Royal parks as among the darkest mysteries of the British Constitution. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give a favourable answer in regard to the use of the parks by cyclists. The right hon. Gentleman had shown much sympathy in reference to the use of the parks by cyclists, and in the improvement of the surface of the roads, which made a great deal of difference to their pleasure and enjoyment. He supported the appeal which had been made by the hon. Member for West Islington.
  MR. TENNANTsaid he wished to vindicate the position of the poor unfortunate motors, for they did not appear to have any friends in the House. He happened to be a member of that unfortunate brigade who used four-wheeled motors. He understood these open spaces were called parks or pleasure gardens, and what he wished to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman was the advisability of keeping some of these roads in a better state of repair, and more especially Constitution Hill.
  MR. CHARLES ALLENsaid it was idle to expect people to join the Volunteers if they could not find places for them to manœuvre and drill in. He hoped the First Commissioner of Works would see that the Volunteers were allowed the free use of Richmond Park.
  MR. RUNCIMANurged that free residences were sufficient recompense for the work done by the rangers of the Royal parks, and that their salaries should be taken off the Estimates. The parks under the management of the London County Council covered nine teen parks, thirty-five gardens and forty other open spaces, and they managed them with one chief officer and two superintendents, at a total cost of £1,250. In this Vote they had thirteen officials for the Royal Parks, and they cost no less than £28,050.
  CAPTAIN NORTONraised the question of the scale of pay of the keepers of the Royal parks. The constables employed in the County Council parks were paid at a much higher and better rate than the keepers of the Royal parks. Wages generally had risen during recent years, and attention had been called to the fact that even men of a similar class in London, the Metropolitan Police, had received an increase in their pay of 1s. 6d., plus 1s. 6d. rent and allowances yet the Royal park constables were kept at the same rate of pay. These park keepers had to be of the rank of staff-sergeant, and must be of exemplary character, and when they applied to the authorities for an increase of pay, they were met by the statement that there

  411
  would soon be a great many non commissioned officers returning from the front, when their services could be dispensed with. A footnote to the Vote stated that the pay of the park keepers and gate keepers was between 25s. and 30s. a week, but how many of these men received less than 24s.? Men in corresponding positions under the London County Council received 27s. The argument that would be used for employing these men at less than the current rate of wages, would be that they were old soldiers and old sailors, and that they were in receipt of a pension, and it was against that he wished to protest. The men who received pensions for serving their country, received them in the nature of deferred pay, and were as fully entitled to them as if they were the result of property they had acquired in other ways. It was monstrous that those pensions should be used as a means of competing with the labour market, because they enabled the men to take lower wages. He protested against the scandalous way of taking into consideration, in settling the pay of, these naval and military men, the pensions which they had earned in the service of their country.
  MR. GALLOWAYpointed out that many of these men had residences supplied to them in addition to their pay, which should also be taken into consideration. He asked the right hon. Gentleman not to be too ready to give way to the appeal which had been made to him with regard to allowing Volunteer manœuvres to take place in Richmond Park. If we were going to have Volunteer forces at all, it was essential that they should be provided with proper places in which they could manœuvre and exercise, but that was no reason why they should have those places at the expense of the people who enjoyed Richmond Park, because if it was used for that purpose, it would be necessary to exclude the public, as it would be impossible to have them there under other conditions, as would be seen by anybody who saw the number of people who used this park on a Saturday, the day when these manœuvres would usually take place. There was plenty of
  412
  good ground, he understood, for this purpose at Wimbledon, and if that was too far off for the men to march to perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could find a way out of the difficulty by supplying some financial assistance towards taking them there.
  MR. RICHARDSprotested against the invasion by motorists of Constitution Hill. If one were riding in the country there was some protection against motors; but in the London parks he had often seen motors driven in such a reckless and irresponsible manner as to cause ladies to be unhorsed, and he himself had been nearly unhorsed in the same way on more than one occasion. He had often complained to the police, who, however, said they could not stop them. When they were stopped, it was found that the riders were mostly Members of Parliament. The police should see that the rate at which motorists were allowed to drive through the streets was not exceeded in the Royal parks. Could not the First Commissioner do something for those who still desired to encourage the breed of English horses, even though it would be at the expense of those who drove French machines with American oil.
  MR. CREMERsaid he desired to draw attention to the quality of the refreshments supplied at the kiosks erected at Kew Gardens, Regents Park, Primrose Hill, and other places. For some time after these kiosks were erected the public were able to get refreshments of a good character at a cheap rate, but later on he discovered that the tea which they professed to supply fresh made to each customer was drawn out of a huge tin containing several gallons, and had been so stewed as to be poison to people of nervous natures, while the butter did not appear to be butter at all but looked like margarine. He thought it was abominable that in these places, some of which were erected at the public expense, and for which no rent was paid, the contractors should be allowed to treat the public in this manner. He brought the question before the House, and the contractor asked him to call and he would explain. One could

  413
  easily understand what that meant. He treated the invitation with contempt. The contractor now artfully concealed from the public the process by which the tea was brewed, and except a person got inside he could not see the way in which articles were prepared for public consumption. If the First Commissioner would from time to time appoint someone in whom he had confidence to visit the kiosks in the parks and gardens and sample the refreshments, the public would be better served and the quality of the food and drink improved. The hon. Member also asked whether any rent was now paid for the privilege of erecting these refreshment establishments. Another matter was the question of the seats. Some years ago he raised the question, and was told that no rent was charged for the privilege of placing chairs in the parks, for which a charge was made to the public. In the following year, however, no less than £1,000 was recorded as having been received from the contractors for the privilege. That item was now mixed up with two or three others, and appeared as £2,000 for licences for letting chairs, boats, and cycles, and selling newspapers. Was £1,000 the amount still received in connection with the chairs? That sum would be refunded to the contractors in two or three Sundays, in fact, thousands of pounds profit must have been made each year. It was not simply a matter of a penny for a chair, but each chair would be let a dozen times a day, and he was certain a very large revenue must be derived from this source. The grievance was intensified by the fact that as these hired chairs had increased the free seats had diminished, so that poor men who took their wives and families into the parks were unable to get seats without paying a penny for each member of the party. He asked how long the contract had to run, and suggested steps should be taken to invite public tenders for the privilege of placing chairs in the parks and gardens under the control of the Government.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYreminded the right hon. Gentleman that, some time ago, speaking on behalf of cyclists, seeing the success which had attended the laying down of
  414
  wood-pavement from Marlborough Gate, he urged that that policy should be pursued in regard to certain other roadways in St. James' Park, and the right hon. Gentleman held out hopes of the same thing being done in Birdcage Walk. There was also Constitution Hill, which it would be an advantage to have so paved it was to be remembered that, running parallel with each of the two roads he had named, ample provision was made for equestrians.
  MR. PARKERreferring to the further use of Richmond Park by Volunteers, was certain that the objections, if any, would come from the officials and the administration rather than from the frequenters of the park. There were 40 acres occasionally used for Volunteer drill, while the park consisted altogether of 2300 acres, many portions of which were not at all frequented by the thousands of people who were said to visit the park for amusement on Saturdays. Certain parts of the park consisted of plantations, and were specially adapted for manœuvres. He had too much faith in the good sense of the rangers and the administration to doubt that if it was the wish of the Committee and of the Volunteers to have a larger portion of the park set apart for their use the privilege would be granted. The people of the country, who had a sincere admiration for the Volunteer system, would make many sacrifices for its benefit, and would not raise objections to the granting of these facilities. He was certain the privilege would not be abused, and the policing necessary to prevent the area of operations being invaded could be done by the military authorities themselves, as was done in Hyde Park. Even if the park were not used as much as it was anticipated it would be, he believed it was a good policy to give every facility possible for Volunteer drill in the open spaces surrounding London.
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: said that the other day he saw Volunteers exercising all over Regent's Park, and he sincerely hoped that this right would be preserved in regard to Richmond Park. He could not agree with the

  415
  hon. and gallant Member for Newington with regard to positions as gatekeepers being considered as compensation to old soldiers. As for the deputy ranger, his salary was very small, and he believed his duty was to exercise discipline over 112 park keepers.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he was afraid he had not made himself understood with regard to the park keepers. He did not complain that soldiers and noncommissioned officers were employed, but his point was that they were receiving a lower rate of pay than they would have received if they had been civilians. Therefore, their former service as soldiers was being taken advantage of, whereas in his opinion, they should receive the current rate of wages irrespective of their former service.
  LORD BALCARREScalled attention to the smoke nuisance in Kew Gardens, which was becoming increasingly great, and asked the First Commissioner to take this matter into his earnest consideration.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid that several hon. Members had pointed out the grievance which cyclists had in regard to the restrictions placed upon the use of the parks, and which they felt all the more since the great introduction of motors into London. He understood the grievance to be, that whereas motor cars could enter the park at all hours of the day, cyclists, who did very much less harm and made less noise, were not allowed to ride their bicycles in the parks between the hours of three and seven. In the year 1895, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Leeds was his predecessor in office, cyclists were admitted until ten o'clock in the morning. He (Mr. Akers Douglas) extended this at first to twelve o'clock, and finally to all hours of the day except between the hours of three and seven o'clock in the afternoon, when in certain months of the year the park was very greatly crowded. He admitted that circumstances had very much changed in the last two or three years. Cycling then was a fashionable craze, and anyone who remembered the crowd of cyclists in the park, many of
  416
  them unable to manage their own mounts, and the danger they caused to the other traffic, would admit that some regulations were then necessary. He was not sure that restrictions were any longer necessary. Any one who watched the traffic along Knightsbridge between five and seven in the evening must be struck by the large number of ladies returning from their work on cycles through that crowded thoroughfare, and he had thought it would be reasonable that they should be allowed to follow the road immediately inside the park. In further considering the question, however, he doubted whether it was worth while having two bites at a cherry. He therefore approached the ranger, who, recognising the altered circumstances, seeing that cycling had come to stay, and that it was used for business purposes and for getting about the country, and not merely for show and parade, at once agreed to allow him to remove the restrictions between three and seven, with this proviso, that if it was found by experience that in the months of May, June, and July some restriction was deemed necessary, in that case the hours of restriction should be from three to six. He was very glad to be able to fall in with the wishes of Members of the House in this matter. He was aware that his hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn had strong dislike to motors and cycles, but, after all, the parks were for the general use of the public. He had the ranger's permission for stating that the present restrictions would be withdrawn after July 1st. As regards Richmond Park, local Volunteers had already the privilege of exercising over 640 acres of the park. He could not find that any applications for leave to drill there had been unsuccessful, except in one case. He was of opinion that there was ample room both for the Volunteers and the public, and that the acreage now offered to Volunteers for manœuvres might very well be increased. But he was also of opinion that some portion of the park should be reserved. With regard to the subject raised by his hon. friend the Member for Graves-end, he would confer with the ranger. He was certain that the ranger had no desire to exclude Volunteers from all reasonable opportunities of drill in Richmond Park, But he could not

  417
  find that there had been any great number of applications from the military authorities. He had heard a great deal about a number of letters sent to various journals on the subject by Volunteer officers, but he had certainly not come across any of them himself. He thought that the ranger had been rather badly treated in this matter, because it had been taken for granted that possibly by his refusal in this case he was not prepared to give facilities. That was not the case. The ranger was prepared to extend the area in any reasonable way which the military authorities of the district might suggest. He would like to prick a bubble which had not yet burst, although it had been blown upon, and that was the idea that His Royal Highness desired to keep the Volunteers and the public out of the park because of the game which he was privileged to keep. It was perfectly possible for His Royal Highness to preserve game in a moderate way, and at the same time to admit of public facilities in the park. Personally, he thought that the preservation of game in the parks in the immediate neighbourhood of London was out of date; but whether that was the ease or not he asked hon. Members not to believe that His Royal Highness, who had rendered devoted service to the Army for so many years, was raising any wretched little question of this kind as against the efficiency of the Volunteer force. Hon. Members might rest assured that this question would be carefully considered, and he suggested that officers commanding Regulars and Volunteers should communicate with the ranger responsible for this portion of the park. His hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn had asked what were the duties of the ranger. There was in connection with certain parks a joint control. In those parks he was responsible for the maintenance of the roads, the lighting, and other matters, while the ranger dealt with the herbage. His attention had been called by the Director and by Sir William Richmond to the damage done to the plants by smoke in Kew Gardens. In the early part of the year he had asked the local authorities to take proceedings in the matter, but he did not succeed. He then
  418
  consulted the law officers of the Crown, and he had been taking evidence with a view to proceedings, which would be begun shortly. He had rather parried certain questions on this point, and the House would now see that the reason was that he desired to get the necessary evidence before he said what his action was going to be. The Department was alive to the danger caused by the smoke to plant life at Kew, and they would take whatever steps the law would allow to stop the nuisance. He would see that the condition of Rotten Row was thoroughly gone into, and he would instruct the bailiff of the parks to pay particular attention to the Row. When he came into office seven years ago he found that no rent was being paid for the privilege of supplying chairs. If the Department had undertaken to supply the parks with chairs, a subject which he had carefully considered, the capital sum necessary would have been about £30,000. In order to popularize the parks by bands on Sundays and weekdays it was necessary to raise funds, and he obtained a rent of £1,000 for the chairs from a contractor.
  MR. CREMER: How long does the present contract last?
  MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid he was not quite certain whether it was out this year or not, but he could assure the hon. Member that when it did run out they would endeavour to get an advance. The hon. Member had raised the question of the kiosks and the quality of the refreshments supplied in them. Complaints on that subject had recently been received. New contracts had been asked for in respect of refreshments. One contract had already been let under stricter conditions than before, and strict injunctions had been given to officers to see that the public were better supplied than before.
  MR. CREMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether any rent is derived from those who have the privilege of selling refreshments?
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: Yes, on the same principle of public competition. The hon. Member for Newington called attention to the condition

  419
  of the park keepers and their pay. He agreed that it was desirable to give the appointments as park keepers to those who had served their country, and, so far as his administration had gone, every appointment had been given either to a soldier or a sailor, and the popularity of the service was proved by the number of applicants. He had tried to adopt a system whereby a length of wood pavement might be put down each year in the park roads. There had been great difficulty in securing sufficient funds to lay down wood pavement in the most important part of the roads in the parks. He intended to proceed with the section comprising Birdcage Walk, Constitution Hill, and Storey's Gate; but as he had been unable to obtain funds in the last two years, the work was in a state of abeyance. As to the rough state of Constitution Hill, he said that a certain class of the traffic was very destructive of the road. That was a macadamised road, but it had been found difficult to keep it in proper repair on account of the nature of the traffic. In addition to what he might call the "heavy light" traffic, there were a large number of vehicles with rubber wheels which were found to be destructive to a Macadamised road. Practically all the traffic went one way. When water was on the ground india-rubber tyres were apt to suck up the stones, and there was no heavy return traffic to replace the stones. As to Constitution Hill there was another feature, the overgrowth of trees and the constant dripping from the branches in wet weather. Hon. Members acquainted with country life and administration knew that the local authority always called upon proprietors to cut off the boughs of their trees which overhung the roads.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he wished to acknowledge the generous way in which the Chief Commissioner of Works had on certain points met various Members this afternoon. This was the only opportunity Members had for discussing these questions of detail, and that being so, they must utilise it, though his wish was that some other means could be provided for threshing these out, leaving the House to deal with larger subjects. He wished to emphasise the complaint made by the hon. Member
  420
  for Haggerston as to chairs for the parks. He confessed he was staggered when told that the capital charge for new chairs would be £30,000. Anyone knew that a garden chair could be got for from 1s. 3d. to 2s. 3d. The right hon. Gentleman acknowledged that he was making a profit of £1,000 by letting the chairs in the Royal parks. Why was not that sum devoted to gradually acquiring new chairs, instead of diminishing the public free seats for the benefit of the contractors? The right hon. Gentleman should follow the example of the London County Council, and make all the seats free except those immediately surrounding the bandstands, as was done in every country on the Continent. He saw no reason why a rich country like this should make a net profit of £1,000 a year by letting out chairs in the public parks. Poor, old, respectable people, having very little else to do, went to the public parks to spend the time, and it was a consideration for them to pay for the use of a chair, not 1d. a day, but 4d. or 5d. [Cries of "No, no!"] Oh, yes; if they moved from one spot they had to pay another Id. [Cries of "No, no!"] He begged hon. Members' pardon, they did not know their chairmen as well as he did. But from these poor; respectable people even 1d. ought not to be exacted. Passing from the old people, he came to the young. The old open sites in London were being rapidly built upon, and the children not only of the poor but of the well-to-do were being driven to the public parks for open-air enjoyment and exercise. Why should not these boys and girls from nine or ten to fifteen years of age have the delight of a row on the lakes in St. James's or Hyde Park? He would tell the Committee what the London County Council did in regard to this matter. They found that the contractors in Battersea, Victoria and Finsbury Parks charged 1s. for the use of a boat for the first hour and 6d. for every subsequent hour. But that was a prohibitive price for the children of even well-to-do classes. He had been told that even Harrow, Eton, and Rugby boys were not always blessed with too much money; and if they cared to pull their sisters round the lake in Hyde Park or St. James's Park there was this prohibitive tariff for the hire of the boats. Now the London County Council found that these

  421
  rates did not only a great deal of harm to the boys and girls, but that they did no good to the contractors. The London County Council invited the latter to reduce the charges, but nothing would move them. "Very well, then," the London County Council said, "we have a right to eater for the public who elect us, and if you will not reduce the charges we will get rid of you." What was the effect? In one year the London County Council paid £800 for boats and men—the latter under better conditions than the contractors had paid them. The charges were reduced from 1s. the first hour and 6d. for every hour after, to 6d. the first hour and 3d. for every hour after; and in one year a net profit of £600 was made over the £800 expended in two parks. He would say to the Chief Commissioner that it was much better that Whiteley's shop assistants should spend their hours of evening leisure in a more agreeable way in a row on the lake in Hyde Park with their female fellow-workers than in smoking cigarettes at street corners. He had read the needlessly heated controversy about the use of Richmond Park which had appeared in the Spectator—the only journal which had asked for the universal and unrestricted use of the park for military purposes. It seemed to him that it was exceedingly selfish of the Richmond people to protest against the use of the park by a Metropolitan Volunteer battalion, while their own local Volunteers, not numbering more than 500, had the use of 640 out of 2,000 acres. His point was that if the area in Richmond Park was to be extended for the use of the Volunteers, it should be granted by the Chief Commissioner on conditions. The local Volunteers or the regular military should not be allowed to rampage all over the park just as the commander might feel disposed, because the park had a distinctive charm in its wealth of bracken, furze, and wild flowers, and it was not right that these should be trampled down, even in the interest of patriotism or Volunteer efficiency. He suggested to the Chief Commissioner as conditions he should lay down for the use of the park by the Volunteers or regular military that the area to be drilled on should be limited to say 1,000 acres, that firing should not be permitted,
  422
  because the exhausted cartridges would make the park unsightly and untidy and be a nuisance to horse riders. Above all, he would not allow the transport waggons to leave the roads and go over the grass-lawns. His last point was as to the use of the Old Deer Park by golfers. He knew that there were a number of hon. Members in the House who were good golfers, although he was told that there were members of the Press Gallery who could give them points. But even if golf were a healthy game, like all other recreations it ought to be carried on under conditions satisfactory to the public. He regretted that the park at Hampton Court, which contained one of the grandest sweeps of grass land and splendid old trees in England, was being spoiled for the enjoyment of the public by the creation, through the influence of the golfers, of enormous numbers of artificial bunkers all over the place. That should be stopped. He knew that the Committee would forgive him for going into detail, but it was part of his business and pleasure to look after, not only the inner amenities of London, but of its outer environments also, He knew of no finer stretch of river than the magnificent sweep from in front of the Duke of Northumberland's house to the Old Deer Park. The beauty of that sweep, with its land, river, trees, and plants, was being spoilt gradually. There was first the admission of the athletic ground into the Old Deer Park, with its iron railings, temporary buildings, and other abominations. Then along came the highly placed golfer, who was completely spoiling the look of the Old Deer Park with his bunkers. That was not fair to the general public, who paid for the maintenance of the Park. He protested against the indefinite multiplication of artificial bunkers, which looked like the graves of political Titans from the river. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would put a stop at once and for ever to the encroachments which had taken place on Hampton Court grounds, the Old Deer Park, and the Home Park at Richmond; and that he would not allow the golfer to have any more privileges than were given to the bicyclist, the equestrian, the pedestrian, or the motorist. If the right hon. Gentleman

  423
  would approach the question in the spirit in which he had approached other questions for the improvement of the Royal parks and pleasure gardens, he would increase the gratitude which many Londoners felt for what he had already accomplished in that direction. The right hon. Gentleman might take it from him that the golfer intended to occupy every pleasure garden that was maintained at the public expense, and that ought to be stopped.
  MR. PARKERsaid his mind was not quite clear as to what the First Commissioner had said. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman was sympathetic, that the ranger was sympathetic, and he supposed he could not assume that the War Office authorities were not sympathetic. The sympathy which had been expressed was not, however, an explicit promise, and he should be very glad indeed to know that that sympathy would be resolved into an explicit statement, and that they should be assured that the ranger, the First Commissioner of Works, and the War Office authorities would deal with the matter, and not carry it over from one year to another by a mere expression of sympathy. As to the applications to the ranger for the use of certain portions of Richmond Park, was it not a fact that the 640 acres were reserved for certain local Volunteers, though not by rule, or law, or logic. He knew that a great many Volunteer battalions would have asked for permission to drill in Richmond Park if they had not known that, if not by rule at any rate by practice, it was reserved for local Volunteer battalions. He hoped he might be pardoned for asking the First Commissioner of Works if he might translate his expression of sympathy into a definite promise.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he hoped that when the addition had been made to the Volunteer ground, the First Commissioner of Works would not permit the whole of the Park to be trodden down. He thought it was desirable to reserve a considerable part of it. As to the hire of the chairs, the First Commissioner of Works said he thought that the contract expired during the present year or next year. That
  424
  made the question rather important, for it was evident that the rent was very inadequate as compared with the amount of profit obtained. There was an instance of that in the case of the boats. The hon. Member for Battersea pointed out that County Council boats in two parks alone made considerably over £1,000, although the rates were much lower than were charged in the other parks. He thought the rents were too low. It would be different if the profit was spent on public purposes, but if the matter were left in the hands of contractors, higher rents ought to be paid.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid that when the contract came to be renewed he would take care to secure the highest price by public competition. With regard to the question of his hon. friend the Member for Gravesend, what he said was that Volunteers would have a much larger area for drill purposes, but that certain other portions of the park should be reserved. He would be glad, however, to place the matter before His Royal Highness.
  MR. COGHILLsaid he hoped the First Commissioner of Works would be able to assure the Committee that no further inroads would be made on the Green Park. He was extremely sorry that part of the park had been taken away for the widening of Piccadilly, as it was most important that it should be preserved for Londoners. If it was necessary to widen a street, some other means should be found for that purpose, rather than that the Park should be invaded. Three parts of the scheme put forward last year had been abandoned, which proved that hon. Members were perfectly justified in their opposition to it. He desired to thank the right hon. Gentleman for allowing hon. Members to express to him, by a deputation, the views which they were prevented from expressing in the House, owing to the Vote being closured. The right hon. Gentleman had stated with regard to the trees which had been cut down in Piccadilly, that other trees had been planted, but it would be a long time before Piccadilly presented the same appearance it did last year. With regard to Constitution Hill, there were

  425
  some very promising shrubs there, but immense structures were now being erected on it in connection with the Coronation processions. What would be the appearance of Constitution Hill when all those structures had been removed? Then the right hon. Gentleman, in reply to a Question, said that he was not responsible for what had occurred at St. Margaret's Church. He only wished that the right hon. Gentleman had done something in time to prevent the rector and churchwardens from committing the abominations which were perpetrated there.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on this Vote.
  MR. COGHILLsaid he was merely expressing the wish that the right hon. Gentleman had done something to prevent the orgie of destruction of the trees near the Abbey. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to say that the Coronation year would not be celebrated by the cutting down of all the trees in London.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid he hoped he might be permitted to say a word in reply. The trees to which the hon. Member referred were cut down one night, and he had no notion that they were going to be cut down. Immediately he saw they were cut down he made inquiries, and found that the matter was within the jurisdiction of the rector and churchwardens. With regard to Constitution Hill, he thought there were six elms; none of them had been removed, but they had been pollarded. The reasons for that were two-fold. Firstly, the trees were not in a healthy condition, and secondly, the lower boughs hung over the roadway along which the Coronation procession would pass. Those old elms were the cause of constant accidents whenever there was a crowd, because people could not be prevented from climbing up into the lower boughs and occasionally coming down with a broken bough, thus causing injury, and sometimes loss of life, to those below. All the trees along the route of the procession were examined, and only those in a dangerous state were pollarded. The only alternatives were
  426
  to remove them altogether, or to endeavour to prolong their life by pollarding. With regard to the structures for the Coronation, the prices charged for the seats would provide not only for the cost of erection, but also for the restoration of the ground. A great improvement was effected in St. James's Park at the Jubilee in 1897. A stand was erected over a worn-out piece of shrubbery, and when the stand was taken down, the shrubbery was replanted and much improved.
  Vote agreed to.
  3. £27,500, to complete the sum for Houses of Parliament Buildings.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he noticed in this Vote there was a sum of, £5,000 for carrying-out alterations in the smoking room, kitchens and other portions of the House. That was, no doubt, due to the Report of the Accommodation Committee appointed last year. Before he said anything about the action of the First Commissioner of Works with regard to that Report, he desired to say a few words on the question of the ventilation of the House and the Committee Rooms the condition of which had been a disgrace to the House for many years. The condition of the Committee Rooms had been intolerable and most deadly to those who had had to do business in them, and had been the cause of much illness to Members of the House and the public engaged in them. There were some matters in the Vote connected with the Report of the Accommodation Committee he would like to refer to. Members had complained for years of these matters, and the general feeling was roused to such a pitch at last that this Accommodation Committee was appointed. That Committee recommended alterations and changes which would cost £55,000, and he was surprised to see only £5,000 put down for that purpose. For years Members had complained of the disgraceful character of the cooking, but when the Committee enquired into that matter they found it was not so much the fault of the cooks as the accommodation. They found the conditions under which the cooking was done were so absolutely

  427
  disgraceful that if it had been anywhere than the House of Commons, they would long ago have been the subject of a public scandal. The recommendations of the Committee with regard to that matter had not been fully carried out. There were many other recommendations which ought still to be carried out, though some were not now so necessary owing to the change in the habits of the House which had been caused by the new Rules. He complained of the obstruction of the Treasury to these necessary reforms, when the health and convenience of Members of the House of Commons were concerned. In the legislative buildings of America and many colonies the accommodation for Members was infinitely superior to that of the House of Commons. It would hardly be believed that the Committee which sat last year found that the House itself was under the care of four independent and separate departments. One dusted the table and swept the flour; another dusted the galleries; and another dusted the benches of the House. Between these departments there was a conflict of authority, and actually for years a dispute raged as to whose duty it was to dust under the benches of the House. During that period nobody dusted under the benches at all, and the air they breathed was impregnated with the injurious particles of the thick black dust which accumulated there. And that was the condition now unles some one had broken through the iron rules of discipline and had dusted under the seats. He had drawn attention to this point to show the enermous difficulties with which hon. Members had to contend in endeavouring to introduce any kind of reform in these matters, and he hoped that, as a result of the debate, and of the labours of the present First Commissioner, who had already effected many reforms, a new departure had been made. There ought to be one official responsible for all the ventilation, cleaning, housekeeping and general attendance to the affairs of the House. In the instance to which he had referred nobody was responsible, and each of the Departments concerned declared that the work did not come within its province. The House ought to take this matter into its serious consideration, and insist
  428
  on all the rooms being placed under one authority, who should be responsible to the Minister who was responsible to the House Whatever was necessary to make the House wholesome and as comfortable as possible for those who had to attend it ought to be done, without constant niggling over small items of expenditure. The recommendations of the Committee on the subject ought to be carried out, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would promise to bring forward a comprehensive proposal dealing with the whole question.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESthought there was great force in the remarks of the hon. Member for East Mayo as to the numerous authorities having partial power in the House. At one time it was part of the First Commissioner's duty to keep a sort of chandler's shop for those who had free residences within the precincts. It was certainly true that between the Lord Great Chamberlain, the Sergeant-at-Arms, the First Commissioner of Works, Mr. Speaker, and the Table, there was a great division of authority. All sorts of things were being re-casted. It was proposed there should be a Minister of Commerce. He did not know whether the office of the President of the Board of Trade was to be abolished, but, if so, the present holder of that position might be made ranger of the Houses of Parliament. The hon. Member for East Mayo had pointed out that the sanitary condition of the House was not what it should be.
  MR. DILLONsaid he did not refer to the sanitary condition of the House, as he believed Sir Henry Roscoe's Committee placed that on a good basis.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the great difficulty in that respect was that the House was built in a marsh. That was a circumstance which could not be altered, and would, therefore, have to be endured. As to ventilation, he did not share the views of some of the hon. Members; he thought it was very well done. There was only one suggestion, which might not be practicable, that he would make on that subject. The air was drawn from the level of the river, with the result that

  429
  most obnoxious smells were sometimes introduced into the House. If the air could be drawn in from the top of the clock tower it would be an improvement. With regard to the expenditure of £5,000, which some hon. Members complained of as being too small, it was only right that the Committee should go warily under present circumstances. The effect of the new Rules on the attendance at the House had already been very serious, and might be more so. It would, therefore, be unwise to spend any large sums of money. He was not at all sure that too much had not already been spent on the dining and kitchen accommodation, because, as a result of the new Rules, not more than one half of those who formerly dined in the House now did so. His chief reason for rising was to make a claim on behalf of a large, deserving, and down-trodden section of Members viz., the smokers. Those who managed the arrangements of the House were greatly behind the age. They did not seem to appreciate the fact that smokers had increased, were increasing, and were not likely to diminish. They were those whose wits were so dull that they could not work unless they smoked at the same time. Speaking for himself, he had frequently to go the library and spend an hour over several books in order to confound Ministers with quotations when a debate came on. But no smoking was allowed in the library, and consequently he had to purloin these frequently heavy books and do his work in the smoke-room. There would be no difficulty in allowing smokers to use the map-room of the library. That room was separated from, and the smoke would not penetrate to, the rest of the library, and if such an arrangement were made it would be a great convenience to those who desired to work and smoke. He was speaking in the interest not of the idle, but of the working smoker, who had a distinct right to a place where he could refer to books and at the same time smoke.
  DR. FARQUHARSONthought that under ordinary circumstances they ought to have an exhaustive discussion upon the House of Commons in its sanitary aspects, and it was incumbent upon those who had had a smattering of a scientific education to endeavour to
  430
  remove the scare promulgated some time ago as to the free and unrestricted operations of the universal microbe which was said to be slowly but surely undermining the body politic. He could testify to the admirable manner in which the Committee on this matter was doing its work, and to the golden opinions entertained of the First Commissioner for his care of the health and convenience of the House of Commons. He was surprised to hear that the Treasury were putting obstacles in the way of getting all that was necessary. The right hon. Gentleman was to be congratulated on the improvements he had effected in the ventilation of the Committee rooms and division lobbies—a matter which had urgently required attention. He had been in the habit of bringing under the notice of the House their artistic decorations of which they were rather proud. The condition of those fine frescoes in the Royal Gallery he was afraid was not quite satisfactory, and he should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman if Professor Church was satisfied with their condition, and whether, if the Professor desired to improve their condition, he would be allowed to do so. In the central hall there were two fine mosaics; the patron saints of England and Wales looked down upon them, but how long would it be before the patron saints of Ireland and Scotland would fill the two vacant places? He wished to know whether his right hon. friend could find room for a few more decorative pictures. It was not necessary to have expensive mosaics, for they could get a very good design for a few hundred pounds, in a more modern style, which would be far more effective. If the right hon. Gentleman could not find the money, would he allow private benefactors to provide it I Supposing a South African millionaire came forward and declared that he did not like the look of the House of Commons, and said he would provide funds to put up some more pictures, would the right hon. Gentleman consent to such pictures being put up by private generosity? Some years ago they were promised a statue of John Bright. They had already got a very fine statue of Mr. Gladstone, which was considered a first class work of art, and he hoped that alongside of Gladstone some day would

  431
  be placed a statue of John Bright, who was one of Gladstone's greatest companions.
  MR. LODERasked if some accommodation could not be found for Members who wished to smoke and write at the same time. When Sir Reginald Palgrave's residence in the House was vacated, it was thought that some of those vacant rooms would have been allotted to further smoking room accommodation. At present there were eight or nine small rooms there which were empty, some of which he thought might be used to provide further smoking room accommodation. He thought that after certain hours of the day the Committee rooms upstairs might be used by Members who wished to smoke and write at the same time. Between 9.30 and 10 o'clock upon the previous night he counted no less than 68 hon. Members in the smoking room at the same time, although there were only seats for about 50. Besides the great discomfort, it was positively unhealthy, and he hoped his right hon. friend would give this matter his very serious consideration. One effect of the new Rules had been to diminish the number of people dining at the House, and he did not see why one of the present dining rooms, which at one time was used as a smoking room, should not again be de-voted to that purpose.
  MR. CROMBIEsaid the hon. Member for King's Lynn had put in a plea for that much oppressed class, the smokers of this House. He wished to speak on behalf of that class who did not smoke and who objected to smoking. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had indicated that his oratory was inspired by nicotine, and he had told them that unless he smoked while he was referring to the volumes from the library it would be a very great inconvenience to him. The speeches of the hon. Member for King's Lynn were always listened to with delight in all quarters of the House, and in no quarter was more attention paid to them than on the Front Government Bench. Therefore, he should be the last person to deprive the hon. Member of his source of inspiration. It would, however, be a very serious matter if the hon. Member was allowed to turn the
  432
  library into a smoking room. He did not know how far the inspiration of nicotine might go, but if the hon. Member introduced nicotine into the library, he also might draw those inspirations, and become a greater thorn in the side of His Majesty's Government than the hon. Member for King's Lynn. Of late years smokers seemed to have been encroaching more and more upon what was before neutral territory. Already there was one section of the dining room devoted to smoking after a certain hour, and he wished to know when these threats of encroachment would stop. Perhaps some hon. Gentleman would rise in his place next year and claim that they ought to be allowed to smoke in this House. [Cries of "Hear, hear."] He believed there were some Parliaments in which smoking was allowed, notably the recent Parliament of the Transvaal. That Parliament, however, had come to a most unhappy ending.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that smoking was permitted in the United States Senate.
  MR. CROMBIEsaid that even the example of the United States Senate would not reconcile him to agreeing to hon. Members sitting round these Benches and smoking while Parliament was sitting He hoped the line would be drawn somewhere, and that at least the library would be preserved from this encroachment.
  MR. MILDMAY, although he was not a non-smoker, did not wish to be in the atmosphere of tobacco when he was not smoking, and complained of the accommodation at the House for non-smokers, and especially of the discomforts of the reading room, which was a passage room, and the great inconvenience to which Members were subjected thereby. If one were sitting under the window one got a draught of cold air down one's back. The reading room and the library could not be more disagreeably lighted. The lights were arranged in such a way that it was impossible to sit without there being a naked electric light flashing in one's eyes. Surely it was possible to shade them and provide reading lamps for those who occupied chairs. In the reading room there ought

  433
  to be shaded reading lamps and a lower light for the central table. The question of lighting the House of Commons was a serious one, for the act of sitting under a bad light for hours had a permanently injurious effect upon the eyes and was a very great discomfort. He hoped some-thin would be done to remedy this state of things.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYhoped the right hon. Gentleman would sec his way to putting some additional hat-pegs downstairs in the cloisters. It was almost pathetic to see the tricks and subterfuges which hon. Members had recourse to to find accommodation for their hats. Some had even to resort to hanging them upon the gas brackets and other absurd places. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to provide a few additional hat pegs.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid that they were now discussing a large increase of expenditure, and hon. Members were inclined to grumble because it was not larger. He did not say that they had every accommodation they should have. During the past three or four days they had been debating economy, and yet hon. Members were urging that large sums should be expended on kitchens and dining rooms, when it was apparent that the new Rules were to a large extent doing away with the necessity for them. They should wait until they saw how the new Rules would work. He thought smoking was becoming rather a nuisance to many of them. It was now a common practice for some Members to begin to smoke in the ladies dining room before the dinner was half over. That did not seem to him to be a reasonable thing. There ought to be no difficulty in allowing one or two of the large Committee rooms to be made into additional smoking rooms if necessary. He hoped that his right hon. friend would hesitate to spend money on alterations. He was convinced that if the new Rules lasted the dining-room accommodation would in a few months be too large.
  MR. ALLHUSENsaid he had observed that the passages radiating from the central lobby had been recently painted, and he
  434
  thought many hon. Members objected to seeing the stonework of the Houses of Parliament coated with paint. He supposed the paint was put on to conceal the dirty condition of the stonework, and asked if in future it would not be possible to clean the stonework by some means, or even leave it alone altogether, in preference to using paint.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he had sometimes suggested to the House that there should be certain expenditure on their comforts, but at the present moment he disagreed with his hon. friend the Member for East Mayo. They were at present in very exceptional circumstances. He did not think that at a time when they had spent £200,000,000 on war they ought to look to their own comforts. On the contrary he should be glad that so long as this war expenditure lasted Members should be made as uncomfortable here as possible. It should be an object lesson of what this war was bringing on them. He was delighted to hear that the hon. Member for King's Lynn was very much disturbed because he could not smoke and write and get the extracts for his speeches in this House. He was delighted to hear that the ventilation was bad and that Members felt it. He was delighted to hear another hon. Member complain of the smoking room accommodation. Let them realise that their discomforts were to go on as long as the present abominable system of government went on. His hon. and learned friend the Member for the Dumfries Burghs had stated that the tax collector was the best schoolmaster in the world in these matters. Hon. Members came down and made grandiose speeches about war and patriotism, but he wanted the state of things to be brought home to them with respect to their own comfort. If the dining room and the smoking room and everything in this House was bad they would have to suffer, and it was desirable that they should do so when they had voted vast sums for the war. He thought they might have one of the library rooms as a reading room, with a supply of papers. That would benefit the just and the unjust, but as for such expenditure as was suggested by the hon. Member for East Mayo, he

  435
  was ashamed of him for making the proposal. He must express his horror at the sentiments put before the Committee by his hon. friend.
  COLONEL M'CALMONTexpressed the hope that something would be done to improve the smoking room accommodation.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid the hon. Member for East Mayo began the debate by complaining that the recommendation of last session had not been carried out. That Committee went very carefully into the requirements mentioned—the demand for more smoking accommodation, and as to improved quarters for many of the officials of the House, who were condemned to work in rooms without sufficient ventilation. As to the latter he had persuaded the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put a sum in the Estimates for this year, and as to the former he had first to consider carefully the effect of the new Rules proposed by the Government. It seemed certain that under the new arrangement of the sittings of the House, less dining room accommodation for Members would be required. He had, therefore, decided to wait for a longer experience of the working of the new Rules before spending more money in providing additional dining room accommodation, as it might be money thrown away. He regretted very much that he had not been able to carry out that portion of the scheme relating to the smoking room downstairs, because while the number of diners might be reduced under the new Rules, the number of smokers was likely to be increased. Hon. Members who dined at home would likely return for their after-dinner smoke. Mention had been made of the wretched accommodation for the telegraph operators, twenty of whom were squeezed into an office where there was barely standing room, and where they had to work all day. By arrangement with the House of Lords, the telegraphic operators were provided with another office. Everything had been done, again, that was necessary on health grounds for improving the accommodation of the staff of the kitchen. However, the greater portion of the scheme could not
  436
  be carried out, because it would have involved an expenditure of £30,000, an expenditure which had been objected to from many quarters. He acknowledged that there was still a legitimate demand for further smoking accommodation. He would suggest that it the end dining room was not being used it might be restored for smoking purposes. It was a pleasant room and looked out on to the river. At any rate no harm would be done if the experiment were tried. With regard to the frescoes in the building, mentioned by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire, he was glad to bear testimony to the good work o£ restoration performed by Professor Church, and he took that opportunity of thanking that distinguished man again for having placed his eminent services gratuitously at the disposal of the Board of Works. Then the hon. Member raised the question of mosaics in the central hall, and asked whether the Government, if they could not find the money to complete the mosaics would object to receiving a gift of them. This question was raised five or six years ago, but the Government were asked to lead off. The Government had led off, but the suggested donor had not yet come forward. He did not think there was much likelihood of his finding £1,000 for each further mosaic to fill in the vacant places; but if any private Members were prepared to offer such mosaics the Government would be willing to receive contributions. His predecessor had given a promise in behalf of the Board of Works that a site would be found for a statue of the late Mr. John Bright. It would be remembered that a statue of Mr. Bright had been placed in the central hall, but it was so unpopular and unsatisfactory to the friends of the deceased statesman that the statue was removed and the site occupied by that of Mr. Gladstone. He had given a promise that a site would be found for a new statue of Mr. Bright which would meet with the favour of his friends. He understood that a replica of the statue to Mr. Bright in Birmingham had been put in hand and he had given his sanction to its erection in the lower vestibule leading up to the Committee rooms. The sculptor had declared that the site was suitable, and

  437
  there was every probability of the memorial being placed there before the year was out. During the autumn the paint which disfigured the corridors would be removed and the stonework properly preserved.
  MR. GODDARDsaid that so much had been demanded in the way of expenditure to increase the comfort of Members that there was no opportunity of economising. He should, however, like to suggest some items that ought to receive the attention of the Committee. He referred especially to the expenditure for lighting and warming. The cost of gas, electric light, and fuel was always going up; and it had increased by £5,000 more than it was four years ago. That was a serious increase, and there must be some explanation of it. It might be due to the conflict of authorities in the building. He should have thought that when the electric light was introduced the quantity of gas would be less.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid that the only reason for the increase, which he admitted was considerable, was that many more rooms were now in use, and therefore there was a necessity for more light and fuel. They were paying considerably less for gas than a few years ago, and less for the electric light.
  MR. GODDARDasked if the electric light was bought.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid the matter had been gone very carefully into a few years ago, and it was found that it would cost less to buy the light than to instal the machinery for its production in the building.
  Vote agreed to.
  It being half-past seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday, 26th May; Committee to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.
  LONDON AND INDIA DOCKS (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (BY ORDER).
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

  PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS—STANDING ORDERS.—CONSENTS IN CASE OF TRAMWAYS BILLS.
  Standing Order No. 22, relating to Private Business, read, as followeth:—
  "In cases of Bills to authorise the laying down of a tramway, the promoters shall obtain the consent of the local authority of the district or districts through which it is proposed to construct such tramway, and where in any district there is a road authority distinct from the local authority, the consent of such road authority shall also he necessary in any case where power is sought to break up any road, subject to the jurisdiction of such road authority. For the purposes of this Order, in England and Scotland the local and road authorities shall be the local and road authorities for the purposes of The Tramways Act, 1870, except that in the case of a rural district in England the rural District Council shall be deemed to be the local authority, and in Ireland the local and road authorities shall be the District Councils and the County Councils respectively: provided that where it is proposed to lay down a continuous line of tramway in two or more districts, and any local or road authority having jurisdiction in any such districts does not consent thereto, the consents of the local and road authority, or the local and road authorities having jurisdiction over two-thirds of the length of such proposed line of tramway, shall be deemed to be sufficient.
  MR. CHAPLIN: In moving the Amendments which stand in my name, the House will allow me to explain, in the first place, my reasons for moving them, and the object I have in view. To do this, I must ask hon. Gentlemen to go back to the year 1900, when they will remember that towards the close of the last session of the last Parliament, an Act was passed to amend the law relating to the housing of the working classes. The Bill, it will be recollected, was the subject of much hostile criticism at the time, both in Parliament (not limited to one side) and by certain sections of the Press, on the ground that it was too small, and not comprehensive enough to deal with so large and important a subject. But the critics, it was evident, were quite unaware of the extent and the width of the existing powers already possessed by local authorities, or how little there was that was left to be done by legislation for the better housing of the poor. There were, however, two points, both of vital importance, which had still to be dealt with. One was to give to the local authority power to acquire land

  439
  beyond its own borders, which they could not legally do at that time. The other was to provide greater facilities for locomotion for the workmen between their work and their new homes, which would be beyond the boundaries of the Metropolis. Accordingly, as the House will remember, the main feature of the Act of 1900 was to give powers for the first time, to local authorities to purchase land for the purpose of housing the poor outside their own area, which at that time it was not legal to do. That was a very important advance on existing legislation, which, I am happy to say, was promptly availed of by the local authorities. In the Metropolis, for instance, the new powers were at once put in force; land was purchased, in considerable quantities, and large and improved schemes were prepared for housing the poor, and are being prosecuted now. I should doubt if any Act of Parliament in recent years was so quickly followed by practical results. But in order to give effect to this Act and the intentions of its authors, the means of improved locomotion are absolutely essential, and it is in order to give increased facilities for this purpose that these Amendments to Standing Order 22—which I shall ask the House to approve to-night—have been designed.
  Now, one way of providing these facilities—and I intend to confine myself strictly to that branch of the subject tonight—and probably the best way, is by the tramway system, and there is no doubt in the world that the extension of that system is a matter of the first importance in connection with the great problem of housing the poor. At the same time, this extension, as matters stand now, is hindered, hampered, and checked by the existing provisions of the Standing Order, or by the action taken by certain local authorities under it, to a degree which few people are aware of, and which I will proceed to explain as briefly as I can. Now, the introduction, and still more, therefore, the passing of Bills relating to tramways, is strictly governed by the Order I refer to, namely, Standing Order 22, which was passed shortly after the year 1870. That Order requires that where it is proposed to make a tramway through
  440
  the area of another local authority, the consent of that local authority must be obtained before the Bill can be introduced. And where there is a road authority distinct from the local authority, which is sometimes the case, the consent of both of them must be obtained. There is, however, one modification of this requirement, namely, that where the proposed new tramway traverses more than one district, the consent of the authorities having two-thirds of the tramway within their jurisdiction is sufficient. I cannot say that that modification has any great effect, because new tramways are generally extensions of old ones. The House will therefore perceive that this power to withhold consent is an absolute veto to the making of any tramway without it. No tramway, however desirable, or even necessary it may be, can ever come before a Committee, or before Parliament itself, if that consent is withheld.
  The local authorities after the passing of this Order were quick to perceive this, and some of them very soon found that their consent was a very valuable marketable commodity. Very soon they began to impose conditions, often of a most onerous character, and never intended by Parliament, as the price of their consent. The insertion of clauses in the Bills imposing every sort of obligation upon the promoters, have been and are often required, and, in fact, what the local authorities would describe as conditions, are regarded by the promoters, and very often, no doubt, with good reason, as neither more nor less than blackmail. I could give many instances to show to what extent that has been carried on. This has been the subject of great complaint for years, to which I may say that no one is more alive than the Chairman of Committees, both in this and the other House of Parliament, and I do not think I should be going too far if I said that on several occasions it has led to considerable scandals. In any case it has added, and it does add constantly, to the difficulty of extending the tramway system, and consequently, of giving those increased facilities of locomotion which are essential and necessary for the working classes if they are to be housed in the new homes and under the system

  441
  that is contemplated by the Act to which I have referred, and which the House unanimously passed in the year 1900. I should add that London, with its gigantic population, is specially affected by the present state of things, because in London the local authority, that is, the County Council, unlike nearly all the local authorities in the country, is not the road authority, whose consent must always be obtained.
  That was the position in which this question was left after the passing of the Act of 1900, and accordingly, upon the Third Reading of that measure, I made this statement on behalf of the Government on the 12th of July in that year, because we regarded it as a necessary complement to the effective working of the Act of 1900, that these means and facilities should be provided. After referring to the subject of cheap trains, on which I said that my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade, now the Home Secretary, had recently explained, with reference to cheap trains, to a deputation of the County Council which waited on him and myself, that all that was wanted could be done without legislation, I went on to say this—
  The Member for Battersea, however, has raised another question more important than cheap trains. He has pointed out what is the fact, that under Standing Order 22, very great difficulties may be placed in the way of the County Council in London, in case they wish to make a tramway beyond their area. The effect of that Order is that the consent of any outside authority is an absolute condition before any Bill can even be introduced. My right hon. friend and myself have considered this question most carefully, and after a conference with the Chairman of Committees in both Houses, I am in a position to say that the Government are willing to make such alterations in that Standing Order and propose them in due course, as will modify those restrictions, and allow the question to be brought before Parliament, and leave to the Committee the decision as to whether the matter should go forward or not."
  That was a very distinct pledge, and that statement was made with the full sanction of my then colleague in the Cabinet at the time, and when nothing was done in this matter last Session, I reminded the Government, first in private and then in public, of the obligations we had come under, and which I regarded as still binding on myself as well as on them.
  442
  I apprehend, however, and I can perfectly well understand it, that the very great press of other business has prevented their dealing with this question up till now, and I have therefore proposed the Amendments to the Standing Order now on the Paper in fulfilment of the pledge which was given at the time of the passing of the Act, and I think I can explain almost in a sentence, what the effect of those changes will be.
  At present, as I have already shown, if the consent of the local authority, through whose area the tramway passes, is withheld, however unreasonably, it is an absolute veto, even to the introduction of a Bill. What I propose by my Amendment is this, that, instead of an absolute veto, proof shall be given before the Committee on the Bill that the promoters have either obtained the consent of the local authority, or that it has been withheld, and that if in the opinion of the Committee such consent has been unreasonably withheld, and ought to be dispensed with, they shall report accordingly. The Standing Order will then read as follows—
  "22. In cases of Bills to authorise the laying down of a tramway 'proof shall be given before the Committee on the Bill that' the promoters 'have either obtained' the consent of the local authority of the district, or districts, through which it is proposed to construct such tramway, and where in any district there is a road authority distinct from the local authority, the consent 'also' of such road authority in any case where power is sought to break up any road subject to the jurisdiction of such road authority, or that the consent of such local or road authority has been withheld, and if in the opinion of the Committee such consent has been unreasonably withheld, and ought to be dispensed with, the Committee shall report accordingly. Any such local or road authority shall be entitled to petition, and be heard against the Bill.'"
  Now I hope I have been able to make clear to the House both the object I have in view and the effect of the Amendments which I move. It will be for the House, and the House alone, to decide whether I have made out a case for the reform which I propose or not.
  I should add that these proposals are the outcome of conferences between the two Chairmen of Committees and myself on more than one occasion, and for my part, I am unable to see what valid objection can be urged against them. It may be urged that they may possibly lead

  443
  to attempts to make tramways in districts and localities where they are both objectionable and unneeded, but surely a Committee, after hearing all the evidence, should be the best judge of that, and may be relied on to deal with proposals of that nature. In any case it seems to me that that would be an evil infinitely less grave than the objections to the present system which I have endeavoured to put before the House. I believe the House will view with entire favour the object which I have in view, and I earnestly hope they will support me in the proposals which I now submit in order to give effect to it. I beg to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In lines 1 and 2, to leave out the words, 'the promoters shall obtain,' and insert the words, 'proof shall be given before the Committee on the Bill that the promoters have either obtained.'"—(Mr. Chaplin.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Standing Order."
  SIR ALBEET ROLLIT: No one acquainted with my right hon. friend will be surprised that he has brought this matter before the House, because, at the time he was in office, he gave something in the nature of a pledge to take this course at the earliest opportunity. If the House is not seized of the whole subject, this is not attributable in any degree to any want of perspicuity with which the right hon. Gentleman has placed the matter before us. But there is one point to which I wish to take exception. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that the local authorities have been guilty of blackmail. That is a charge easy to make, but difficult to prove or disprove, and I very much doubt if the right hon. Gentleman could prove it.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I did not make the charge myself. I said that these conditions as laid down were regarded by the promoters as blackmail.
  SIR ALBEBT EOLLITunderstood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would be able to prove it if he had the time of the House. Such charges are
  444
  difficult to prove whatever the source they originate from, and it is to be regretted that they have been made in this case. Whatever may be the force of opinion behind the right hon. Gentleman, I think the House should know that there is a very strong feeling on the part of the local authorities against it. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken in a very light way of the local authorities, but I have been requested to represent my own constituency of Islington in this matter, a borough with a rateable value of £2,000,000 sterling, and a population of 400,000, probably as much as that of the largest county boroughs in the country, and I need not assure the House that it has the deepest interest in the matter of tramways which might be proposed to be made within its area, which extends many miles. These local authorities have taken exception to this proposed change, and there we have a weight of authority and opinion which is certainly not a negligable quantity. The Municipal Corporations Association has also resolved, against the proposed change, and has asked me to represent its views. I would remind the House that the Standing Order has now existed for a long time, and that the onus is on those who propose that it should he altered or modified. The effect of the Standing Order, as it exists at present, is, I admit, to give these large boroughs in the Metropolis, and throughout the country, what they esteem in the highest degree—control over their own roads and streets. They at least act as the statutory road authority, and when it is suggested that they levy blackmail, or take an undue view of their own rights, I would answer that they are deeply interested in these tramways, and that they are as anxious for proper locomotion as anyone can possibly be, and most anxious to promote better housing of the poor. Any proposal which has grounds to recommend it carries with it the approval of the local authority, and it is only when serious objection is taken to a proposal on the ground of convenience, or improper lines in narrow thoroughfares, and the like, that the local authorities have been brought into conflict with promoters and others. The very essence of local government

  445
  is that it should be local. Persons in the locality have a knowledge of local affairs, and have the experience and the opportunity for forming the best judgment; and, to my mind, it is a contradiction in terms to come to a Committee of this House, and ask it to act at variance with local feeling upon such a local matter as the construction of a tramway. The local authorities are the persons who have the best means and the best right to express an opinion. It is said that there have been attempts to blackmail and the like. On the other hand, efforts have been constantly made to promote lines of tramways which did not meet with local or general recommendation. While such works are constantly and rightly proposed for private profit, and while every disposition should be shown to encourage private enterprise, it is very well for the community that there are local bodies with local knowledge which are able to consider whether these enterprises are for the public interest or not. Surely the road authority is the one which has the best means of forming a judgment. I think we in London have had sufficient experience of the need of power to local authorities to prevent interference with their public streets, and if this system, under which numberless bodies, some of them representing the State, some of them representing local authorities, and some of them representing private enterprise, are to ply without any real control at all, there will be not only inconvenience but great loss and danger. A Member of our own House only last year fell a victim to such a system as that.
  I would ask whether my light hon. friend's Amendment to the Standing Order is based on sound principles. He asks—Why should any one fear going to a Committee of this House? There is no reason to fear a desire to do aught else than justice on the part of this House. I know of nothing better than the administration of the private business of this House in the past, so far as doing justice to conflicting interests is concerned. But what would be the effect of taking away the veto of the local authority, and sending the question to the Committee of this House? Why, the officials and witnesses of corporations would be
  446
  constantly brought up to this House in crowds, and, granting time and a determination on the part of the Committee to do justice, how is the Committee to get the necessary local knowledge? Under the Light Railways Act, a local inquiry is held. There is reason in that, because the Commissioners are able to ascertain all the facts; but with every desire, how can a Committee of this House arrive at a similar result? Then there is the question of expense. I ask the House to seriously consider the burden which would be placed on local authorities, which would have the effect of over-capitalising undertakings and making them profitless. If that principle had been borne in mind when our railways were being constructed, there would now be a better return from them than there is. I would ask the House to consider the amount of money now spent by local authorities on private Bill legislation. It amounts to no less than £750,000 even-year. That is a burden on the community, and is a danger to public enterprise. Is it seriously proposed that officials and witnesses are to be brought up from all parts of the country to a Committee of this House in order to discuss, not at a purely local inquiry, questions which involve delay, trouble, and cost, and a burden on the very enterprises which my right hon. friend is anxious to promote. What has happened? Take one case, in which the London County Council in one session promoted some fifteen Bills, ten of which were taken exception to by the local authorities. If in all these cases, the local authority had been called upon to come before a Committee of this House, and to give evidence, the delay would be very great, and the cost would be enormously increased. I ask the House to say that these are local matters. I ask the House, as is proposed under the Education Bill, to trust the local authorities; and although there may have been charges of blackmail—I know of none, though there may have been a few instances—I believe the local authorities, as a whole, are animated by a spirit of fairness, and a full regard for what they believe to be the public interests. I shall be glad, if any question on this point is raised, if the President of the Local Government Board will state whether he thinks there is or is not any foundation for such a suggestion. I

  447
  believe this proposal is at variance with municipal principle. I believe that the municipal authorities have a right to the management of their own streets. They are admitted to be the road authorities, and I believe it is in the public interest, and for the public benefit and convenience, that such should be the case. I am convinced on commercial grounds that if this cost is added to the cost which at present has to be incurred for the construction of works of this character, it will be a very serious incubus on enterprises of the kind, and the change a most unwise one on both public and private grounds.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The right hon. Gentleman the ex-President of the Local Government Board considered it his duty, both on account of his official promise, and his expressed sympathy with the housing and rapid transit problem, to move the Amendment of the Standing Order that relates to the promotion of tramway projects, and he also considered it his duty, no doubt out of sincere regard for the housing of the people, to revive the promise he made in this House about eighteen months ago. On the face of it, the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman appears to be a move in the right direction; but I appeal to the House not to be carried away by the very plausible speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman, but to look at it once, twice, and thrice. If this Amendment be carried, what will be the permanent disability that it will inflict on every local authority in England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales? I venture to think that if the House seriously reflects, as I believe it will, on the effect of this suggested Amendment, it will retain the existing Standing Order rather than enter on the dangerous course which the right hon. Gentleman asks us to embark tonight. It is not claimed for any political party in this House—it would be an unfair claim to advance—that it has a monopoly of sympathy either with the housing of the poor or rapid transit. We are all agreed, I am glad to say, that if the housing difficulty is to be dealt with effectively in large cities and towns, and particularly in London, there must be greater facilities
  448
  for bonâ fide promoters of railways, "tubes," and tramways. But I do not believe that bonâ fide promoters, be they engaged in private enterprise or on behalf of local authorities, want this Amendment; and, what is more, if they did ask for it, at the cost of over-riding local sentiment, local control, local veto, and local supervision, then they would be asking for that which the circumstances did not demand, which would operate to the public detriment, and which the House of Commons ought not to grant.
  What is the difficulty? I can best illustrate the way in which the present Standing Order does not operate justly and fairly in some respects, and I can best show the injustice which will be inflicted on the local authority under the proposed Amendment, by giving the facts; and I would ask Metropolitan Members to follow me. In three sessions thirty-eight proposals for tramway extensions and improvements have been vetoed by the Borough Councils in London. In nearly all these cases the veto, in my opinion, was unreasonably exercised. Some of the vetoes by Borough Councils of County Council projects have been unreasonable; some have been factious and some have been almost on the verge of blackmailing the tramway authorities for local street improvements to an extent that the Borough Councils ought not to have been guilty of. In consequence of the unreasonable veto of some of the Borough Councils, thirty-eight proposals for tramway extensions have been vetoed, thirty-five double miles of tramway traction have been refused, and consequently denied to London during the last three years. That is a very serious condition of things, and it can only be got over by tolerant and more harmonious relations between the County Councils and the Borough Councils; and I should infinitely prefer that, with its temporary shortcomings, to the course of the right hon. Gentleman. Certain it is that the present obstruction by Borough Councils cannot continue. The condition of things has been a scandal in the past, is a disgrace to the present, and ought to be avoided in the future. The effect of these vetoes has been that

  449
  tramway extensions had been delayed, that tramway improvements had been deferred, and that useful street improvements had been a bandoned; and the result is that we have in London a great deal of friction, enhanced cost to ratepayers, and delay in tramway and street improvements to an extent not creditable either to the central authority or the local authorities, who have been the chief offenders. I would wish to see the local authorities abandoning their unreasonable attitude, when it is unreasonable; but the right hon. Gentleman seeks to coerce them and intimidate them, not in the interests of the County Council, which is their own interest as well, but, I believe, as experience will prove absolutely, in the interest of the private promoter. If this veto were removed in the way suggested, you would have solicitors walking about London with prospectuses in their pockets and saying to promoters and the public, "Oh, the veto is removed, you do not want the consent of the local authority, you can promote your Bill." Then a certain number of names are put upon the prospectus, and it is not difficult to get names, especially highly decorated names, for the prospectuses of tramway enterprises. Given a more or less bogus tramway scheme—and there have been several rejected this year—not requiring the consent of the local authority, it would come before a Parliamentary Committee without the stamp of approval of the district through which it run upon it. I speak with all respect of Parliamentary Committees, but they cannot be expected to have that minute local knowledge that is necessary in such cases, and which only the local authority ought to be called upon to exercise.
  What does the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment mean? It does not mean, as he assumes falsely, that in the interests of tramway extension, the consent of the local authorities should be altogether abolished. That is a serious thing; and irritating though the Borough Councils have been to the County Council, I am not disposed to go so far with him. If the veto were abolished grave injustice would be done to local communities. They would be put to
  450
  the needless expense of employing solicitors and counsel, and sending town clerks, surveyors and engineers to watch the scheme, which, with the right they now enjoy, would not be necessary, because, by Resolution, they would say, "We know best about this, we will not incur the expense of £3,000 or £4,000; we will veto it under the existing Standing Order." If the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is carried, this will be done away with, and the local authorities will be placed absolutely at the mercy of the company promoter, who will schedule each town and area as the happy hunting ground for speculative enterprise against the wishes of the local authorities. The way out of this difficulty, if there is a difficulty, is not by removing the veto of the Borough Councils, although it has been abused. There is a more excellent way than this in London, and that is to prevent a local road authority vetoing an elected central tram way authority. Failing that, I trust that Metropolitan Members, whatever their politics may be, will bring pressure to bear on their respective Borough Councils, to look upon tramway traction, not as a local, but as a Metropolitan affair. Battersea should not be factiously allowed to prevent the people of Lambeth from having access to Wandsworth Common, simply because the Wandsworth Borough Council, for political reasons, dislikes the London County Council. I believe the London County Council will do its best to reciprocate such action from the Metropolitan point of view, as it has invariably tried to do. Wherever the County Council has tried to extend a tramway it has generously contributed to local street improvements, an action which has not been reciprocated by the Borough Councils as it should have been. But I believe that a better spirit is growing up in London. Much of the political and fractious opposition which was generated in the Borough Councils against the County Council is dying out. It is useless, dangerous, and ought to be abolished, and I am glad to say it is rapidly diminishing.
  Does the right hon. Gentleman see where his Amendment would lead us to? Let me give my view. London, I am sorry to say,

  451
  is shamefully behind in all forms of communication. Its bus services, relatively superior though they are to the services in other towns and cities, have not been as good as they might be, the tramway system has been very bad indeed, while the underground railway system has been simply disgraceful and intolerable. But if we do not watch it instead of suffering from the defects of under-competition and bad services, as in the past, we are on the eve of suffering from too much competition, and unreasonable schemes by unscrupulous promoters upon whose head the hand of Parliament should rest pretty heavily, or the veto of the local authorities should be increased. If any hon. Member visits the special Committee room where "tube" and tramway schemes are being dealt with at present, he will find that London has been scheduled by alien capitalists with foreign desires and external interests as a happy hunting ground—a sort of Tom Tiddler's ground in which Jews only may pick up gold and silver. I am glad to say that a Committee of both Houses has been engaged during the last few weeks in rejecting some of these "tube" and tramway schemes on the broad ground that they are promoted, not for genuine investment, against which I have no complaint, but by promoters who wish to make profit out of their promotion, construction, and equipment, and then unload on the simple British public schemes that ought never to have been sanctioned. These schemes of tubes and tramways are now being projected everywhere without any regard to local or general convenience of London at all, with the result that we are getting tubes tramways unco-ordinated one with the other, and there is needless competition and needless expenditure. If this state of things is allowed to go on, necessary tramways and tubes will not only be over capitalised, but existing locomotion will be labouring under a heavy and unnecessary burden. I shudder to think what London will become if this Amendment of the Standing Order is agreed to, with Mr. Pierpont Morgan in the saddle anxious to buy up all the tubes and tramways which he desires to put his hands on at the present moment, and with the Local
  452
  Authority deprived of its local control. If the London County Council has to choose between overcoming the Borough Councils' objections and letting in the company promoters, their choice is already made. They would rather have the devil they knew than the devil they wot not of in the shape of the company promoter. The right hon. Gentleman ought to be more far-seeing in this matter. If the Borough Councils' veto is removed the matter will not stop as tramways. The same principle will be applied to electric light, water, light railways, and what harm may not then be done by over competition in the public streets without a corresponding public benefit? At present the Borough Council can buy out tramways, electric light, and other private companies, because there is regulation and control in defined areas, but if this veto is removed it will result in the endless tearing up of the streets, to the detriment of London, without the veto of the Borough Council. Last year there were 250 private Bills passed, involving an expenditure of £96,000,000. It is impossible that Members of Parliament should be posted in all the details of those Bills, but at the present time there is some guarantee that those Bills have been properly and adequately discussed by the local authority, as without their consent the scheme cannot preceed, and that is a guarantee of local requirements having been met. If this Amendment be carried there will be no veto and no control by the local authority, and no guarantee that a Bill has been adequately discussed, with the result that there will be interminable discussions in the House on Second and Third Readings, because no one will know what the real views of the local authority are. Another objection to the Amendment is that it would place the local authorities more than ever at the mercy of private companies in regard to the opening up of the streets, the evil results of which we have seen in Piccadilly Circus and the Strand.
  MR. HALSEYas a member of the Standing Orders Committee, before which a good many of these tramway questions had

  453
  come, and also as representing a county council whose interests would have been affected if the proposal of his right hon. friend had been in operation, opposed the Amendment. He yielded to no one in admitting the importance of this question in connection with the problem of the housing of the working classes, but at the same time he thought it was only fair and reasonable that the local authorities should have some power of control over tramways. If his right hon. friend's Amendment were carried, the effect on rural districts would be serious. Whenever a tramway was proposed in a country district, though the scheme might be a bogus one, the unfortunate rural authority would be obliged to come up before a Committee of the House to oppose the tramway. The proposal would almost double the work of the Private Bill Committees. He believed that in cases in which consent was withheld the allegation would uniformly be made that it was unreasonably withheld. Moreover, he thought that in an epoch of local self-government we ought to trust the authorities even if they occasionally made mistakes. In the event of the House considering that some appeal was necessary, he would like to see some such system resorted to as that which was adopted in reference to Provisional Order Bills, involving the holding of a local inquiry. A local inquiry was far less inconvenient and expensive, and much more likely to arrive at the real truth of the case, than an inquiry before a Committee of the House in London. As a final reason against making any alteration at this moment, he pointed out that great changes had just been made in the Rules of Procedure, the effect of which could not yet be judged, and that a promise had been given that a Committee should inquire into the whole subject of private Bill procedure.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I think the House has some what lost touch with the reasons which induced my right hon. friend the Member for Sleaford to bring forward this Amendment. The case he made was that, in the interest of the tramway
  454
  schemes for bringing working people from their places of residence to the centre of a big city like London, the veto which now rests with the local authorities of intervening districts should no longer be allowed to prevail. We have heard something tonight of blackmail by certain local authorities. I do not think it is necessary to go into that, although I daresay that if we were to examine very closely some of the Bills which have been before Parliament during the last few years we might find cases to which that term would not be wholly inapplicable. Whether that is likely or not, what we want to do is to see that justice is done as between the parties. The hon. Member for Battersea seemed to think that all tramway promoters were bad and all local authorities good. I do not quite share that view. There are good and bad promoters of tramway schemes, and good and bad local authorities. Our object is that justice should be done between these parties, and I do not think that justice is done when one of the parties is judge in its own case. Where a local authority is enabled to put its foot down on a scheme and veto it, the promoters of that scheme never get a chance of bringing their scheme before the public, or of obtaining the assent of this House to it, or of getting conditions inserted such as Parliament would approve. I was certainly somewhat astonished at the conclusion to which the hon. Member for Battersea came. As I listened to the facts he narrated to the House, I expected at the close he would pronounce himself in favour of the Amendment of the Standing Order. No doubt he is divided in his allegiance. As a London County Councillor he favours, or feels he ought to favour, this Amendment, but, as representing the interests of the borough in which Battersea finds a place, he feels it to be his duty to support their interests in this House. But what did he tell the House? That since the Metropolitan Boroughs were established two or three years ago, there had been no less than thirty-eight cases in which the Borough Councils had exercised their power of veto, and that in all those cases the consent of the local authorities was unreasonably withheld.
  MR. JOHN BUENS: In many cases.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I understood the hon. Member to say that in all those thirty-eight cases the consent was unreasonably withheld.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Hear, hear!
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The hon. Member assents to that. That seems to me rather a strong order. He went on to speak of the terribly backward state in which London finds itself in the matter of communication. There I thoroughly agree with him. But how is that backward state to be remedied by allowing interposing local authorities to exercise this power of veto? It seems to me that the only way to advance the welfare of the public in that regard is to allow the matter to come before Parliament, and there let the matter be decided in the interests of the public, regardless of the interests of the individual parties. The hon. Member used the word "co-ordination." How in the name of goodness are you to get co-ordination when you allow one local authority to interpose its veto upon, and there by stop, a wholly beneficent scheme in that respect? I admit there are great difficulties in the way of cost; I admit there will be greater expense. I admit that evil, but I think it is a still greater evil to leave things in their present state. Under the Light Railways Act no power of veto is permitted to the local authorities through whose district the proposed light railway is to run. It is true there is a local inquiry, but I am not certain that a local inquiry is more likely to arrive at a proper decision than an inquiry held here. I have more faith in the Committees of the House of Commons than in the inspectors of various Government Departments. I will not put the case higher than that. I have the most absolute faith in the decisions given by Committees here. I believe it is their intention—an intention almost always carried out—to do absolute justice, and I do not see how that end is to be arrived at if you allow one of the parties to the dispute to interpose a veto and prevent a scheme being
  456
  even considered by Parliament. For these reasons, although I object on the score of expense, I think the balance lies in favour of the change proposed by my right hon. friend, and if he goes to a division I shall support him in the lobby.
  MR. BLAKEasked what were the interests really involved? If they were exclusively those of the local authority or of the district under its jurisdiction it was not unreasonable that that body should have an arbitrary veto, but if larger interests were concerned it was neither logical nor reasonable that that should be the case, and there ought to be some means devised whereby those larger interests should be investigated and the local authority prevented from absolutely disposing of the question of whether or not there should be a means of communication between one point and another. That was the whole essence of the matter. There appeared to be some inconsistency in the speech of the hon. Member for Batter-sea. The facts as stated seemed to point to a different conclusion from that at which the hon. Member had arrived. If there had been thirty-eight cases in which large public interests, affecting the centre and the parts far beyond the centre of this great aggregate of population, had been checked and hampered by the absolutely uncontrollable veto of intervening local authorities, that was an argument for a change in, rather than for a continuance of, the existing state of things. It was a somewhat extravagant view to take of the importance of a local authority to say that it should dominate, not merely its own concerns, but also those larger concerns appertaining to the areas on either side of its own district. Let it defend its own interests before some impartial tribunal against unauthorised incursions into, or unreasonable interference with, its own domain without due regard to the interests of the people, but let it not be an absolute and unchecked barrier to the free communication between, and passage of, the population from one side to the other. It appeared to him that, unless some better scheme could be devised, notwithstanding the increased facilities

  457
  to be given to promoters, and the greater cost which in some cases would be incurred, the suggested Amendment ought to be adopted.
  CAPTAIN JESSELthought the feeling of London on this matter ought to be expressed. The hon. Member for Battersea had referred to thirty-eight cases in which the consent of the local authority had been, in his view, unreasonably withheld. Doubtless everyone whose scheme had been refused thought the refusal unreasonable, but surely the best judges in the matter were the local authorities. This Amendment had been brought forward with a view to facilitating the construction of tramways from the suburbs through the centre of a town. How would that affect London? Such tramways would be welcomed, but unfortunately there was the physical difficulty that the streets were too narrow, and that was generally the reason the local authorities had refused their consent to proposed schemes. He was glad to find himself in agreement, though from rather different reasons, with the hon. Member for Battersea on this matter. Last year a deputation of the Mayors of Metropolitan Borough Councils waited on the Chairman of Committees in another place and strongly protested against any alteration in the Standing Order, and he believed that every Borough Council in London joined in that protest. At present if a Borough Council refused its consent that was an end to the matter. But what would happen if this Amendment were carried? Supposing the London County Council and one of the Borough Councils disagreed. Year after year some of the ratepayers of London would be fighting each other with each other's money, with the usual result that the party with the longest purse would win. Was that a desirable state of affairs? Then, if a scheme had been thrown out, what length of time was to elapse before the promoters could bring forward another scheme? Endless expense would be involved. London as a whole did not desire the change, as they believed the local authorities were the best judges of local requirements. He therefore hoped the Amendment would not be carried.
  SIR JOHN DORINGTONpointed out that there was no necessity for coming to Parliament at all. In order that there might be a cheaper method of procedure Parliament had prescribed a method of making tramways or light railways under provisional order. Under the Tramways Act there was an absolute veto; under the Light Railways Act there was no veto at all. It was perfectly open to a promoter to proceed under the one Act or the other just as he pleased. Some thought the Light Railway Act was too easy, while the Tramways Act was too severe. He took it that the object of the Standing Order was to discourage people from not using the powers which Parliament had given them of having a local inquiry in the particular district concerned and having the thing there decided by a much cheaper tribunal, and, in the sense that it was on the spot and persons belonging to the district could make their views known before it, a better tribunal. In that way local authorities were not put to the immense cost of coming to Parliament. If the Standing Order were altered promoters would be encouraged not to take the course prescribed by Parliament—viz., that of proceeding under provisional orders—with the result that the expense would be greatly increased. He should therefore oppose the Amendment.
  SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERthought that if the suggestion of the hon. Baronet were carried out it would be necessary to change the Gentlemen at present acting as Light Railway Commissioners, because experience had shown that those Gentlemen were very averse to sanctioning any light railways within the Metropolis or its confines. He was thoroughly in agreement with the object of the mover of the amendment, but he believed the results of the alteration would be worse than the existing evils, and he would therefore be compelled reluctantly to vote against the proposal. He did not agree that unnecessary obstacles had not been placed in the way of promoters. Of recent years tramways schemes had been delayed and stopped most unreasonably.

  459
  In a Bill at present under consideration by a Committee of the House, out of fifteen schemes promoted by the London County Council, no less than ten had had to be abandoned on account of this veto. In fact, it might be said that tramway extension in London had been at a standstill for the past ten years. The hon. Member for Battersea commenced his speech by saying the Borough Councils had been arbitrarily vetoing these schemes, and wound up by declaring that in spite of that, they must leave the power in the hands of these Councils, to go on exercising this veto.
  MR. JOHN BURNSexplained that what he said was that if he had to choose between the indiscriminate action of promoters and educating Borough Councils out of their at present often unreasonable mood, he would prefer the latter. The electors would very quickly bring their own Borough Councils to book.
  SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERdid not desire to misrepresent the hon. Member, but he thought the real reason he had taken the line he had was that this power of veto was not limited to the Borough Councils, but extended to the London County Council, so that if the Amendment were carried, it would apply to the latter as well as to the former. He had often been told he was an undue advocate of the London County Council. He probably thought there was more good in that body than did many of his hon. friends, but at the same time he was by no means blind to its defects. That body had laid down a principle—from which under no circumstances would it deviate—that all tramway schemes within the area of the County, should belong solely to the County Council. If Borough Councils had in the past been arbitrary in the exercise of this power of veto on schemes promoted by the London County Council, so also had the latter body been most arbitrary in vetoing schemes, many of them most admirable schemes, promoted by private companies. The law as embodied in Standing Order No. 22 did undoubtedly embarrass tramway extension in London,
  460
  but the question was what was to be done to remedy the evil? He could not accept the proposed amendment, because it would entirely remove the check imposed by the Standing Order. He took this line in the interests of the House itself. The Standing Order had been a great protection against superfluous measures being introduced into the House, and in these days, when the great cry was for the devolution of local matters, it seemed strange that they should be asked to consent to a proposal by which the private legislation introduced into the House would be increased three-fold. Having said so much he should like to make a suggestion, and it was that they should not consent to the removal of this veto until something better had been substituted in its place. He felt himself that a Borough Council was not the best authority to deal with this matter, for it must take a local view, and all that was necessary to influence the council, as a rule, was that some half dozen frontagers should come forward in opposition to a scheme. It was necessary in order to grapple with this great problem to have a comprehensive system of locomotion between the North, South, East, and West of London. They must not allow any local prejudices to be placed in the way of legitimate schemes being promoted in this House. He should like to see this Standing Order altered, for he did not believe the Borough Council was the proper authority to give a decision upon a matter which really affected the welfare of London as a whole. He should like to see the Minister responsible take this I matter in hand and give it careful consideration and then bring forward a vigorous policy upon this subject next year. The proposal of his right hon. friend was a most incomplete solution of the question. He should like to see this Standing Order amended and some authority constituted which would receive the confidence of London as a whole, and before which all these Bills might go and be sanctioned or vetoed as the case might be. It was not for him to propose what that body should consist of. It might be a body including a certain number nominated by the Board of Trade and one or two nominated by the London County Council, if a

  461
  body of that character was appointed all those measures might be put before it and a superfluity of Bills would be prevented. It was for those reasons that he felt bound to vote against the proposal of his right hon. friend, although he agreed with the objects he had in view.
  MR. GODDARDsaid the object of this Amendment must be to increase the number of private enterprises in boroughs and towns. Now was that a desirable end to attain? Sooner or later all these great schemes would have to be bought out by the local authority, and any local authority which had had any experience in having to buy out these kind of enterprises would know something of the difficulties and the great expense they were put to in regard to such purchases. He did not think they ought to open the door wider to this kind of private enterprise and for these reasons he should vote against the Amendment.
  MR. THORNTONsaid he hoped the House would not consent to the removal of this power. He spoke as the Member for a kindred borough to that of the hon. Member for Battersea, and he asked the House to consider whether or not it was wise to consent in the interest of the ratepayers to the removal of the power of a local authority to veto these schemes. The boroughs of Battersea and Wandsworth were not antagonistic to the housing of the working classes. The borough of Battersea had been spoken for by its representative, and in Battersea they were doing their best to back up the London County Council. With regard to Wandsworth he had received many letters from that district, asking him to do the best he could for the housing of the poor. He knew that the boroughs of Battersea and Wandsworth were prepared to do their best with regard to the interests of the South of London. He knew that Wandsworth had from time to time objected to some of these schemes, but it was fair to say that two heads were better than one, and if a little more attention was given to these schemes they might have a better result in the
  462
  future. He thought anyone who had gone through that narrow highway which ran through the centre of the town of Wandsworth would agree that the local authority were not unwise in objecting to the construction of a tramway through that road. The Borough Councils were created and charged with high duties, and yet had only small powers, and he considered that he should not have been doing his duty if he had not taken this opportunity of entering his protest against what he considered to be a dangerous proposal against the interest of local government in London.
  MR. MACDONAsaid the principle of non-interference with local authorities in these matters had constantly been endorsed by Parliament, and in several instances during the present session. It was a principle he heartily approved of, and he could not support the proposed Amendment of the Standing Order.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I do not know whether the House will allow me to say a few words in reply.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to reply. Is the right hon. Gentleman rising to ask permission to withdraw his Amendment?
  MR. CHAPLIN: No, I do not withdraw, but I wish to make a suggestion in order to avoid a division. [Cries of "No, no!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: If the House gives its consent, then the right hon. Gentleman can proceed. [Opposition cries of "No, no!"]
  MR. CHAPLIN: I wish simply to make an appeal to the Government. [Renewed cries of "No, no!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The House does not give its consent, and as there is a considerable amount of dissension I am obliged to interrupt the right hon. Member.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1902–3.

  CLASS III.
  1. £29,395, to complete the sum for police, England and Wales.
  MR. DILLONsaid that he wished to draw attention to a matter of order in connection with the making up of the Notice Paper. They had a little conversation on the first day upon which the new Rules came into operation, and he then pointed out the great and serious inconvenience that would arise to hon. Members if they could not get in the Notice Paper issued for the afternoon sitting some indication of the intentions of the Government at the evening sitting. There was an understanding arrived at, that upon the Notice Paper for the afternoon sitting the order of business at the evening sitting should be set forth as far as possible. At the afternoon sitting today the first order was Supply Committee for the Civil Service Estimates, and this clearly indicated that the intention of the Government was to proceed in the usual order with Supply at the evening sitting, and that no attempt would be made to jump to another class of Estimates, or depart from the usual order in which Votes were taken. Instead of doing this they had broken off in Class 1, and jumped on to Class 3. He did not raise this point, because he had not any fault to find with the Votes which had been taken, but he mentioned the matter in order that they should have some understanding upon the question.
  464
  Nothing could be more detrimental to the conduct of business than to allow Ministers to skip as many Votes as they liked, and no such thing was possible under the old system. If things went on in this way there would be no limit to what a Minister might do. If a Minister concluded that an advantage could be gained by taking up some Vote unexpectedly, the greatest possible injustice might be inflicted upon the House. He did not in the slightest degree attribute any breach of faith or anything wrong in the course which had been taken, but he wished to draw attention to this matter, because he thought it was a practice which ought not to be allowed, and which should not be established as a precedent.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I feel that there is considerable force in the objection made by the hon. Member for East Mayo. There is no doubt that under the new Rules we ought to make it perfectly clear before the evening sitting begins what business is going to be taken. Otherwise inconvenience may arise, because hon. Members will not know what business they are coming down to consider. According to my view I think as an ordinary rule a different class of Votes ought to be taken at the evening sitting to that taken at the morning sitting, so as to secure the discussion of a larger number of classes. I think the ordinary practice should be that only one set of Votes should be taken at the morning sitting and a different set at the evening sitting, it being distinctly understood that the discussion in the evening should start with a definite Vote. The complaint of the hon. Member for East Mayo is that we did not continue at the evening sitting today the Votes which we began at the afternoon sitting.
  MR. DILLONsaid his complaint was that the Notice Paper placed in their hands in the afternoon sitting would lead them to suppose that they were going to proceed with the Votes in Class I at the evening sitting. This had not been done for they had passed on to another class of Votes without any

  465
  notice. He contended that in the Notice Paper in the afternoon sitting there ought to have been some indication as to the order of the Votes which it was intended to take at the evening sitting. There was no such indication in the notice paper at the afternoon sitting and the Vote for Class III. had come on as a surprise to them.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: One of two courses is to be assumed. If the Government choose, and I think they will commonly choose, in the interest of the House at large, to start with a new class of Votes at the evening sitting, notice of that intention should be given not merely at the morning sitting, but even before that; or, on the other hand, if it is not proposed to start afresh with a new set of Votes in Supply, the evening sitting should be a direct continuation of the morning sitting. I shall take care that this course will be taken in future.
  MR. DILLON: I will make no objection to the course tonight as long as it is not to be a precedent.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid they had been discussing such questions as seats in Hyde Park and hat-racks downstairs, while losing the opportunity of dealing with Votes of extreme importance. These Estimates were all very well, but there were certain things of far more importance which were not included in the Votes on the Paper and which could only be discussed on the salaries of Ministers. They should like occasionally to come to close quarters with the Minister on the Vote for his salary, and that was a thing they had no opportunity of doing. There
  466
  were such questions as the grave danger of the National Gallery from fire, the work which was being done in Westminster Abbey in connection with the Coronation, and the personnel of the Office of Works, which should be discussed.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The noble Lord is now discussing a class of questions which are not on the Paper at all.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I quite understand the point. May I say that if any demand had been made when Class I. was being taken that the Vote for the salary of my right hon. friend would be a convenient occasion to raise important points, I should have been glad to consider that, but no application of that kind was made.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid he only found out at 7.30 by a chance remark made by the Chief Government Whip to an hon. Member that they were going to jump to Class III. at the evening sitting. He could not see from the face of the Notice Paper what right the Government had to claim to proceed to another class of Votes. It seemed to him that they ought to press the First Lord of the Treasury to revert to Class I.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it is impossible to take Class I.; it is not on the Paper.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: Yes, it is on the Paper, page 16.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it is impossible to take Class I.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: That is a question for the Chairman.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It cannot be taken if it is not on the Paper.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the actual arrangement we are taking tonight is not the one we ought to pursue in the future. I did give the best notice I could yesterday that we proposed to take Class III. at the evening sitting. I spread the information so far as I was able to do it. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not raise any objection to going on.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid the Police Report for this year had not been issued, and it was a very inconvenient course to put a Vote on the Paper when they had not the report before them. No doubt the Home Secretary would be able to furnish the desired information. He asked what was the number of Army Reserve men from counties and boroughs who were at present in South Africa, how many during the past year had returned to this country, how many vacancies were still left, and how these vacancies were being supplied in the meantime when these men were absent. He further asked to what extent the funds of the boroughs and the counties respectively were being charged in respect of the police who were absent. He was not finding fault with the payment of these police as army reservists, but he was anxious to know to what extent the efficiency of the police force was being kept up. How many of those who were sent abroad had died, how
  468
  many had been invalided, and to what extent had a burden been placed on the Police Pension Fund.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (MR. RITCHIE,)said the hon. Member had asked a question as the number of police who were abroad on military service. So far as the Metropolitan police were concerned, he thought the number who had gone to the front was 573. He could not inform the hon. Member how many had died; but as to the efficiency of the force, he would point out that, having regard to the large number of police in London, the proportion who had been withdrawn in this way was not large, and in any case where it was necessary the Commissioner had endeavoured to secure that the Metropolis should be properly policed by drawing from places which required less protection the number required to fill the places of the absent men. There had also been a reduction in the number of police employed on public buildings, and these had been available to make up the deficiency. The arrangements thus made would probably prove satisfactory till the return of the men in South Africa, whose places, of course, were kept open for them.
  MR. CALDWELLasked the Home Secretary to state the age at which the police entered on duty in the Metropolis. The age at which they entered determined the age at which they retired from the force, and he believed that the early age at which they retired was bringing a heavy burden upon the ratepayers. He understood that at Liverpool a plan had

  469
  been adopted whereby those who retired on pensions could be re-enlisted. He did not approve of that, because he did not think it was fair that men who had been retired on pensions should be re-engaged. He did not know whether anything of that kind had been done as regards the Metropolitan police force.
  MR. RTCHIEstated that it was perfectly true that the age of retirement in the police was low as compared with the age of retirement in other branches of the public service. He thought the House would admit that the police had arduous duties to perform—duties which told very much on their health and strength. There were a considerable number of those men quite capable of doing other work when they retired, yet the strain was so great during the time that they were in the force, working day and night, that an early age of retirement was quite fair in regard to the police. There was great practical difficulty in the way of re-engagement, because the question of their pensions was involved. If after re-engagement a man committed an offence, he might lose the benefit of the pension to which he was entitled at the time of retirement. At the same time he was not at all sure but that it might be a proper thing to make arrangements by which competent men might possibly be re-engaged. During the festivities and other ceremonies which were to take place this year in connection with the Coronation men who had left the ranks would for a short period be re-engaged, but as a rule there was not any re-engagement in connection with the Metropolitan police.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he could not admit that the duties of the police were so arduous as had been stated by the Home Secretary. There might be districts in the East End of London where the duties were arduous, but that was not the case generally. The Home Secretary had expressed in public views of that kind, and he was sorry he had not an opportunity of replying. He took this opportunity of differing from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the duties were arduous.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYcalled attention to an item of £40,000 for the pay, clothing, and other expenses of the Metropolitan police employed for the protection of public buildings and other public duties, and stated that this was a very vague definition to give. He asked whether that amount was accounted for through the Comptroller and Auditor General in the same way as was done with other amounts. He was informed that that was not so. It seemed to him that they ought not to be asked to vote £40,000 without the usual check of the Comptroller and Auditor General to show how the money had been spent.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITasked whether he was aware that members of the Force had made representations that the police desired more relaxation, and especially one day's rest in seven, a Sunday off, like other public servants. He hoped this would be favourably answered and conceded.
  MR. MARTINsaid he would like to ask

  471
  whether something might not be done to improve the regulation of the traffic in the streets. The way in which busses and vans tried to pass each other and blocked up the whole traffic had reached such a stage as to become a nuisance-He was quite certain that the traffic would be better conducted than at the present time if the police insisted on drivers keeping on the right side of the road.
  MR. WEIRsaid he understood the Chairman to say that this Vote was exclusively for the Metropolitan police, lie found on page 49, Section D., there were three travelling inspectors at a salary of £750 a year, together with £750 travelling expenses for the three, and £25 a year to each for clerical assistance. The allowances for travelling expenses seemed to him to be very large, if the work of these Inspectors was confined to the Metropolis.
  MR. MACVEAGHdrew attention to the case of a civilian having been arrested by a policeman for standing in a doorway drinking. The case came before the Bow Street police court, and the evidence of the civilian was overridden by that of the policeman. The civilian then applied for a summons against the policeman, for assault, but the magistrate refused it. He thought the Home Secretary would see that this was a case which demanded inquiry.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid that the magistrate who had tried the case referred to by the hon. Member who had just sat down, was one of the most experienced
  472
  magistrates in London, who said that no case at all had been proved against the constable although he added that if fresh evidence was brought forward he would re-open the case. Hitherto no such further evidence had been produced as to the conduct of the constable, but if it were he should cause inquiry to be made. His hon. friend the Member for South Islington had suggested whether more relaxation might not be given to the constables. He was advised, however, that the Commissioner of Police allowed the utmost relaxation that was possible. He felt satisfied that in the great majority of cases no complaint was made by the constables as to the want of relaxation. In regard to the traffic of the streets of London, he was quite sure that those who watched how it was regulated by the policemen must be filled with admiration for the manner in which they performed that duty. There was no power on the part of the Commissioner or on his part to compel the traffic on ordinary occasions to keep to certain routes.
  MR. MARTINsaid that what he suggested was that the vehicles should be compelled to keep the right side of the road.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid he never ceased to admire the extraordinary way in which the police conducted the most difficult traffic in the busy streets, and he thought that on the whole there was very little to complain of in the matter. An hon. Gentleman opposite asked whether certain money expended upon police employed for special purposes went before the Public Accounts Committee. It did, exactly in the same

  473
  way as any other money paid out of the public Treasury. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty had asked a question as to travelling police inspectors. The police in the counties had to be certified as efficient in order to enable them to obtain grants from the public funds; and these inspectors were engaged for the purpose, inter alia, of inspecting the local police and certifying whether they were efficient or not. He did not think £750 a year was too large a sum for their travelling and personal expenses over the whole country, and not as the hon. Member suggested exclusively, or even at all, for London.
  Vote agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £340,929, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1903, for the expenses of the prisons in England, Wales, and the "Colonies."
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that there was a very large increase in this Vote. It was a very curious fact that the only decreases were for salaries and new buildings and alterations. What was the explanation of that, while there was a large increase of clothing, furniture and bedding?
  MR. HELMEsaid he wished to call attention to a memorandum which had been forwarded to the Home Secretary from prison clerks and storekeepers, in regard to certain
  474
  grievances from which they suffer. Having served on a Visiting Committee of Justices, he had been brought in touch a good deal with the management of prisons, and he thought that the demand of the men to be placed on a footing of ultimately receiving the maximum salary of £400 was just. Promotion, too, was slow, because other clerks had been introduced on to the staffs as abstractors, and that should be remedied.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid that this subject, to which his attention had already been called, would be inquired into by a small Departmental Committee which he hoped to complete and set to work in a few days. In regard to the increase on the Vote it was more apparent than real, for a sum of £34,000 which was taken as a Supplementary Estimate ought to be added in calculating the total expenditure of last year. That increase was almost entirely owing to an increase in the prison population of a kind for which it was almost impossible to account, and to the reception of military offenders. The increased charge for travelling expenses was due to the removal of prisoners from one prison to another, necessitated by the increased numbers which had to be dealt with in certain localities. It was an unfortunate necessity, and every effort was being made to reduce it to the lowest possible degree in the future.
  It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday, 26th May; Committee also report progress; to sit again upon Monday, 26th May.

  LOAN BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.

  CLAUSE 1.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he did not think it was intended that this Bill was to be taken tonight. It would have been all right if hon. Members had received notice that it was to be taken in Committee; but it was always understood that on Supply night such business should not be taken after twelve o'clock. This was only a question of fair dealing with the House, for the Bill could be easily run through in Committee, after the recess, in the usual way. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been very well treated, and he had also treated the Opposition very well in connection with these Bills; but if the Committee stage of the Loan Bill was to be forced through tonight, the Government would find that they would not make progress with other measures. He moved that progress be reported.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,)said he thought it had been distinctly understood that the Committee stage of the Loan Bill should not be opposed, and that the Government would
  476
  give opportunity for debate on the Third Reading. Of course, the Committee stage of a Bill of this nature was merely a formal matter.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that the question really was that they did not expect the Bill to come on at this time. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given due notice, then, of course, the Bill would have passed through Committee.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACHwas understood to say that, if the Committee stage was to be regarded as formal after the recess, he had no objection to progress being reported.
  Committee to sit again upon Tuesday, 27th May.

  BOYCOTTING (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "showing in respect of the period from the 1st day of January 1902 to the 1st day of April 1902, the distribution of the cases of total and partial boycotting in the districts proclaimed under Section 2 of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887."—(Mr. Wyndham.)

  LAND PURCHASE ACTS (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "showing particulars as to the repayment of advances under the Land Purchases Acts and the Land Purchase Amendment Bill, 1902." (Mr. Wyndham.)
  Adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.

EARL OF LEITRIM.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor, that the right of Charles, Earl of Leitrim, to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

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:—
Scarborough Tramways.
And the Certificates that the further-Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:—
Halifax Corporation.
Metropolitan District Railway.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  BARROW HÆMATITE STEEL COMPANY, LIMITED, BILL [H.L.]
  Presented (pursuant to leave given on Tuesday last); read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  DEVONPORT CORPORATION (WATER) BILL [H.L.],

    SADDLEWORTH, SPRINGHEAD, AND LEES TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
    Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
    MARGATE CORPORATION WATER BILL [H.L.],
    LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.],
    WIGHAM CORPORATION BILL [H.L.],
    LIMPSFIELD AND OXTED WATER BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments.

  LONDON SCHOOL BOARD (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment.
  RATHMINES AND RATHGAR URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Read, 2a and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  BELFAST CORPORATION BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed.
  RENFREW HARBOUR BILL [H.L.],
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  CHARD GAS BILL,
  GARSTON AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS AND ELECTRIC SUPPLY (TRANSFER) BILL,
  GREAT CENTRAL AND MIDLAND RAIL-WAYS (SOUTH YORKSHIRE HAIL-WAYS) BILL,
  GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BULL,
  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL,
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL,
  NORTH METROPOLITAN TRAMWAYS BILL,
  YORKSHIRE CORPORATION BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

  CITY AND NORTH EAST SUBURBAN ELECTRIC RAILWAY (No.1) BILL [H.L.]
    CITY AND NORTH-EAST SUBURBAN ELECTRIC RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL [H.L.],
    Report from the Select Committee' That the promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bills: Ordered that the Bills be not further proceeded with.

    SWANSEA CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
    NATIONAL TELEPHONE COMPANY (KINGSTON-UPON-HULL) BILL [H.L.],
    ABERCARN URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL
    BROADSTAIRS GAS BILL,
    CLAY CROSS RAILWAY BILL,
    NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL,
    CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL,
    COMMERCIAL GAS BILL,
    GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (CRUMLIN VIADUCT) BILL,

    MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL.
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

    V. Hill,

    L. Saltoun,

    L. Digby,

    L. Hamilton of Dalzell,

    L. Hawkesbury (chairman);

    agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: the Committee to meet on Wednesday the 4th of June next, at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioner's praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
    Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House Tomorrow.
    PAISLEY GAS PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
    Read 2a (according to order.)
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
    Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1.) BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 74.)
  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    NAVY (WATER-TUBE BOILERS).
    Letter from Messrs. Delaunay, Belleville, and Company, commenting on the report of trials of H.M.S. "Hyacinth" and H.M.S. "Minerva."

    TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
    No. 2790. Germany (German Colonies.)

    No. 2791. Morocco (Dar-al-Baida.)

    No. 2792. Turkey (Erzeroum.)

    No. 2793. Argentine Republic (Rosario.)

    No. 2794. Portugal (Goa.)

    No. 2795. China (Hankow.)

    No. 2796. Japan (South Formosa).

    No. 2797. China (Chinkiang.)

    CABLE COMMUNICATION.
    Minutes of Evidence taken before the Inter-Departmental Committee on Cable Communications.
    Forty-fifth Annual Report of the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery, 1901–1902.
    JUDICIAL STATISTICS (ENGLAND AND WALES) 1900 (PART II. CIVIL JUDICIAL CIVIL STATISTICS).
    Statistics relating to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the House of Lords, the Supreme Court of Judicature, County Courts, and other Civil Courts, edited by John Macdonell, Esquire, C.B., a Master of the Supreme Court.

    MARRIAGES, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS (ENGLAND AND MALES.)
    General Abstract for 1901. (March 30th.)
    Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    INDIA (PROGRESS AND CONDITION.)
    Statement exhibiting the moral and material progress and condition of India during the year 1900–1901. Thirty-seventh number.)
    RAILWAY COMPANIES' POWERS ACT, 1864.
    Draft Certificate of the Board of Trade, authorising the Liskeard and Looe Railway Company to raise additional capital.
    FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (FIVE HOURS SPELL IN HOSIERY FACTORIES.)
    Order, dated 12th May, 1902, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in pursuance of Section 39 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, extending to hosiery factories the exception by which a woman, young person, or child may be employed continuously for live hours, and also directing that in the case of hosiery factories, the exception shall not be limited to certain months of the year.
    POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF NORTHAMPTON).
    Order made by the County Council of the County of Northampton, altering certain polling districts in the Southern Parliamentary Division.
    Nineteenth Report of the Comptroller General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks, with appendices, for the year 1901.
    COMMONS ACT, 1876.
    Report, by the Board of Agriculture, upon an application for a Provisional Order for the regulation of the commons in the parishes of Chipping Sodbury, Old Sodbury, and Little Sodbury, in the County of Gloucester.

    TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION ACT, 1889.
    Minutes by the Board of Education sanctioning the subjects to be taught under Clause 8 of the Act: (1) for the County of Dorset, 4th Minute; (2) for the County of Buckingham, 9th Minute.
    Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES—JOINT COMMITTEE.
    The Lord Sandhurst discharged from serving on the Joint Committee, and the Viscount Gordon (E. Aberdeen) named of the Committee in his place.

    LONDON UNDERGROUND RAILWAYS.
    THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, some weeks ago † I called your Lordship's attention to damage which had been done and might be done to house property through the construction and working of underground railways, and I also directed your Lordships' attention to the fact that, under the law as it now stands, no action lies against a railway company which holds its charter by statute, for any damage it may do in its working, and I suggested to your Lordships that possibly there might be some change made in the existing law. I understood then that the Board of Trade would prepare clauses and submit them to the Lord Chairman of Committees, and that these clauses would be considered by him, and I believe that such clauses have been drawn. I also have seen it stated that clauses altering
    † See (4) Debates, civ., 986.
    the general law in relation to this subject are at the present time under the consideration of two Committees of your Lordships' House now sitting upon Private Bills.
    The point which I wish to submit to the House is this, that this change in the law—if it is an alteration in the general law as I apprehend it is intended to be, and as I think the Chairman of Committees said it would be applying to all Bills for underground railways—if this alteration becomes the general law, if it embodies a general policy, then it will form part of the general law of which it will be an alteration; and in these circumstances I submit to your Lordships that these clauses ought, in the first instance, to be laid on the Table of the House, so that the House may become acquainted with their terms, and also that the public may have notice of the proposals, so that anyone, who may see fit to do so, may offer suggestions upon them. I do not know anything of the clauses myself. I daresay they are very good clauses, but the point is one of principle. I would submit to your Lordships that when it is proposed to alter the general law the procedure ought to be the same as it is with regard to any alteration in your Lordships' Standing Orders, which is always laid on the Table of your Lordship's House for consideration. It appears to me there is some inconvenience in clauses of this sort being presented to Committees on Private Bills. In the first place, it by no means follows that all Committees will come to the same conclusion, and my view is that if there is to be an alteration of the general law, of course the alteration should be one and the same in all cases. Another thing is, that as far as I know, your Lordships only refer these Private Bills to Committees for consideration with regard to the objects for which they are promoted. You do not submit to them any question of alteration of the general law. Under any circumstances, I think if your Lordships were to allow this matter to pass away to a Committee your Lordships might never become acquainted with the change at all, because, as the House knows, Private Bills are not printed and circulated, and are not laid on the Table

    347
    of the House. So it would not be in the knowledge of your Lordships what change had been made. It is a question of the original jurisdiction of this House and I apprehend this House will be very slow to part with any of its original jurisdiction. For these reasons I submit these clauses should be laid on the Table of the House that they may be considered before they are inserted in any Railway Bill.
    Moved to resolve, That the special clauses to be proposed with reference to the damage done by underground railways be submitted for consideration by the House, before being inserted in any Railway Bill.—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): My noble friend moved, as he has said, some weeks ago on this subject, and I then objected to his Motion on the ground that it went somewhat further than I thought the circumstances justified. But I fully admitted from the first that something more than the present state of the law was required for the protection of property under the very novel circumstances of these tube railways. There is no doubt that the conditions under which these "tube railways," as they are called, are made are entirely novel. We have had no experience of their results, and at present it is very difficult to tell what damage may he done to adjoining property by constant working of the trains. Therefore I am entirely in agreement with my noble friend that something is required to be done, and I also quite sympathise with him in the wish that the House at large, and not merely a Committee, should be thoroughly informed of what clauses are introduced into these Bills, and further the object which he and I, and I think the House generally have in view. But, my Lords, there is a good deal of difficulty in carrying out the suggestion my noble friend has made, of in the first instance laying these clauses before the House. My noble friend laid some stress on "alteration of the general law," and no doubt it is in a sense, an alteration of the general law whenever a Private Bill is passed. But then my noble friend may say these Bills are to meet special cases, but the clauses now referred to are of a more general character. That, no doubt, is perfectly
    348
    true, but the circumstances may not be the same in all these Bills, and though it is quite irregular, I know, to refer to the proceedings of Committees now sitting, I think it is pretty well known that there are two Committees now discussing tube railways upstairs—one of them I think has almost concluded its labours—and these Committees have considered with very great care clauses which have been submitted to them, and which they' have themselves suggested, to see what can be done to give some further protection than the ordinary law affords to owners of property in the neighbourhood of these railways. These Committees have had the great advantage of having before then the promoters' cases, the cases for opponents, and the cases of owners of property, and of having these cases thoroughly discussed by counsel engaged for the several interests. And now I venture to submit to the House that it would be far better to leave the elaboration of these clauses for the present to these Committees. Let them insert clauses in the Bills if they think proper to do so, either clauses of absolute uniform character, or clauses to meet the varying circumstances of the different Bills, and when the Bill comes before your Lordships on the Third Heading it will be perfectly open to the House to consider these clauses and make any alteration in them the House may think fit. My noble friend says Private Bills do not come before the House in the way Public Bills do, and that they are not printed for circulation. I can assure him that I shall be very happy to inform him, or give general information to the House when these Bills are coming on for Third Reading, and if my noble friend will then call attention to the clauses that may be introduced into the Bills, and will take the opinion of the House on them, it will. I think, provide a guide to future Committees and to myself in dealing with such Bills. I think that would be a more convenient course to adopt—and I shall be glad to do everything in my power to assist the noble Lord in that way—than to pursue the course he suggests in his Resolution.
    THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Of course the suggestion of the noble Lord

    349
    will be most convenient to the House, and I shall not oppose it or take the sense of the House on my Motion. But, at the same time, I wish to point out that it is only by the noble Lord calling oar attention specially on the Third Heading to these Bills that we can take action. If he will kindly undertake that they shall be printed and laid on the Table of the House, the House will have an opportunity of judging of the clauses. I do not wish to persevere with my Motion, but unless some unusual course of this kind it taken your Lordships will not be in a position, I fear, to see these clauses at all. As the matter is a very important one and the general law is, as we know, frequently altered, and in this case the alteration will be novel and may be considerable, certainly, I think the House ought to have the means of knowing what is being done.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The EARL of HALSBURY): The noble Lord seems to he under some misapprehension as to the effect of a clause in a Railway Act on the general law. A railway company has its own code recognised in the Statute authorising the construction of a railway, and if any one line is authorised by an Act having a particular section in it, that will not affect any railway beyond the particular railway in question. It will not be an alteration of the general law, though it is true enough it is an alteration of the general law which is enacted in these Railway Bills. It is a mistake to treat this business as an alteration of the general law. The general law is that where a railway is authorised by Parliament to be made from one point to another, under the Railway Clauses Act the user of the railway does not give rise to a claim for compensation for damage done during the working of the railway. The noble Lord seemed to think that the authorisation of either of these railways with some special provision made would have operation beyond this particular railway, but that is wrong.
    THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I quite concur with everything that has been said by the noble Earl on the
    350
    Woolsack; perhaps I did not use quite the correct expression when I alluded to the general law. But these clauses are intended, as I said on a previous occasion, to be clauses of general application, and in future Underground Railway Bills it will be the exception, not the rule, if they are not inserted. It is because it is intended that they shall be clauses for general application that it seemed to me a matter that should come before the attention of your Lordships' House.
    THE EARL OF MORLEY: I will undertake that the House shall have printed copies of the clause or clauses in the Bills, so that the proposals shall be in your Lordships' hands.
    THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: With that assurance I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
    Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

    LONDON UNDERGROUND RAILWAYS.

      THE CORONATION—ACCOMMODATION FOR PEERS, ETC.
      EARL CARRINGTON: I beg to ask my noble friend the Chancellor of the Duchy, as a member of the Coronation Committee, whether he has made any representation to the Lord Great Chamberlain so as to ensure arrangements being made for the benefit of Peers and Peeresses who are going to attend the Coronation of their Majesties on June 26th.
      LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I have not made any representations to the Lord Great Chamberlain—it would not be my duty to do so—but Lord Cholmondeley has taken great interest in this matter, and he has been good enough to say that he will do all he can to make arrangements for the accommodation for Peers and Peeresses before the ceremony, and certainly for receiving them immediately afterwards in this House. The circumstances have involved a considerable amount of trouble and detail, and he asks for the assistance of a few Members of this House to take charge, to some extent, of these arrangements, and trusts they will proceed at once to make such arrangements as are possible to meet the convenience of Peers

      351
      and Peeresses who are to attend. Notice will be given by circular to every Peer as soon as those arrangements are made.
      THE EARL OF ONSLOW: If it is in order for one member of the Government to ask another member of the Government a Question, I would like to ask whether Peers' daughters will be included.
      LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I am afraid they come under the word "details."
      House adjourned at ten minutes before Five o'clock, till Tomorrow, half past Ten o'clock.