brought up a Special Report from the Committee on Public Petitions as follows:—

"Your Committee having had before them a Petition from Prittlewell and neighbourhood, presented to the House on the 6th day of this instant April, relating to the Trial at Bar, in the Court of Queen's Bench, on the Indictment of The Queen versus Castro, for Perjury, think it proper that the said Petition should be brought to the notice of the House, as containing offensive imputations upon the Lord Chief Justice and two of the Judges of the said Court, and reflecting, in an unbecoming manner, upon the Speaker, and the proceedings of the House.

"The House, while respecting the constitutional rights of Petitioners, has guarded against the abuse of those rights; and it will be for the House to judge, in the present case, whether the Petition be one, which, according to the Rules and practice of the House, can properly be entertained."

moved that the Special Report should be taken into consideration on Thursday next, at half-an-hour after Four of the clock.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, On what grounds the completion of the Industrial Museum in Edinburgh has been indefinitely postponed, by the omission from the Miscellaneous Estimates of the usual grant of £5,000 for building purposes; and, whether this omission will be supplied when any supplementary estimates are brought forward?

Sir, I am much indebted to the hon. Member for Edinburgh for giving me an opportunity of removing the natural misgiving which exists in that city on the subject; and I am happy to assure him that there has never been any intention on the part of the Government to act in the manner suggested in his Question. The omission of any sum for the purpose in this year's Estimates was owing to the fact that the arrangements for the construction of the west wing were not sufficiently advanced to enable the Government to insert any sum. If necessary, a Vote can be submitted hereafter in the shape of a Supplementary Vote, and in the meanwhile I beg the hon. Member to believe that I will use my utmost efforts to remedy the delay which has taken place, and for which I fear I must admit I was partly to blame.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If, under the new system, the retirement of Adjutants of Militia will be commutable?

Sir, the Commutation Commissioners act under instructions from the Treasury, and, as they have commuted the retired allowance of several adjutants, no doubt they will continue to do so.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If it is true that a menacing note has been addressed by the Prussian Government to the Belgian Government, referring, amongst other matters, to the liberty of the press in Belgium, and calling upon the Belgian Government to alter the laws of their country; if any communications upon the subject have been received from the British Minister at Brussels, or any instructions sent to him by Her Majesty's Government; and, if so, if he will lay such Correspondence upon the Table of the House; and, as Great Britain has formally guaranteed, in conjunction with the other great powers of Europe, the neutrality and independence of Belgium, what steps it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take, diplomatic or otherwise, in fulfilment of that guarantee, should Belgian independence be imperilled in consequence of rejecting the demands of Prussia?

Mr. Speaker, I would venture to observe that, I think as a general rule, in Parliamentary Questions, and especially in questions connected with Foreign Affairs, we should be careful not to avail ourselves of the opportunity of using epithets entirely uncalled-for and unnecessary. Epithets in Questions are generally, I may say, always useless, and may lead to misconception. In the present case, Her Majesty's Government have no information whatever of a "menacing" Note having been addressed by the German to the Belgian Government. This is a subject, on which there is a great deal of misrepresentation and exaggeration. In the first place a considerable time has passed since a Note was addressed by the German Government to the Belgian Government. It was at the commencement of February—I think on the 3rd; and it was not a menacing Note, but a Note of remonstrance. Now, a remonstrance does not, I conceive, by any means involve menace. On the contrary, one element of remonstrance may evince a friendly disposition, and we all know that a "friendly remonstrance" is a phrase often adopted in discussing subjects. This remonstrance was addressed by the German to the Belgian Government, on the 3rd of February, and it was replied to by the Belgian Government at the end of that month—I think on the 26th. Her Majesty's Government became acquainted with these two Notes, the Remonstrance and the Rejoinder, through the action of the German Government. The German Ambassador, by the instructions of his Government, made Her Majesty's Government, in confidence, acquainted with those two Notes, and we at the time appreciated that act, and still continue to appreciate it, as an evidence of the cordial and confidential relations which subsist happily between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Germany. No answer whatever has been made to the Rejoinder by the German Government. The Rejoinder having been made on the 26th of February, we are now advanced in the month of April, and we consider, and I believe those who are competent to form an opinion upon this question also consider, and have considered for some time, that this is a question which is concluded. The hon. Gentleman continues by asking me whether—

"As Great Britain has formally guaranteed, in conjunction with the other Great Powers of Europe, the neutrality and independence of Belgium, what steps it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take, diplomatic or otherwise, in fulfilment of that guarantee, should Belgian independence he imperilled in consequence of rejecting the demands of Prussia? "

Now, Sir, as a general rule—and I think the House will support me in the position I take —it is not expedient or necessary that the policy of Her Majesty's Government, whoever forms that Government, should be declared upon a hypothetical statement. But I will so far deviate from the stric course taken on such occasions, certainly, as to say that if the independence and neutrality of Belgium were really threatened, we should do our duty to our Sovereign, and not be afraid to meet Parliament.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, taking into consideration the length of service of the majority of the Adjutants of Militia, and that the present scheme for their retirement is virtually a compulsory one, he will grant such Adjutants the honorary rank of Major on retirement?

, in reply, said, he thought that the retirement scheme in question could hardly be called a "compulsory one," and good compensation was given to those officers who retired. He could not give the assurance asked for by his hon. Friend, but no doubt the case of those officers who had served along time would be deserving of consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I feel great pain, Sir, in having to bring under the notice of the House a matter which I am sorry to say is of a personal character, and there can be nothing more distasteful to me than to trouble the House with any matter of a personal description. I have therefore to ask most respectfully for the indulgence of the House in bringing the matter before them. On Thursday last I felt it my duty to put a Question to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James), of which I not only gave him private Notice, but also the usual Notice in accordance with the Rules of the House. The question was to this effect—I asked him whether he had appeared before the Lord Chancellor in a legal proceeding relating to the Paraguayan Loan. The hon. and learned Gentleman answered—

"On the 15th of December, 1874, I had to appear as counsel in an interlocutory motion before the Lord Chancellor and Lord Justice James, sitting as the Appellate Court in Chancery. I believe the main object of the suit was to enable certain persons to recover a certain sum of money from other persons for work and labour done in relation to the Paraguayan Loan; and the interlocutory proceeding' in which I appeared was for the purpose of determining whether certain witnesses should be examined in private or should be examined in public; that was the only manner in which I was concerned—the only proceeding in which I had to take any share or part. With the main purpose of the suit I had nothing to do. At the time, I had no intention of moving for a Select Committee on Foreign Loans. Before the sitting of Parliament, and when I determined to bring the question forward, I caused the retainer I had received in that suit to be returned, and I have taken no part nor share, directly or indirectly, as advocate or counsel, in that suit or any other connected with it."

Well, Sir, that language conveyed to this House and to me the impression that that was the only suit in which the hon. and learned Gentleman was engaged; but it so happens that before I put that Question to him, I received evidence which to my mind was conclusive, that he had been engaged in another suit or action in which he received a fee of £132. On Thursday, therefore, when the hon. and learned Gentleman made this statement, I was very much inclined to get up and state what I am now stating to the House; but I felt that his declaration was so explicit, that either I must have made some mistake in the Question I had placed on the Paper, or that my information must have been incorrect. I therefore consulted with some friends, and finding that the evidence I relied on was such as would justify me in placing another Question on the Journals of the House I did so, and gave the usual Notice, both public and private. It so however happened—and I must apoligize to the House for the circumstance— that I was unable to attend in my place upon Friday last, and consequently I telegraphed to my noble Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Claud Hamilton), requesting him either to put the Question as I had given Notice of it; or, if it were possible, to postpone it until to-day, that I might be in my place to put it myself. Under those circumstances, on Saturday as I returned to London, I was very much surprised to read the Answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He said—

"I have to thank the noble Lord for having acceded to my request [that the Question should be put at once], and I am quite sure that the absence of the hon. Baronet the Member for East Devonshire is attributable only to unavoidable circumstances. I must, however, repeat I do regret that he should have thought it necessary, after the answer I gave him last night, to communicate the Question to the public Press in the form in which it there appears."

As I was out of London, and as I had no communication with any member of the Press, I at once wrote a letter to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and as I was uncertain where he might be found on Saturday, I myself took the letter to his club. In that letter I said—

"Dear Sir Henry,—I regret that I was prevented from being in the House of Commons on Friday last. On my return to London I read a report in The Times of your answer to the Question put for me by Lord Claud Hamilton, in which you you are stated to have said—' I do regret that he (alluding, I suppose, to myself) should have thought it necessary, after the answer I gave him last night, to communicate the Question to the public Press in the form in which it there appears.' Should this report be correct, I beg to request you will do me the favour to give me the name of your informant, also the authority on which you made the above assertion. I have also to inform you that, so far as the rules of the House will permit, I intend on Monday next to give that statement my unqualified contradiction, also equally to repudiate all intention of insinuating that which I do not declare, as I gather you stated to the House."

I must now revert to the first Question. [Sir HENRY JAMES: Will you read my reply?] Most certainly; I had intended to do so, and here it is—

"Brooks's Club, April 11, 1875.

"Dear Sir Lawrence,—I trust it is not necessary for me to disclaim any intention of discourtesy to you personally, I do not remember the exact words I used in the House of Commons on Friday last; but I did intend to convey a complaint that the Questions proposed by you to be submitted to me should, in the form in which they appeared, have been communicated to the Press. Permit me to remind you that in The Times of Friday morning an announcement appeared of your intention to put certain Questions to me. Those Questions never appeared on the Notice Paper of the House, and, therefore, could not have been copied from it. As you were the Member giving the Notice which did appear. I certainly assumed the publication was with your sanction. If any one without your authority communicated to the newspapers Questions you never intended to put to me, I am sure you will so inform the House; and if this he so, pray accept the expression of my regret that I should have assumed that the Member who framed and gave Notice of certain Questions was answerable for the announcement which some one made to several newspapers. Claiming from you that in making your statement to the House, you will read this correspondence, I am, &c., HENRY JAMES."

Well, Sir, I am not aware what I have done that the hon. and learned Gentleman, whom I have endeavoured, so far as my knowledge permits, to treat in this matter with every courtesy, should have made this charge against me. I can only say I think it is very hard that one in his high position and of his great Parliamentary reputation should have so attacked me. Still, I am bound to accept the apology he has made. There is, however, one portion of the letter to which I wish to allude, and it is that in which he speaks of "Questions you never intended to put to me." I beg leave to say that the Question which was put on the Notice Paper of the House, or as I sent it to the Clerk of the House, was as I arranged it should have been put. I must refer to the original Answer to my Question, in which the hon. and learned Gentleman says, as I understand, that he was only engaged in one suit. I may be wrong—I do not make any charge against him; but I am informed he was engaged in the one suit in which he says he was engaged, where he returned his brief, and that he was also engaged in another suit, in which he received a fee of £132, and in connection with which he was engaged in an application to the Court of Chancery for the examination of certain witnesses which was refused him. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think that the object of my Question has been to cast some reflection upon his public and private character. I beg leave to say nothing was further from my intention, and nothing is further from my intention at the present moment. I have watched the hon. and learned Gentleman's career with great admiration, and certainly I am not a likely man to attack him in the way he was good enough to attack me in the concluding part of his speech on Friday night. He said—

"I think I am entitled to ask the hon. Baronet the Member for Devonshire if he does intend to suggest upon these two Questions, that my object in bringing forward that Motion had been influenced by any other considerations than that of what was duo to the public, he should give me the opportunity of giving a refutation to any facts within his knowledge, and not content himself by insinuating that which he does not declare."

I beg leave to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that I am not in the habit of insinuating charges, and that I would never condescend to so mean an artifice as has been implied; if I had a charge to make, it should be made after due Notice had been given, and when he had full opportunity to refute it. But while disclaiming any intention or any desire to cast any imputation on the hon. and learned Gentleman, I have still a great regard for the honour of this House. I have had a seat in this House for more than 20 years and I look with great veneration upon the pureness of its Committees and upon the justice of their decisions, and in asking these Questions I had no other intention, no other thought, than that of ascertaining, as I believed I was justified in ascertaining, whether the Rules of this House had been infringed or not. For myself, I have only to say that, although I think the hon. and learned Gentleman was perfectly justified in moving for a Committee in a matter in which he has taken so much interest, yet it is not fair to try individuals in the House of Commons and in the Courts of Law at the same time. It only remains for me to thank the House for the kind consideration with which it has listened to my explanation, and to move that this House do now adjourn.

I am sure that the House will accept my statement how sincerely I regret that the public time should be occupied in any way by a matter which appears to affect me personally; but I hope it will feel that it is not my fault that its time has been thus taken up. In relation to what I understand is the first complaint of the hon. Baronet the Member for East Devonshire—that I assumed he communicated to the public Press a Question which had never appeared on the Notice Paper of this House—hon. Members will recollect that on Friday morning there appeared in The Times and other newspapers a notice of several specific Questions which, I repeat, had never appeared on the Notice Paper of this House. As the hon. Baronet's name was attached to those Questions when they appeared in the public Press, and as his name afterwards appeared to some Questions, I may say, similar, which were printed on the Notice Paper, I did assume that he was answerable for that communication. If he did not send that Notice to the public papers, who did? I have written to him what I repeat now—that if the assumption I made was inaccurate, it was such a natural one that I am sure he would forgive me for having drawn that conclusion. I say no more on that point; but I must now, after the course the hon. Baronet has taken, ask from the House a few minutes' consideration while I meet that which, notwithstanding what he says, does appear in some respects to cast an imputation upon me. It is true that on Thursday evening last the hon. Baronet asked me a specific Question, whether I appeared as counsel in December, 1874, and again in January, 1875, before the Lord Chancellor in a legal proceeding relating to the Paraguayan Loan. I answered that I did appear in an interlocutory proceeding, which I then explained, in a cause which without doubt had a connection with that Loan, and I certainly did not intend, when I said that I took no other part in that suit, to convey that I had no connection with any other suit. With reference to the cause to which the hon. Baronet referred on Friday I did not appear in Court—it was settled several days before it should have come on for trial. I wish to add a few words more on the general proposition which the hon. Baronet puts forth. He tells the House that his only object is to maintain its honour, and to secure that its usages should be followed. I accept that statement, but does he know for what cause and reasons these Questions have been suggested to him? I think the House will suppose, because I had been connected with matters relating to the Paraguayan Loan, that therefore the persons connected with those loans had objections to this investigation. As far as I can learn, no objection proceeds from any person connected with the Paraguayan Loan, and if such objection should be made, I am sure that the Committee will do what is right in the matter. It so happens, however, that we are now investigating matters connected with the Honduras Loan. Let me remark that the hon. Baronet's second Question contained a specific quotation from a certain bill of costs, in which the name of Mr. Waring was introduced. Now that Gentleman, who was formerly a Member of this House, having been alluded to, he has written to me this morning the following letter as a defendant in that suit, and also a contractor of that loan—

"Dear Sir,—I can scarcely express to you the regret with which I have seen an extract from a "bill of costs delivered to my firm as quoted in Saturday's newspapers. I fear it might he thought that I was endeavouring to stay you from continuing to inquire into matters in relation to which I and my firm have nothing to conceal. I wish, therefore, to state to you the manner in which the extracts which have appeared were obtained without any communication from me, and without my cognizance or that of my firm. Sir Philip Rose obtained from one member of the firm who act as my solicitors, the loan of the plaintiff's hill of costs, which was in their possession. Equally without my sanction or knowledge, or that of my firm or my solicitors, Sir Philip Rose gave the same to 'a member of Mr. Bischoiffsheim's family,' through whose hands it must have passed to Sir Lawrence Palk."

Sir, as my conduct is somewhat severely criticized of late, I beg to explain that the words "a member of Mr. Bischoiffsheim's family" do not occur in the letter. The name of that member of the family is given; but I prefer employing the general words. I will, however, hand the letter to the hon. Baronet, and he will see my reason for not mentioning it.

As far as I am concerned, I would much rather that the whole of the letter should be read.

I will take upon myself the responsibility of not reading the whole of the letter, which, however, may be placed in the hands of the hon. Baronet. It proceeds—

"If it is not out of place, I should wish to add that the matter involved in the action to which that bill referred, and in which you were engaged as counsel against me, does not appear to involve the question of the system of issuing foreign loans brought by you before the House of Commons. Pray make any use you like of this letter.

"Yours faithfully,

"CHARLES WARING.

"Sir Henry James, Q.C., M.P."

With regard to the part I have taken in the matter, I gave a full explanation that I had ceased to have any connection, directly or indirectly, with any suit relating to these foreign loans. What, however, has been, and what is now the suggestion of the hon. Baronet? If he means that my object is to promote pri vate ends, rather than what I consider is due to the public, I would ask what object I could have in severing myself from professional duties, in giving my attention to the consideration of these loans, involving day after day attendance upon the Committee, and affording assistance, as far as I can, to Members of it? How could that be beneficial to me in any other sense? May I also add one fact with regard to these foreign loans? From the commencement of this investigation it was arranged between myself and my hon. Friend the Member for the Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Watkin Williams) that he should take charge of the inquiry relating to Paraguay, and that I should take no part or share whatever in that branch of the subject, and he knows how far I have interfered with his discretion. There is one matter only which I wish to correct. I stated to the House that I had determined to bring this subject before the House without consultation with any one. In that respect I made one slight error. There is one Friend I did consult, and that is the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir Charles Russell) and it was after long consideration with him that we jointly determined to bring forward the Motion for a Committee. I take credit for nothing that I have done, but I shall not be deterred by Questions such as these from performing what I deem to be my duty.

I must apologize to the House for having allowed the discussion to proceed as it has done, but as it is a personal matter I have abstained from interference. I now wish to point out that, the Motion for Adjournment not having been seconded, there is no Question before the House.

As my name has been introduced into this discussion I wish to say a few words, and in order to be able to do so, I beg to move the adjournment of the House. I desire, in justice to the hon. and learned Member for Taunton, to state that some months ago he did consult me with regard to moving for an investigation into certain frauds of which he was aware I had some acquaintance. Such knowledge as I had of these loans was simply—

I must remind the hon. and gallant Member that it is irregular to discuss a matter which is now the subject of inquiry before a Select Committee.

I was not aware that I was discussing matters which are before the Select Committee, and I have no desire to do so; but, as some doubt has been expressed as to when and how the hon. and learned Member for Taunton first thought of moving for a Select Committee, I merely wish to say that he did communicate with me some months ago. I will only further add that as far as regards the remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for East Devonshire (Sir Lawrence Palk), who seems to have some apprehension that the dignity of the House may suffer from the course of action taken by the hon. and learned Member, I can only hope that for the sake of the dignity of the House of Commons there will long be found men within its walls who have enough of courage and capacity to come forward and frankly expose any malpractices which they may believe to exist.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 5, line 29, to leave out "sell or let," and insert "lease for a period not exceeding ninety-nine years." The hon. Member said, he did so in order to meet what he regarded as a serious defect in this clause—a want of provision as to the appropriation of the land dealt with under the Bill. As the clause stood, if the local authority, having cleared ground of condemned houses, declined for any reason to let the ground to private individuals or trustees, or to build on it themselves, there was nothing in the Bill to say how the land was to be appropriated. In order to effect the same object, the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow) had placed on the Paper two Amendments. One was, that if at the end of three years this clause, as it stood, should not be carried out, if the land in question was not leased or sold to private individuals or bodies of trus- tees, or if the local authorities themselves were not to carry out the scheme, the land should he sold by the local authorities at the expiration of three years in the public market. Suddenly, however, that Amendment was withdrawn, and the hon. Member had substituted another of a different character, which, if carried, would introduce into the Bill a novel principle and one fraught with the most important consequences. That second Amendment amounted to this, that if at the end of three years the land was not sold or leased to private individuals or bodies of trustees, and if the local authorities should not themselves by that time be prepared to carry out the scheme, then private individuals or bodies of trustees should apply to the Home Office or the Local Government Board and ask them to appoint an arbitrator who should decide whether the price asked for the land was a reasonable price, the seller being compelled to accept such price as the arbitrator might fix. There was an Amendment which obviously raised a question of the utmost importance. He undertood the Home Secretary was going to accept that Amendment. The clause, as it stood, allowed the local authorities to sell or lease the land to private individuals, and what he himself wished to propose by his Amendment was that they should not have the power to sell it, but simply the power to lease it for a period of 99 years or less. He thought that if they were obliged to sell the land, they might have to do so at a ruinously low price, too inadequate to repay them any expenditure they might have incurred. He wished the Home Secretary to tell the Committee what were his intentions with respect to the clause.

thought it was unusual to discuss an Amendment or question the Government in reference to it until it had been arrived at. He would only at present say that the best actuaries drew very little, if any, distinction between leasing land for 99 years and parting with it altogether by sale.

said, that one of the main objects of the Bill was to place in the hands of the great corporations of the country, power which they did not now possess, which they had asked for, and were desirous of exercising. Under these circumstances, he had resisted the placing of any further compulsory powers in the hands of the central authority than those suggested by some hon. Members opposite, and to confer which he had himself placed an Amendment on the Paper. The local authorities would naturally resent such a step, as it would, in fact, throw a doubt upon their willingness to take steps under the Bill for the removal of the rookeries which existed in their towns. He had often been told, both in that House and in the public Press, that the Bill was not sufficiently strong because it contained no power of compulsion; but his answer to that charge was that, confined as the clauses were to the great towns, he was certain the local authorities in those great towns would carry out the provisions of this measure to the satisfaction of the House and of the country. With regard to the particular point alluded to by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), he did not believe there was any danger that the corporations who were bound to carry out the scheme would for a moment turn round when this Bill was passed and refuse to carry it out. If compulsion were put upon the corporations, it might be impossible to carry the Bill through that House, and even if they succeeded in forcing the measure through Parliament, it would be impossible to compel the corporations to carry its provisions into useful effect against their will. Under these circumstances, the Government had thought it better to carry the corporations with them on this question, and they had accordingly drawn the Bill as it now stood. He was decidedly opposed to the Amendment, because it would be perfectly monstrous to enable a corporation to say that they could not sell, which would, in a great number of cases, depreciate the value of the property; while in others the leasing of it for 99 years would, as the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone had justly observed, be a distinction without a difference.

said, that the difference between selling and leasing the property was this—that, if leased, the corporations would at the end of the lease come into possession of it. As he could not find out what course the Government intended to pursue with reference to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow) he would withdraw his own Amendment, and propose it at a subsequent stage.

said, the two objects of the Bill were to get rid of nuisances and to provide better accommodation for the working classes. It might be easy enough to carry out the first of those objects, but he was afraid it would be very difficult to secure the second; and that difficulty would be greatly increased by prohibiting the corporations from selling the land they acquired under the provisions of the Bill, because out of London people would not build on leasehold land, and the result of such a restriction would be that no poor people's dwellings would be built to replace those removed under this measure.

wished to mention that the Amendment would preclude the Peabody Trustees from carrying out any scheme, because they could only spend their money upon land which they had bought.

, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 3, to leave out "without the express approval of the confirming authority," said, that as the clause now stood it gave power to the local authorities to carry out the scheme themselves at the expense of the ratepayers if it obtained the assent of the confirming authorities—namely, the Secretary of State for the Home Department or the President of the Local Government Board. He did not wish to give them that power. It was impossible to discuss the Amendment without considering the present position of local taxation and local government, and the great injustice which the Bill might inflict on the ratepayers. Supposing a great building scheme was to be carried out on land which had to be cleared at an expense involving £1,000,000, how, he asked, was that money to be obtained? It would be obtained by borrowing from the Public Works Commissioners on a loan to be repaid in a fixed number of years, and in doing that great injustice would be inflicted upon a certain class of ratepayers. If the loan was to be paid in 21 years, and supposing a man tad the lease of a house for 21 years, the burden would fall upon the leaseholder of that house, while the owner would not contribute a single penny towards this improvement scheme. He ventured to say when that fact became known to the country, everyone would decide that the proposition was extremely unfair. Nothing at the present moment was so serious connected with the finances of the country as the extraordinary rapidity with which the local authorities were accumulating debt; and if they allowed those authorities to enter into these vast building speculations, although the debts of the various municipal authorities were no less than £80,000,000, and were increasing at the rate of £3,000,000 per annum, they would give them the power of adding in the future an indefinite augmentation of the debt. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Hastings (Mr. Kay-Shuttleworth) had alluded to the Peabody Trustees, but their buildings had to be let far below their market value, or if they were not they would be placed far beyond the reach of the class for which they were intended. In the same way, if some such provision as he proposed were not inserted in the Bill, either the buildings must be let at competition rents, or at rents which would not yield a profit on the outlay. In the former case, they would not be taken by persons of the class displaced; and, in the latter, there would be the initiation of an expensive and otherwise objectionable system of favouritism. In addition, if they once sanctioned the principle of a person living in a house erected by public money at a rent less than the market value they would be doing a thing which was an injustice to the ratepayers. If the buildings of the Peabody Trustees were let at rents yielding a fair return, a tenant occupying five rooms would have to pay as much as £30 a-year.

thought the fears of the hon. Member would be removed if he referred, for example, to what had been done by the Corporation of Glasgow. There was reason to expect that, as in that case, the building schemes would be of positive advantage to the ratepayers. At the same time, nothing could be further from his desire than to allow local authorities to enter unrestrictedly into large building speculations. In Glasgow what the Corporation had done was to set an example, leaving others to follow it out. That was all that these words were inserted for; they were put in for the express purpose of taking care that local authorities should not enter into large building speculations, but that they should be allowed to provide for certain special cases, and thus set an example to private voluntary enterprize.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 5, to add, after "scheme," the following words:—

"Provided that complete plans of the new buildings shall be submitted to the confirming authority for approval, and that no grant, lease, or arrangement as aforesaid shall be binding till such approval shall have been obtained."

He thought, although there were a great many safeguards in the Bill, there was one wanting in this clause.

objected to the Amendment, on the ground that it would lead to delay and expense. Beyond that, he believed the provision was already in the Bill; but if the Amendment were now withdrawn, he would consider the matter when the preceding clauses were printed in their amended form.

objected to the provision, as it would defeat the object of the Bill, and trusted the right hon. Gentleman would neither accept it now, nor at any future period.

said, he was perfectly satisfied with the promise of the right hon. Gentleman, and would withdraw the Amendment.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 6, lines 6 and 7, to leave out "care shall be taken in carrying the scheme into effect to," and insert—

"In any grant or lease of any part of the area which may be appropriated by the scheme for the erection of dwellings for the working classes, the local authority shall impose suitable conditions and restrictions as to the elevation, size, and design of the houses, and the extent of the accommodation to be afforded thereby and shall."

said, he would accept the Amendment.

thought the words in the Amendment, "in any grant or lease of any part of the area," were somewhat too restrictive. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether they were or not.

wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether it was intended to be laid down as a principle that the working classes, to whom political power had been given, were an exceptionally helpless section of the community, and could not attend to these matters themselves?

said, that the question raised by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Fawcett) had been fully discussed before. He wished to point out that the sole object of the Amendment was to provide that the local authority should see that the plans of the houses were correct.

moved, as an Amendment, to leave out all the words from "provision," in page 6, line 7, to "and," in line 9, inclusive, the object of the Amendment being to take away the necessity for the continued appropriation of such a number of dwellings for the use of the working classes as might have been at first contemplated under the scheme.

said, he would accept the Amendment, as the object to which the words referred to was provided for in another part of the Bill.

, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 10, after the word "arrangement," to insert words which would have the effect of enabling differences arising on various points between the local authority and the company or person making an offer for the purchase or lease of the lands to be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the confirming authority on the application of either party within three years from the passing of the Confirming Act, said, when they were last in Committee on the Bill, the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) moved to report Progress on the ground that this Amendment was too important to be discussed at half-past 11 at night, as if the proposal involved a new form of legislation and was a new principle in the Bill. In answer to the objection, he (Sir Sydney Waterlow) was ready to admit that the principle of the Amendment was of great importance—namely, that of giving power to the confirming authority to complete the scheme, and it would be a crucial test by which it could be determined whether this measure would remove the evil of overcrowding. But this was no new form of legislation, nor was it a new principle. The Amendment had been copied almost verbatim from a clause in the Metropolitan Streets Improvement Bill of 1872 inserted at the instance of the Government of the day, and it could not be said that it was inconsistent with the preceding clauses in the Bill. He found the same principle also in a Bill passed as far back as 1663 in the reign of Charles II. It might be said there was no necessity for the Amendment; but the history of some metropolitan improvements showed there was the greatest necessity for it. In 1838 and 1840 two Bills were passed for making a new street from Holborn Valley to Clerkenwell Green. Let any one walk down that street now and observe the enormous mass of vacant land on either side. Not only had there been great loss in the value of the land so long left vacant, but the vestries of the particular district had lost a sum in rates perhaps as large as the value of the land itself. In 1857 a Bill was passed for making a new street from London Bridge to Black-friars, and the number of vacant spaces left on either side of the new street again showed the necessity of this Amendment. He was sorry to say there was a large number of owners who had a strong aversion to the erection of houses for working men near to their own property, and those owners would do their utmost to prevent the completion of schemes unless the power now proposed were granted. He therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not object to the confirming authority accepting the responsibility he was going to place in their hands. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.

thought it would be better simply to enact that if in the course of three years the areas were not occupied, the land should be sold by public auction, subject to certain restrictions to carry out the scheme. If the arbitrator was simply to say whether an offer was to be accepted or not, the Amendment would place the whole matter in the hands of the person who had made the offer, and two or three persons might enter into an arrangement with a view to getting the land on their own terms.

differed from the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow), and thought the circumstances were not analogous to those which arose in carrying out the Street Improvement Act. The Amendment seemed to imply a certain want of confidence in the local authorities which they did not deserve.

thought the purpose of the Amendment just and desirable, and hoped that if the Home Secretary could not accept it in its present form he would endeavour to improve it and accept its principle. In many cases it might be necessary to compel local boards to take action.

feared the Amendment would not work, that, in fact, it would delay the sale of land for 12 or 18 months. He admitted there were several reasons why it was desirable that some pressure should be put upon the local authority to carry out the powers given by the Bill; but he thought it extremely likely that in the event of wilful neglect, a mandamus would lie; but at any rate, individually, he saw no difficulty in so working the Bill, in London especially, as to compel the local authority to take action. The proposal of the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone would cause endless confusion and be impracticable. By the Act relating to Glasgow the corporation of the city were prevented from proceeding with the scheme of improvement until they had satisfied the sheriff that the requisite accommodation for a certain number, not less than 500, of the working classes had been provided. That was a screw of the strongest possible character, and a modification of it would be preferable to the Amendment. He should, however, be willing to consider the question further before the Report.

hoped that full consideration would be given to the difference between London and corporate towns in the Provinces, where there would be no difficulty in providing the house accommodation required. In Liverpool, for instance, the "Welsh builders would soon provide any number of houses, and in any towns similarly situated it would be a pity to throw any needless obstacle in the way of the demolition of the fever nests.

said, he must still contend that, although the clause might appear to be compulsory, it was in certain contingencies only permissive, and there was not a single word to prevent the ground from being cleared and remaining unoccupied for an indefinite number of years. He could not agree that the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow) offered the best way of meeting the difficulty, but some provision ought to be adopted that the land should be offered for public competition, after it had been unused for a certain time, care being taken that nothing should be erected upon it to affect prejudicially the sanitary condition of the neighbourhood. The clause could not remain as the Home Secretary proposed to leave it, unless the Act were to become a dead letter, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would give some more distinct intimation of the intention of the Government in regard to the clause than he had yet done.

said, he did not share in the views put forward by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) for he did not apprehend that under the Amendment those who desired to purchase cleared land would obtain it at less than the market value. The land would be valued by a competent arbitrator, so that the contingency spoken of would not occur. He regretted, from experience, he could not share the faith entertained by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in local authorities; for under the Holborn Viaduct Act, the Corporation of the City of London was bound to build dwellings for those who were driven from their homes by that improvement, but 10 years had since elapsed and as yet not a single house had been built. It was useless then to provide that certain things "shall" be done, unless a time was fixed for it, and a penalty imposed, and he trusted that compulsory power would be taken in the Bill with a view to insure its objects being fully carried out. He should not press his Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman would promise to bring up upon the Report a provision to carry out its object.

had no doubt that, under the Bill as it stood in the 5th clause, the confirming authority would have full power of securing that substituted dwellings were provided for the parties to be displaced before they were disturbed. They would require to be satisfied on that subject before sanctioning any proposed scheme. If the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone could suggest any means of strengthening that provision, in accordance with the objects of the Bill, he (Mr. Cross) would be glad to give the proposal his best consideration.

, being desirous of seeing a scheme adopted which would work well, sincerely sympathized with the object which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had in view. Ten years' experience, however, of the subject sought to be dealt with by the Bill compelled him to say that he (Mr. Torrens) did not share the sanguine expectation which the right hon. Gentleman had expressed. He had no doubt that while the right hon. Gentleman was Home Secretary he would make corporations do their duty; but that was not the security they required for the carrying out of this most perplexing experiment. When he (Mr. Torrens) had the honour of carrying a measure with the same object, but not on the same lines, as that of the right hon. Gentleman, he was more sanguine than he was now, but he had seen hope after hope die out. Of this he was persuaded—that the driving of great thoroughfares through such places as St. Giles's would only intensify the evils of overcrowding in the neighbourhood, and that the providing of suitable accommodation for those who were to be displaced would saddle the towns with an amount of expense which would compel Parliament to repeal the Act. What had happened at Paris? Whole districts had been covered with splendid edifices, but the poorer classes had been again and again driven back, and, as a matter of fact, Communism never existed in Paris until Haussman had effected his transformation of the city. Greater control should be given to the local authorities in London. It was incorrect to say that the local bodies had not shown an intention of repressing the system of overcrowding and of enforcing cleanliness and proper sanitary regulations under the Act of 1868. Overcrowding could not be put an end to merely by destroying the houses in which the very poor herded together. The evil had been created by legislation and by the changes in the law of settlement, which had led all men who were out of work to come to London and the other large towns, where they remained to prey on each other. He knew of a case in the parish of St. Luke's where, the parish having interfered in consequence of the frightful state of a court, the owner of the property came forward like a man and at considerable expense pulled down the condemned buildings and erected others in their stead, the consequence being that the poor were attracted to them in greater numbers than ever, and the overcrowding in them was worse than it had been before.

thought that the purport of the Amendment was somewhat misapprehended, because it merely gave the confirming authority a discretionary power to appoint an arbitrator in cases where he thought fit to do so. He wished to see that the objects of the Bill were secured, and thought that there should be some better security for their being carried out than the mere chance of the right hon. Gentleman's continuing at the Home Office. The Government might be changed, and although they might, on the whole, obtain a wiser Administration, they might not perhaps get a wiser Secretary of State. Besides, the right hon. Gentleman was only the confirming authority for the part of the country he acted upon by his own hand, and not for the whole of it. He should, however, advise the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone to withdraw his Amendment, provided that the right hon. Gentleman would himself undertake to propose some amendment of the Bill in the direction indicated on the bringing up of the Report. If no such undertaking was given, he (Mr. Dodson) would divide with the hon. Baronet, and if the Amendment was defeated, at all events a protest would be made in favour of the principle embodied in the Amendment. Under the 13th clause, persons were compelled to part with their property without receiving that benefit which under all other compulsory laws was granted; and that being the case, it was but just to those persons who were compelled to part with their property that the Bill should absolutely secure, as far as possible, the object for which they were compelled to part with their property.

said, he would admit that if land was taken for the purpose of the scheme it was quite necessary it should be carried out. Provision was made in the Bill for housing the persons who were turned out.

said, that was what they had been contending for; but provision was not to be made for those displaced, simply the working classes.

said, he was not going into the question of the working classes. The scheme always had been as he had stated, and he referred, in support of this, to the last clause of the Preamble—"It is expedient that provision should be made for dwellings." That, he believed, would be practically provided for in Clause 5. In that clause certain Amendments had been made, and when it was reported he would reconsider its entire tendency and details, so as to determine whether any further provision was necessary to carry out to the full extent the spirit and principle of the Bill.

begged to remind the right hon. Gentleman that Clause 5 was silent as to the time within which dwellings were to be provided for those who were dispossessed.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 6, after line 10, to insert—

"Provided also, that in any case in which the local authority erect any dwellings out of funds to be provided under this Act, they shall sell or dispose of all such dwellings within five years from the time of completion thereof."

He thought it exceedingly undesirable that the local authorities should become the permanent owners of this class of property.

said, he did not wish that corporations should hold such property in perpetuity; but if they were compelled to sell it within five years, they might incur loss. If his hon. Friend consented to substitute "a reasonable period" for "five years," he would accept the Amendment.

said, "a reasonable period" was no definition at all. He would suggest "ten years" instead of "five."

said, he would accept the proposed alteration.

, in moving, as an Amendment, to add at the end of the clause words which would forbid the grant to any premises of a licence to sell intoxicating liquors to be drunk on the premises, or of any new licence to sell such liquors for consumption off the premises unless the number of such premises was less than 1 for every 1,000 of the population within the area, said, he could assure the House that he did not in any degree introduce this subject as a matter of party feeling, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department would be able to accept the Amendment, which was one of a practical kind, and was founded on fair and equitable considerations. He was not going to discuss the Licensing Bill of last year, or to allude to the attractions of the public-house; but if a genuine effort were made to improve the homes of the poor, the measure by which it was proposed to remove social and domestic misery ought to be considered in every aspect. It was an undeniable fact that in large towns public-houses almost invariably occupied the best sites, generally at the corners of streets, and he thought that steps should be taken so that this state of things should not be indefinitely repeated on sites where fever nests and rookeries had been rooted out. On the Shaftesbury Park Estate no evil had arisen from the fact that there public-houses were conspicuous by their absence. He thought that some explanation ought to be given by the right hon. Gentleman with reference to this peculiar question—namely, how it was proposed to deal with licensed houses hereafter erected under the provisions of this Bill. He begged to move the Amendment.

said, he could not accept the Amendment. If the matter was to be dealt with, it must be in quite a different manner and by a general measure. The question was one which had been frequently discussed in Scotland. It would be most unwise to mix up the licensing question with a scheme for improving artizans dwellings.

said, he could not conceive on what ground the Amendment was objected to. In his opinion it was a moderate and reasonable proposal, for it did not seek to interfere with the social rights of the people, but merely to take care that money taken compulsorily from the ratepayers to clear sites and spaces should not be expended in raising up large gin-palaces. He did not agree with the Permissive Bill; but he should certainly support the Amendment, on the ground that those ratepayers who thought that houses of that sort would greatly increase the rates ought to be considered.

confirmed what had been stated by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. James) with reference to the absence of public-houses on the Shaftesbury Park Estate. Great satisfaction was expressed at it by every one except the publicans who were kept away, and the magistrates, although pressed to increase the number of public-houses in the neighbourhood to make up the deficiency within the area, had rightly refused to do so. Although he was one of those who did not go in entirely for the Permissive Bill, he yet thought that as very little was get out of the Licensing Bill of last year, they should get what they could out of this; and in that view, small contributions such as this offered by the hon. Member for Gateshead should be thankfully received. He hoped the Amendment would be carried.

said, he was sorry to hear the Home Secretary say that he did not want the licensing question matter to be mixed up with his Bill. The Bill was intended to make more comfortable, cleaner, happier, and healthier the dwellings of the working classes, and surely a proposal like the one before the Committee ran exactly in a line with it. The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. James) thought that those houses which they were going to erect would be more likely to be clean, happy, comfortable, and healthy if they kept away these temptations from their immediate neighbourhood. He (Mr. James) wished to diminish the temptations to drunkenness, which was the cause, nine times out of ten, of miserable and degraded homes. He wished to free the neighbourhood to some extent of those places where, according to his Friend the hon. Member for Hudders-field (Mr. Leatham), "the presiding genius has an interest in filling the glasses and emptying the pockets of his customers." He proposed to protect them from those temptations, and he desired to have an "oasis" in the desert of drunkenness. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), however, regretted that his hon. Friend had not quite had the courage of his opinions in this matter. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) wished that he had gone a little further. For no human being could say what was the exact number of public-houses that ought' to be supplied to a given number of population. He could not quite understand why, if a public-house was an evil, 999 persons were to be free from it, whilst if there were 1,001 in the area they should suffer from it. It was impossible logically to maintain the proposition of his hon. Friend, for this trade was either good or bad; if good, they ought to make it as free as the wind; but if bad, they ought to prohibit it. But he took the Amendment as he found it, and thought it really deserving of some favour. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Jenkins), in one of his excellent works, describing a "rookery" and its surroundings of gin-palaces, public-houses, and beer-shops, said—

"Veritable wreckers they who conduct these haunts, viler than the wreckers who place false beacons and plunder bodies on the beach.

That was stronger language than he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) used; but if there were any truth in it, Parliament was responsible, and he did not think they should wash their hands of all the crime that arose. Last year both parties in that House by a large majority passed the third reading of the Licensing Bill, doing all the harm they possibly' could to the working classes, and his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary must have had many an uncomfortable hour during the last Recess, and now when he heard what was going on in consequence of his legislation—legislation which, in his heart, he was as much ashamed of as any of them. Take Lancashire, a large portion of which he (Mr. Assheton Cross) himself represented. What was the state of things there? The Chief Constable's report shows an increase of 7,148 proceedings for drunkenness. In Liverpool, the apprehensions for drunkenness, disorderly, and incapable were in 1873, 20,970; and in 1874, 23,303. Also in the first five weeks after Cross's Act, 1874, came into force, an increase of 10 per cent in arrests for drunkenness. Now that they had done all they could to deteriorate the man, they spent hour after hour in that House pottering over this Bill to improve the houses in which he lived. But he maintained they must improve the men first, and remove them from those temptations which were their curse. He was sorry not to see the Prime Minister in his place, because, allusion having been made to the Shaftesbury Park Estate, he wished to call attention to the address which the right hon. Gentleman had delivered at its inauguration. His words were very important. He was addressing a meeting called to promote the interests of the Shaftesbury Park Association. The leading principle of that association was not only to erect good working-men's dwellings, but that they should be kept perfectly free from the contamination of drink shops. On the 18th of July, last year, the Prime Minister, at Shaftesbury Park, said—

"I have never in my life been more astonished than by what I have unexpectedly witnessed to-day—a city suddenly rising in the desert. The experiment you have made has succeeded, and therefore can hardly be called an experiment, and in its success is involved the triumph of an interesting effort for the moral elevation of the great body of the people…I cannot doubt that this movement will spread. I myself view it with great interest, because it is a subject which at this moment engages the attention of Parliament. However, to a certain degree, you may be said to have solved a question which has perplexed Parliaments; and from what I have seen here, from what I am told I shall learn, from the information which has been promised me, I think I see the possibility of obtaining results which may guide the national councils in accomplishing an enterprise which I believe is impending in this country—the attempt upon a large scale to improve the dwellings of the great body of the people."

So that the right hon. Gentleman did not, like the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, object to the two questions being mixed up together. He repeated that he regretted the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) was not now in his place, for after that speech he would be bound to vote with the hon. Member for Gateshead. But what could the Home Secretary mean by saying that the Amendment ought not to be mixed up with the objects of the Bill? Read the Preamble itself, which specially points out the evil of "buildings so densely inhabited as to be highly injurious to the moral and physical welfare of the inhabitants." That was exactly what public-houses were, that was the only reason why he had ever objected to them, because they were "highly injurious to the moral and physical welfare of the inhabitants." The Government in the Bill were doing what he had been condemned as the most desperately wicked politician ever seen for doing—namely, trying to make people moral by Act of Parliament. Then again, the Preamble said, touching the effect of these objectionable houses—

"Diseases are constantly generated there, causing death and loss of health, not only in the courts and alleys, but also in other parts of such cities and boroughs."

Again; exactly, his charge against the public-houses. But they did more than promote disease and death, for the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), the other day, described those who kept such places as men who deal in articles "producing crime, disorder, and madness to a very great extent." Did they really wish such places to be established in their new and improved districts? He should vote for the Amendment, and all those who did not wish to go on in make-believe legislation, but really wished to turn this Bill into one that would do something to increase the happiness and prosperity and morality of the working classes of this country, ought also to support it.

said, he could not help thinking, with the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, that till the Permissive Bill was passed the licensing of public-houses had better be left in the hands of the justices.

said, the Amendment did not go far enough. The existence of public-houses ought not to be allowed in these buildings. It was a very usual thing for a clause to be inserted in leases for building on estates to be occupied by the wealthier classes that no public-house should be erected. If it was desirable so to protect the dwellings of wealthy people it was far more so those of the working men.

said, he concurred with the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) that the Amendment did not go far enough. He could not vote for it for the reason that made it difficult for him to support a Permissive Bill—that it was the duty of the Imperial Parliament to take upon itself to determine for a country what law should prevail upon the subject, and not throw the responsibility on public bodies of deciding matters of such vast importance. He would have voted for a clause prohibiting altogether the erection of public-houses in these districts. He should support the clause.

The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Alderman Cotton) has expressed his concurrence with the Home Secretary that the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. James) is not consistent with the objects of the Bill. And why? Because, says the hon. Gentleman, it is an artizans and labourers dwellings Bill. Now, no other argument is needed to justify the Motion of the hon. Member for Gateshead, for surely no one will contend that a publican is either an artizan or a labourer. You are proposing to erect more healthy dwellings for the working classes, and all that my hon. Friend asks is, that you take care that your dwellings when they are erected shall not be diverted from the objects for which they are built, and turned into dwellings for those who do not belong to the working classes at all. In fact, the Amendment is a necessary corollary to the main provisions of the Bill. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle has shown that if you are sincere in wishing to promote the moral and physical welfare of the labouring classes, you will keep them as far as possible from the contaminations of which he has spoken; but, apart from this weighty consideration, which has really received no answer, I accept the argument of the hon. Gentleman opposite, and turn it against himself. This is a Bill to provide suitable dwellings for the working classes, and therefore it is not a Bill to provide taverns and beer-shops. For that reason I shall vote with my hon. Friend, and I hope he will divide the House.

said, the land that was to be built upon for artizans dwellings could not be used for public-houses, but the portion that was to be sold could be utilized as the purchaser thought fit. It was not right that the ratepayers' money should be spent in purchasing interests in public-houses, and that in 12 months after the same interest should be re-created without the authorities being recouped the money they had spent in purchasing it up. There were, in these existing crowded localities, more public-houses than were wanted, and it would be a great boon to reduce them.

said, opponents of the United Kingdom Alliance could accept the Amendment, which was necessary because municipalities, for the sake of saving a halfpenny rate, might be tempted by higher offers to let land for public-houses.

said, it would be better not to take into consideration the Permissive Bill when they were dealing with this question. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to his Bill, or otherwise he would get into trouble. If there was no necessity for a public-house, the magistrates would not grant a licence, and if there was, why should not the neighbourhood have one?

said, the object of the Amendment was to try and do something to remedy a prevailing evil, and he thought it was practicable if carried out. He must press it upon the Committee.

objected to the Amendment, because it was an attempt by a side-wind to nullify the provisions of an Act of Parliament already on the Statute Book. There was no practical result to be derived from this perpetual meddling with private enterprize, and he should therefore vote against it.

said, that by forbidding the erection of public-houses on a piece of land the value of the adjoining land was increased in value for that purpose. It was the practice on large estates to set out a certain number, in order that the number should be limited. In all other cases, the most inconvenient sites were provided.

moved, as an Amendment, to add at the end of the clause the following words:—

"The local authority may, when they think it expedient so to do, without themselves acquiring the land, contract with the owner of any land comprised in an improvement scheme for the carrying out of the scheme in respect of such land by such owner."

inquired, whether it was intended that the local authority should be at liberty to pay money out of the rates for the purpose of enabling an owner to carry out improvements in his property? If so, he thought the Amendment would be objectionable.

said, there was no such intention. If he were advised that there was the least doubt on that point, he would take care to have it removed.

moved, as an Amendment, to add to the clause words providing that if at any time within three years after the local authority had acquired any plot of land the confirming authority should determine on, or if at the expiration of such three years the local authority should have been unable to lease the same for the purposes of the Act, the obligations of this enactment imposed upon the local authority should with respect to the land so un-leased, cease and determine. As the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow) had failed to carry his second Amendment, he (Mr. Fawcett) made this proposal to give the opportunity of confirming the idea embodied in the hon. Member's original Amendment. As the clause stood it was permissive in regard to carrying out the scheme, and there was nothing under Clause 7, as it stood, to ensure that the land when cleared out would be used. It was no answer on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to say that this or that was not the intention of the Government; what the Committee had to look to was the legal application of the words contained in the clause. Did the Home Secretary pretend to say that in Clause 7, as it stood, there was anything to make the carrying out of the scheme obligatory? If not, what would become of the land, supposing the scheme should not be carried out? The object of his own Amendment was simply to prevent in future that taking place which the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone had described as having taken place in the City of London, where great improvements had been carried out, and where, though it was the intention that houses should be built for the working classes, the people residing in the cleared areas were turned out, and other parts of London became more crowded than before, the land remaining unoccupied. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the great principle which animated him with respect to the Bill was, to have a generous confidence in the local authorities; but the local authorities, though they might be anxious to carry out the scheme, might, from considerations of wise and just prudence, shrink from incurring the expenditure which the scheme involved, and find other excuses for not doing what was required. If the Amendment which he proposed were accepted, he believed the scheme would be adopted in localities where it was advisable that it should be adopted, while it would not be adopted in places where it was not desirable, and that nothing would be more likely to effect the clearance of unhealthy areas.

said, he wished the Committee and the whole country to understand clearly the point at issue between himself and the hon. Member for Hackney. The hon. Member wished to make the measure a Towns Improvement Bill, and had urged his view in every possible variety of shape during this discussion. He (Mr. Cross), on the other hand, desired that the measure should not be a Towns Improvement Bill, but something else—namely, a measure that would prevent the occurrence of those evils that have been so forcibly and vividly depicted to-night by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Torrens) as having been brought about in Paris by the destruction of the dwellings of the working classes without any provision having been made for their accommodation. The object of the Government was to get rid of the rookeries, but also to provide for the erection of houses in the place of those destroyed, and thus to prevent the vice, filth, overcrowding, indecency, misery, disease, and death that must be the inevitable result of the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Fawcett's) Towns Improvement Bill. That was the sole issue between himself and the hon. Member, but it was a grave one, and was one in which all the people of this country had the deepest interest. The hon. Member wished to leave the accommodation of those who were turned out of their dwellings to be met by the law of supply and demand, and by those of political economy. Well, the Government did not wish to place houses at the disposal of the people turned out at a cheaper rate than they ought to pay, they did not want to pauperize these people; but they wanted to take care that in clearing out the rookeries for the benefit of the whole community the persons driven from those rookeries should not be damaged by it. They wished to build houses for them such as the people could live in and carry on their occupations in, but they must pay for them. That was the issue between them. [Mr. FAWCETT: No, no!] That was at the bottom of the issue, and it was clearly shown by the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke), who wished to change the title of the Bill; but he was glad to say that was not the ground taken up by his hon. Friends opposite. He had that faith in the great municipal institutions of England that when they came to Parliament and said—"We come here for a scheme to carry out these improvements "they would fully carry out that scheme. He asked the House to have confidence in the municipalities and in local self-government; and he contended that by passing the Amendment, they would be holding out great temptation to municipal authorities to evade the Act.

also opposed the Amendment, on the ground that it would put a great temptation before the local authorities, and afford them a means, where they desired it, of evading the Act. At the same time, he was quite sure that nothing was further from the thoughts of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) than that the people who inhabited these places should be sent forth houseless and homeless, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had either misunderstood, or not treated quite fairly the remarks of the hon. Member.

deprecated any proposal which would throw difficulties in the way of the successful working of the Act among our large provincial population such as he feared was suggested by the Amendment. All the arguments adduced by the Home Secretary had been in favour of the importance of re-building habitations for the working classes in those places where there had been great clearances; but there was a difference between the metropolis and the provincial towns, because in the latter there was no necessity for the immediate re-building of the houses. He suggested that the difference should be recognized.

considered that when the Provisional Orders were laid on the Table would be the time to see that they contained compulsory powers.

urged that the Home Secretary should accept the proposition of the hon. Member for Hackney so far as applying the relaxation to all places outside the metropolis.

said, the discussion showed how right the Government were in taking care that the Bill should apply only to very large towns. The more the details were discussed, the more it would be seen that they were only applicable to very large places. Indeed, he stated originally that he would rather apply it to towns of still larger population than was fixed in the Bill. At the same time, for the comfort of hon. Members, he would call attention to the fact that there was on the Paper a clause which would give ample power to the central authority to select any part of a scheme which it might appear desirable not to carry out.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had not condescended to answer his question, but had simply repeated the worn-out taunt that he (Mr. Fawcett) did not care for the working classes, and that Her Majesty's Government was a benevolent Government which did. ["Oh, oh!"] He was not the least afraid to have his political character judged by the working classes. The worst friend to the working classes was he who attempted to deceive them by trying to make them believe that this House could do for them what it could not do, and what they only could do for themselves. That was the principle which he had always endeavoured to advocate, and whatever the consequences he would, for the sake of the working men themselves, continue to advocate it. He wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman a business question—Would the right hon. Gentleman point out the words in the clause which would give any security that the ground when cleared would be appropriated to any purpose? If the right hon. Gentleman would not answer it now, he (Mr. Fawcett) would move to report Progress in order to secure an answer at a future time.

said, he could only reply as he had done before. He must refer the hon. Gentleman to the original scheme, which he did not appear thoroughly to understand. The local authorities would have to lay down the original scheme, and the permanent authority would, as a matter of course, require to be shown in that scheme how they proposed to deal with the land. It was distinctly stated that it should be their duty not only to take steps for securing the land, but also for carrying the scheme into operation.

said, he would assume that the scheme had gone before the Home Secretary, and that he was satisfied with it, but how was it to be carried out? The enacting part of the clause said that the scheme was to be carried out in either of three ways; but supposing the parties concerned did not choose to act, how was the scheme to be carried into effect?

moved, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 12, the omission of the words "occupied wholly or partially by persons belonging to the working class as tenants or lodgers," his object being to extend the benefit of the notice to be given to the occupants of condemned houses equally to all, irrespective of the class to which they belonged.

said, he had no objection to the Amendment.

regretted the course taken by the Home Secretary on that point, and the Amendment of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Hamond).

said, with regard to the latter point, the effect was that in every case there would be 13 weeks' notice.

said, he had to complain of the very careless manner in which the Bill had been drawn in reference to this subject. It should be sent back to the draftsman in order that it might assume a more intelligible shape. He had expected that the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley) would have moved the Amendments which stood in his name; but as he appeared to have abandoned his intention, he (Mr. Jackson) would himself move them. His object was to provide that the Lands Clauses Act should be incorporated in this Act. The plan of the Schedule appeared to be that a quasi-official arbitrator, appointed by the public authority, was to hold a preliminary and, he supposed, ex parte investigation; he was to issue a provisional award; and then, and not till then, was the owner to have a right to be heard. Under the Lands Clauses Act parties must elect at once between an arbitrator and a jury; but, under the proposed system, he could not help thinking that there would be troublesome and expensive rehearings, as parties affected by the preliminary award would recognize the difficulty of inducing the arbitrator to vary his own decision, and would procure expensive legal assistance, and resort, when possible, to a jury, and the Committee ought to call upon the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to show very clearly why he adopted this new and untried system in preference to that which had been satisfactorily in operation for so long a period. He should move the first of a series of Amendments, the object of which was to substitute the provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act for those of this Bill.

said, the procedure, so far from being novel, had been tried with success for 25 years in Ireland, where it was introduced with the object of avoiding the delay and expense of dealing with small holdings under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. There was no doubt it would be equally satisfactory in the present case.

did not think the cases were so far parallel as to justify the adoption of the Irish procedure without modification. He was, however, willing to accept the provision proposed in the Bill, with certain modifications in the direction of a rule that might apply to all kinds of property, which at the proper time he would move.

, in opposing the Amendment, said, that the authorities in Liverpool, owing to the incorporation of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, were obliged—with a view to avoid legal expenses—to pay to proprietors of houses who had neglected to carry out proper sanitary arrangements, 50 per cent above the value of their property. In the opinion of the Town Clerk of Liverpool, the Irish system worked better, and he was glad it was to be adopted; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether it was not possible still further to lessen the expenses to be incurred in carrying out the Act in connection with the transfer of land.

said, that the courses provided by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act—the summoning of a special jury or the appointment of arbitrators to fix the value of property to be acquired—were dilatory and uncertain. The arbitrators were in a certain sense judges; but they seldom agreed, and they generally had interested views. The system adopted under the Irish Act was better and simpler; for if the party interested were not satisfied, he had a right of appeal to the tribunal of a jury. The main provisions of that Act were adopted, and such of the clauses of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act as were necessary to give effect to such main provisions.

suggested, for the sake of clearness, that such of the clauses of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act as were proposed to be incorporated with the Bill should be stated in the Schedule by number.

believed that the clause would work well. With regard to the suggestion as to retaining the action of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, it should be borne in mind that Act had to deal with every description of property.

thought that the Schedule of the Bill was an improvement in the appointment of a single arbitrator; but it was objectionable that under the Bill there might be a double inquiry and then another appeal to the jury. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not, at all events, devise something which might give the advantage of a single arbitrator dealing with the whole of the cases without the disadvantages which would ensue if the Schedule were carried in its present form. There was a vast waste of time and money in most of these arbitration cases, inasmuch as the evidence given in one case might often be made applicable to others.

said, that under the Irish Lands Clauses Act an arbitrator went down to the spot to survey and assess the property. The parties had notice of his intention, and they were heard before him either by or without counsel or attornies. The parties often acquiesced in the arbitrator's draft award; but if they were dissatisfied, they then appeared before him on the final award. Sometimes he was satisfied he had made a mistake, and then he either increased or diminished his award, but always acting in a quasi judicial way. Traverses were not too frequent under this system, and the Home Secretary had been wise in adopting the main provisions of a procedure which he doubted not would work as satisfactorily in England as it had done in Ireland.

moved the following Amendment in page 7, line 39, at end, add—

"Due regard being had to the nature and then condition of the property and the probable duration of the buildings in their existing state, and to the state of repair thereof."

The object of the Amendment was to prevent the arbitrator giving an excessive amount of compensation to the owners of the property taken, and also to prevent the owners from permitting their property to go to ruin with the view to its being taken under the provisions of this Act.

, whilst approving of the intention of the Proviso, questioned the utility of introducing it into the Act, as the arbitrator would in any case, if he was a fitting person for his office, have to take these and all other circumstances of the property into consideration. He therefore proposed to move an Amendment to leave out all the words after the word "to" in the first line of Mr. Cross's proposed Amendment, and insert the words, "all the circumstances affecting such value." He did not see any reason why this further Amendment could not be accepted.

judged that the effect of the proposition of the Home Secretary would be that the arbitrator would have to ascertain the market value of the property. He wished to observe that property was often of greater market value, because it was unfit for human habitation. Owners of property who had neglected their duty ought not to be allowed to take any advantage of their own wrong; and the amount necessary to put their property in a fit state for human habitation ought to be deducted from the value of their property.

trusted the Bill would be left in the state which was proposed by the Home Secretary, which was calculated to carry out what were really the principles of the Bill.

expressed his approval of the Amendment, which he considered would be a great improvement to the Bill. He thought that some limit ought to be placed on the calculation of the proposed measure of value, and would suggest that the best course would be to incorporate Torrens's Act with the Bill.

said, the words were drawn by a person of great experience. He was willing, however, to assent to the addition of the words "and all other circumstances affecting such value."

moved, as an Amendment, to leave out in line 40 "without any additional allowance in respect of the compulsory purchase of the same." There would be numbers of cases where great hardship would follow to individuals where the property was taken away compulsorily.

said, he could not accept the Amendment.

moved "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

hoped they would proceed until the next disputed point was reached.

said, the Amendment he had to propose was of considerable importance, and he should therefore move that Progress be reported.

said, he must object to so heavy a penalty as £50 a-day for a breach of the conditions laid down, and would contend that the effect of the penalties provided in the Bill would be to suppress all small manufacturers of gunpowder and explosive substances.

said, with regard to the objection of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, the penalties were reduced by the Bill below the point at which they had formerly been. In addition, he had to say that manufacturers had expressed their approval of the Bill.

, in moving to report Progress, said, he did not understand the procedure of the Government. It was understood that they were to deal that night with the important question of the nomination of the Select Committee on Banks of Issue, and many Scotch Members had been waiting to take part in the discussion on that Motion. It was now past 12 o'clock, however, and other Orders of the Day were on the Paper, so that there seemed little prospect of the Motion he referred to being brought on.

said, that the Orders of the Day would have to be gone through before the Motion the hon. Gentleman referred to could be reached, and then it would be too late to take it. The hon. Member, by pressing his Motion, therefore, would be interfering with whatever progress they could make with the Bill now in Committee, but would not be doing anything to advance the object he had in view. The Motion should, however, be fixed for to-morrow (Tuesday).

said, that the Scotch Members took a particular interest in the question, and only wanted to know whether the Motion was to come on that night or not.

moved to substitute "poor rates" for "grand jury cess." The object of the Amendment was to provide that the cost of carrying out the Act in Ireland should be charged on the poor rate instead of the county cess.

opposed the Amendment.