said, that in rising to propose "That this House do disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," he wished first to express the regret with which the Representatives of London in the House were obliged to ask the House to act in contradiction to the House of Lords on this London question. They had, however, no choice but to do so. Here was a Bill which had been passed with some Amendments, and after mature and exhaustive inquiry and deliberation before a Select Committee, which, after it had come from that Committee, had been adopted without opposition by the House, and which now came down from the Upper House in a form which he was justified in describing as mutilated. The London County Council asked for no unnecessary or unusual powers in the clauses of the Bill which the Lords had struck out. They simply asked for powers which other towns possessed, and in asking for which they had been supported by an overwhelming majority of the House of Commons, and, no doubt, would be so supported again. But with that request of theirs the House of Lords flatly disagreed, and had sent down the Bill with some of its most important clauses struck out. He felt sure that the House generally would agree that the London County Council had unusual circumstances to face. They had a huge unorganised population to deal with, and it was only natural that they should wish to have powers to inquire into what might have a bearing on the welfare of those they represented. To come to the Amendment with which they had first to deal, it was his duty to move that the House disagree with the alteration which the Lords had made in the Preamble. It was convenient that the Division should take place on the Preamble instead of on the clause; and he believed that there was a general disposition, in order that Divisions might not be multiplied, to accept in the matter the decision that might be taken on the Preamble. The part of the Preamble which the Lords had struck out, and which he moved to restore, was that which affected the representation of the County Council of London upon the Thames Conservancy and the Lea Conservancy Boards. The London County Council held that they ought to have some say in the management of the Thames. The Thames Conservancy Board consisted of 23 persons, and not one of them was in any sense directly or indirectly a representative of the 4,500,000 people of London who were so vitally interested in the conservancy of the Thames. That Body, on which the London County Council had not a single voice, had, by its action, the most far-reaching effect on the health, and the trade, and even on the recreation of London. The River Thames had the most varying influence upon this vast population. For instance, the discharge of impurities into the Thames was in a large measure under the supervision of the Thames Conservancy, and that was a matter which affected the health of London. Then, take another point—the water supply of London. The condition of the river depended naturally on the quantity of water in it. They had had evidence before Committee after Committee that upwards of a third of the whole water of the Thames was abstracted unnecessarily for the privy purposes of London. No one could tell what surplus water, if any, was in the Thames, and the whole question of the supply of water to the Water Companies had frequently been the subject of agreement between the Thames Conservancy and the Water Companies, thereby one of the most vital questions with respect to the health of London being decided by a Body upon which the 4,500,000 Londoners had absolutely no representation. The London County Council approached the Thames Conservancy in no hostile spirit. They recognised what that; Body had done and had endeavoured to do. They wished to make it better able to fulfil its functions, and they believed that it would be better able to fulfil its functions if the 4,500,000 people of London had some representation upon it. The arguments in favour of the representation of the County Council on the Lea Conservancy were of a similar character. But on the Lea Conservancy they already had one member, and they were able to acknowledge that that representation, though very limited and inadequate, had a very advantageous effect on the circumstances of the River Lea, which was also of great importance to the population of the more limited district through which it flowed. He understood the London County Council were to be opposed in this matter by the representative of the County of Surrey, and by other riparian counties. He would say at once that the London County Council had signified, in the evidence given before the Select Committee, that they did not oppose the representation of these counties upon the Conservancy of the Thames. They had no desire to injure them, and they did not think they injured them by their proposed representation on the Board. The question of the representation of these counties on the Board might, indeed, be brought forward in the near future by Public Bill or otherwise; and he felt sure that in that event the London County Council would offer no opposition, but would content itself with discussing the amount of the representation. Even the Report of the Select Committee of the House, on which the case of the County Council was most legitimately founded, was based upon the idea that other counties might get representation on the Board, because, in proposing to give the London Country Council four representa- tives on the Board under the present Bill, the Committee indicated that the reason they gave this, as they considered, insufficient representation to the London County Council was that it might not stand in the way, on an early date, of a solution of the question, by which other counties might be represented without increasing the Board to unwieldy proportions. It was evident that the claim of the London County Council for representation was much stronger, more immediate, and more pressing, because out of the 6,250,000 of people who lived in the basin of the Thames from its source to the sea there were in London no less than 4,500,000, or upwards of two-thirds; and, again, of the water supplied from the Thames four-fifths went to the people of London. In fact, the River Thames was vital to the very existence of the people of London. Their trade and health depended upon it as the trade and health of no other Country did, and the close-packed character of the population was one of the most urgent reasons for having representation of the Conservancy of the river which flowed through their midst. Their claim, therefore, they regarded as urgent, immediate, and imperative. And while the London Country Council admitted, and were willing to consider, the claims of other counties, they could not for a moment think of giving way before this—he did not like to call it dog-in-the-manger policy, but it might be described in that way—for though the claims of the London County Council had existed for many years, the claims of other riparian counties had been urged only from a very recent date. Some of these counties were actually represented at present by four members on the Thames Conservancy, and though that representation might not be of as direct a kind as they required, yet it was of as direct a kind as could be given at the time, and they represented a population infinitely smaller and infinitely less important than that which the County Council were seeking representation for. This was no new claim on behalf of the County Council. From the day of its creation the Metropolitan Board of Works had urged this claim for representation on the Thames Conservancy; and in 1867 the Board of Trade, in a most important, letter addressed to the Conservancy Board, urged that four or five members representing London should be placed on the Board, instead of the very quasi-representation then and now existing. It might not be in the knowledge of Members generally that the Metropolitan Board of Works had left to their successors, the London County Council, a document, carefully drawn up, instructing them to continue to urge as strongly as they could the claim of the people of London to representation on the Governing Body of the Thames which they themselves had always so consistently advocated. In sending the Bill back to the House of Lords, he ventured to hope, and even almost to expect, that the House of Lords would not again take such a hostile view of the matter; that they would take some account of the wishes and needs of London citizens; and that they would give way on this small modicum of self-government which was contained in the clauses which had been struck out of the Bill. The House of Lords had struck out these clauses with something like ignominy. But the London County Council would appeal to them again, and ask them to allow London that self-government which every other town possessed in like circumstances. They approached the House of Lords in an humble, but not in any servile spirit, remembering that the opposition to which they were subjected was not such as to cause weakness to their knees. He hoped the House of Lords would be able to receive the clause again, and do something to ease a situation which was injurious to all parties concerned; which was injurious to London; which was injurious, he believed, to the House of Lords itself in bringing it into sharp conflict with the people of London in an unnecessary opposition to the attainment of their legitimate desires.

said, he had listened attentively to the speech of the hon. Member for Hoxton, and he had not heard a single argument urged which could induce the House to disagree with the Lords' Amendments. The only argument brought forward was that, as operations of the Thames Conservancy were inside the field of the County of London, the London County Council had a right to interfere with them. If that argument were good, what about the House of Lords and the House of Commons? The two Houses of Parliament met within the County of London; and the next claim of the London County Council would be that their august delegates should be allowed to sit in both Houses, if, from their point of view, the proper authorities were not doing their duty? The hon. Member for Hoxton appealed to the House in strong terms, and said the present state of things was injurious to London—that the health, trade, and amusement of London entirely depended on the Thames, and that they could only be saved from danger by the London County Council having representation on the Conservancy Board. But what was the fact? They knew the manner in which the Thames Conservancy had for years discharged its duties, and under its present most genial Chairman, Sir Frederick Nicholson, and its able Secretary, Mr. Gough, it had won the admiration of everybody. Great tact had been shown, and now there was no difficulty whatever in the management of the river by the Conservancy Board. He went more over the Thames than probably any Member of the House. Week after week he covered many miles of it; and he believed it was the positive opinion of all parties—riparian owners, the people who had the navigation, and the Water Companies—that the management of the Thames by the present Board was of a most admirable character. He should like to refer to statements made on behalf of the London County Council itself to show that this urgency in the matter of representation did not exist. In 1890, before Sir Joseph Bailey's Committee, the late Mr. Haggis, the Deputy Chairman of the London County Council, stated that he had no charge to make against the Conservators, and he could not lay his finger on a single thing in which the Thames Conservancy were not doing their duty. Again, in 1891, before Sir Matthew White Ridley's Committee on the Metropolitan Water Supply, Sir Thomas Farrer gave the Thames Conservators every credit for taking all the pains in their power, and that from his knowledge of the Thames Conservators he was satisfied that they had done whatever was in their power. Again, Mr. Binnie, the engineer to the Council, stated that, instead of wishing to impeach or say anything against the Conservators, he was often surprised that they had been able to do so much. In addition to this, Mr. Freeman, the counsel for the London County Council, stated before the Duke of Richmond's Committee that he was not there to make any allegations whatever against the Conservators. There was a Royal Commission now sitting to report on the water supply of London. That Commission would report next year, and why not wait until they had reported? In the House of Lords, when Lord Hobhouso moved to reject the Amendment which had been made in the Bill, the Government did not support the Motion; Lord Morley, the Chairman of Committees, spoke against it; and, eventually, it was withdrawn without a Division. Lord Morley said that the London County Council ought to have representation on the Board, but that that ought not to be done by Private Bill, as the constitution of the Thames Conservancy Board had always been altered by Public and not by Private Bills. Speaking on behalf of the Conservators, they had no objection to the subject being inquired into, and proper representation being given, if it did not exist, but they said that should be done by a Public and not by a Private Bill. But if the County Council were to get four members now, who could say that would be the extent of their demand? When they got their member on the Lea Conservancy Board they were not satisfied; but they wanted to got more, because they said that they were not adequately represented. Speaking on Friday night at Battersea, the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets said the object of the County Council was "to have the control of the river." The Conservancy Board objected in toto to any scheme which was only promoted by the London County Council. They wanted a Board that was properly balanced, as the Conservancy Board was at present. It was balanced at present because they had one interest standing out against another, and there had been nothing unfair. Suppose the London County Council should wish to buy up the Water Companies, if they had a majority on the Conservancy Board what was to prevent them from giving notice to the companies that by a particular day they must stop the supply or furnish it from another source, and so when the value of the shares had fallen buy up the property at a ruinous loss to the companies? Then, again, the London County Council was the only Body that had power to pour sewage into the river, and directly they got the majority on the Board they could treat the river as a sewage farm. The Conservancy Board had no objection to the principle that the County Council should be represented; what they did object to was that that should be done piecemeal and by Private Bill. The Board consisted of 23 members, of whom seven were given to the City, because in ancient times the Thames belonged to the City, and it gave up certain tolls and certain rights on condition that these seven members should be put on the Conservancy Board. But at the present moment a Committee was sitting with regard to the amalgamation of the City and the London County Council, and if the amalgamation of the City Corporation and the London County Council was carried out, the joint Body, if four members were now given, would have 11 out of 23, which would be entirely too largo a proportion. Why should other counties interested in the Thames, such as Middlesex, Surrey, Bucks, Berks, Oxfordshire, and Wiltshire, be entirely cut out from the representation? That all the counties interested in the river should be represented could only be carried out by a comprehensive scheme which would give the London County Council their fair share. To that the Conservancy had no objection. In 1890 the late President of the Board of Trade made the following remarks:—

"As far as I am concerned, I should be glad to see the interests of the London County Council fully represented on the Conservancy Board, but I cannot admit that this question has been fairly considered, if by that term is meant the kind of consideration which Parliament in former years bestowed on it. This was to be done by an ordinary Private Bill by a Committee, before whom only one witness was examined, and not a single word was heard from the rival interests of the Upper Thames, which probably did not even know that the matter was being dealt with by Parliament. … I think the wisest course will be for the House to decline to adopt the proposal contained in this Bill relating to this matter, and next year to appoint a Select Committee to consider the whole question of the Conservancy of the Thames. In that way the House would have all the riparian and other interests fully awake to the necessity of taking care of themselves; complete evidence would be given in regard to the whole subject, and it would be able to arrive at a fair conclusion on a subject which has hitherto been treated as a public matter, and one which ought not to be dealt with by a Private Bill."

MR. Ritchie, the late President of the Local Government Board, spoke in a similar strain, and he hoped the House would agree that this matter should be raised by a Public and not by a Private Bill, and that all interests should be considered.

said, the case for the London County Council had been so fully stated by the hem. Member for Shoreditch that he need not detain the House long. The hon. Member for Middlesex had charged the Council with an attempt to destroy the balance of the Board. He would invite the House to look at the balance of the Board as it at present existed. Of the 23 members of the Board, 11 might be said to represent 2,000,000, but outside that representation there were, roughly speaking, 4,000,000; and if they wanted to destroy the balance of the Board, instead of asking for four members, they would ask for 22; in asking for four members they were mainly following a precedent which dated back from the commencement of this Body. The hon. Member for Middlesex seemed to think it necessary, in order that the County Council might establish its position, that it should go about finding fault with the Thames Conservancy Board and saying that it did not do its work properly. He submitted that no such contention was necessary. The Thames Conservancy Board was established in 1857. In 1864 it was found that it did not adequately represent the people of London; and, in consequence of that, in 1864 six members were added, and that addition did not in any way indicate that the 12 members who had preceded them had neglected to do their duly. Again, in 1866, another five members were added, and the House would observe that it, was nearly a quarter of a century since any alteration had been made in the constitution of the Board. During that time London had advanced by leaps and bounds; and he submitted that this proposal, that they should have four members, was ridiculously inadequate to the circumstances of the case. The hon. Member for Middlesex contended that this matter ought to be brought in by a Public Bill rather than by a Private Bill. But he would draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that the Thames Conservancy was founded by a Private Bill, and in three cases since its formation it had increased powers given it by Private Bills. It was impossible for the London County Council to carry out the work which had been committed to them by the Legislature unless they got this additional representation. The Legislature had thrown upon them certain responsibilities. They had 10 bridges over the river, representing £2,500,000; they had the care of the noble Embankments on both sides of the river and the control of the banks in respect of the prevention of floods; they had ferries over the river, and were making tunnels under, and it was impossible for them to do their work unless they had a proper representation upon the Body which had control of the river. With regard to the question of the purity of the water, he hoped he was not speaking disrespectfully of the persons who resided in the district of the Upper Thames when he said they had attempted to use the river as a drain, and had compelled other people to drink the water. He was grieved to hear the hon. Member for Middlesex attribute to the County Council a desire to dirty the river. That Body and its predecessors had spent £1,000,000 in order to get sewage out of the river, and if the hon. Member would examine the foreshore at Barking he would be delighted to see the cleanliness of the foreshore. Indeed, he hoped in a short time that if they obtained this representation they might be able to offer hon. Members on both sides of the House a little fly fishing from the Terrace. The principal argument which had been made was that other County Councils had an equal right with the London County Council. They had never disputed that; but they desired to see some attempt to join hands with them in this business. Up to the present they had met with nothing but opposition.

said, he desired to say at the outset that his hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch did not represent the whole of the London County Council upon this matter, and that at all events there was a minority which was opposed to the Council approaching Parliament in this manner. He recollected when the matter was mooted in the Council that they were warned not only by the Members of the Moderate Party, but by others of the section to which the hon. Member belonged, that if they attempted to put into a Bill of this kind a clause giving them representation on the Conservancy of the Thames and the Lea they would probably wreck their Bill. It had been repeated in the House that afternoon that this was not a proper way to come to Parliament for an increased representation. The proper manner for them to approach Parliament was, he would not say by a Public Bill, but by a separate Private Bill, and not by an Omnibus Bill of this character. The Bill was called a General Powers Bill. He believed that when the additional power was given by Parliament to the Metropolitan Board of Works it was never contemplated that they should put into their Bill a lot of minor Bills. He undertook to say that in this General Powers Bill there were 16 or 17 clauses which might very properly constitute Private or separate Bills in themselves. There was a clause in the Bill to alter the representation, which they were discussing now, on the Thames Conservancy Board and the Lea Conservancy. There was also a clause, which might well be a Bill, to alter the law as to the building of low-level lines, and to establish a Court of Appeal; a clause to alter, to a great extent, the procedure of the County Court itself, and other important clauses. If the hon. Member would take the trouble to go through the Bill, he would find that, there were a great number of contentious clauses that might constitute separate Bills in themselves. It was, therefore, not very surprising that the House of Lords should think that it was too wide-reaching a Bill, and that some limit should be put upon the powers asked for by the London County Council. They were not so squeezable as the Committee that dealt with the Bill. He did not know whether it would he in Order if he called it a partisan Committee; but it was clearly a Committee of strong bias in one particular direction. He held that it would have been much better to have sent it to an absolutely impartial Committee, such as their Select Committees were. The House of Lords Committee naturally struck out the most contentious clauses of the Bill, feeling that the interests of other Bodies were not in any way considered by the London County Council. The London County Council was an ambitious Body—he had almost said a covetous Body; and it showed a great disposition to meddle with matters with which it had at present no authority from Parliament to deal. The Council desired to obtain the property of the Water Companies at the price of old iron. They wanted all the Tramways, and only the other day they were rather sweet on building a rival palace within a stone's throw of the House of Commons. He thought there were reasons why the County Council should be represented on the Thames Conservancy, but he thought they had not approached Parliament in the proper way in order to attain that object.

said, that, the hon. Member began his speech with an admission which really cut away the ground from his own contention. He expressed his opinion that London ought to be represented on the Thames Conservancy, and his main objection really was that the other counties were not represented. He was not correct as regarded the upper counties, which did have four representatives. As regarded Surrey and Kent, the London I County Council had no power of including I them in this Bill; but if they brought: in one of their own, he should be happy to support it. The hon. Member spoke of the Council turning the river into a sewage farm. There was no fear of that, and he was glad to inform the House that the condition of the lower river was far better than it used to be. The banks were cleaner, vegetation was beginning to grow, and bathing was indulged in where not, long ago it was impossible. Surely the people of London ought to have a voice in the management of the Thames, and he hoped the House would support the moderate proposal now before it.

desired to say a few words as representing a constituency greatly interested in this question. Many hon. Members would know that there were instances in which great portions of the population of certain districts were entirely dependent upon the proper conservancy of the Thames. That being so, he should be the last man in that House to take exception to any course which had for its aim and object the real improvement of the conservancy of the Thames. He carefully listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Shoreditch, and it appeared to him that the hon. Gentleman had adopted his tactics from the right hon. Baronet who sat below him (Sir C. Dilke), and who, when he was desirous of altering the mode of appointment of Magistrates, took no exception to the existing Body, but desired to add certain friends of his own. The hon. Member for Shoreditch had not one word to say against the conduct of the present Conservators of the Thames, but he seemed to think that the London County Council had some special right to come in and dominate with regard to the Thames interests, as if the River Thames were the back of a lady at the Aquarium, over which the London County Council desired special jurisdiction. Speaking as one interested in the conservancy of the Thames, he did not stop to inquire whether or not the London County Council should be represented on that Body. What he was going to say was this: that he considered that all the interests should be fairly, adequately, and proportionately represented on that body, and that could only be decided by a Committee of that House taking evidence, or by some method in which the public interests should be fairly and publicly known. Through this Private Bill it was sought to give four seats—originally seven was the number proposed—upon the Thames Conservancy, without any of the other interests involved having an opportunity of being heard with a view to proportionate representation. He should, in the interests of his constituents, and, as he believed, in the interests of the Thames Conservancy at large, oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for Shoreditch, on the ground that fair and proportionate representation was only to be arrived at by a Committee of that House taking evidence on the question.

observed that, in voting against the Motion of the hon. Member for Shoreditch, and in favour of the Amendment of the Lords, he should be dividing against his natural allies. But he should do so, because on this occasion it seemed to him that the House of Lords had drifted into an exceptionally just mode of proceeding. His hon. Friends, on the other hand, had drifted into an unequal, unjust, and unexpected mode of proceeding. He based his objection to this Bill on the ground that it denied all outlying districts of London what they on that Bench had been taught during the present Session, with somewhat weary reiteration, to regard as a sacred right—the right of self-government and Home Rule. The London County Council had fulfilled their duties, as a rule, with extraordinary justice, and great wisdom, so far as their Metropolitan duties were concerned; but of late a movement had been noted in their midst, to which the hon. Baronet opposite had called attention. That movement had been in the direction of the octopus—with greedy, restless, nervous fingers to try and snatch the property of other people outside London. He, for one, speaking as a Representative of a great constituency on the borders of the London County Council, felt it his duty to try and cut off those nervous figures when they came and tried to touch his property. His two hon. Friends near him had spoken about the rights of self-government, and his hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch spoke in the most pathetic terms of how it was denied to the London County Council to rule their own affairs. But why did the hon. Member not mete out the same justice to other people he desired to see exercised for himself? Why did he not give West Ham the right to manage its own affairs? Why did the hon. Member and the London County Council a few days ago so bitterly oppose the West Ham Corporation, who wanted to drain their own borough? West Ham was about the fifth largest provincial borough in the Kingdom, numbering some 250,000 souls, and yet the London County Council did not think it big enough to manage its own affairs. On the ground of the right of a great borough like West Ham to manage its own affairs he should most certainly oppose this measure. They were told that the London County Council would be quite ready to concede eventually to West Ham these rights which they were now wanting for themselves. But the London County Council was like other Corporations. It had no body, no soul, and alas! very little conscience; and, in his opinion, if the London County Council once got their feet in this Body, they would take very good care to keep such humble children as West Ham and the neighbouring constituencies out of it. His hon. Friend talked about proportional representation. That was a charming philosophic subject which was very often only applied to illustrate the point of view of himself (Mr. Grove). His hon. Friend spoke about the inadequate way in which the London County Council were represented. He thought he was going to have 220, or was it 22, members eventually upon that Body? But he might point out that, so far as the law was concerned, the outlying districts had only a right to send one member on the Conservancy Board. There were 16 districts embracing such a locality as West Ham, and they had only the right to send one member on to the Conservancy Board, but the modest London County Council wanted to send three. The district of the London County Council contained a population of over 4,000,000, and West Ham a population of over 250,000. Yes, but look at the proportion. They in West Ham ought to have the right to 1–17th of the representation of the Lea Conservancy, but the County Council wished them to be contented with 1–48th of that representation. They thought, under these circumstances, that the members of the London County Council had a right to come down there and talk about just and fair proportional representation! He would point out one fact which very deeply interested his own constituents. Seven miles of the Thames and Lea ran through Stratford and neighbourhood. They were in a low-lying part of the district, and it was of most vital consequence to them that they should be properly represented on the Conservaucy of the Lea. ["Hear, hear!"] Then, why did not the County Council help them instead of saying, "Help us, and when we have got on ourselves we will help you." These were the grounds on which he ventured to oppose this measure, and he thought he was not wrong in supposing he should have the majority of the Members of the House with him. He should have the support of hon. Members opposite, because, of course, they must approve of anything that such an immaculate Body as the House of Lords recommended, and he should have the support of the wise on his own Benches, because they knew the London County Council was getting a little beyond itself. He thought the Radical Members would also oppose this measure; and as for the Irish Members, the advocates of Home Rule, he had no fear regarding them. They would be acting directly contrary to all the principles they had so eloquently supported during the present Session if they were now to allow London, through the hands of its County Council, to oppress the poor little island of West Ham.

as the only Representative of the Surrey County Council in that House, wished to say one or two words in the Debate. With reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Tower Hamlets as to the position which the Surrey County Council took up in opposition to the present Bill, if the hon. Gentleman had read the report of the deputation of the Surrey County Council, he would observe that their only reason for opposing the representation of London on the Thames Conservancy was that they considered if London were represented Surrey should also be represented. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London had been good enough to give to the House a picture of what the Thames was to-day. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman could have given a stronger proof that this question did not re-quire urgent or immediate settlement. If the Thames was improving so rapidly under the present Conservancy, why should they not have a proper Representative Body to look after the whole of the Thames instead of proceeding by patchwork? It appeared to him they were all agreed on two points. In the first instance, he thought it was absolutely agreed that there ought to be an inquiry. In the evidence before the Committee which considered this subject the members of the London County Council admitted that some inquiry was necessary. Again, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade on the 17th June, 1893, in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Cirencester, said—

"Yes, I think there ought to be an inquiry by a Select Committee; but it is a question whether at this period of the Session a Committee could be invited to enter on such an inquiry, but I will confer with my hon. Friend on the subject."

Nearly all the Members of the House were, therefore, impressed with the idea that some inquiry should be held as to the formation of the future Thames Conservancy. The second point on which there seemed to be agreement was that every county having an interest in the River Thames should be represented on that Body. There being a practical agreement upon these two points he really could hardly understand why the House of Commons could not in a businesslike way come to a decision on the matter. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board whether, as the guardian of Local Government in that House, he could not suggest some arrangement by which the House could at once proceed to that inquiry and allow next year a proper Bill to be brought in giving London its full and fair representation, which no county denied them, and giving to the counties and all the interests concerned their fair and proper representation?

thought the House had got a little way from the real position of this question. In reply to the observations of the Member for North West Ham, he might say that he was on the Committee which sat to consider this subject; he was one of those responsible for the Report; he had gone carefully through the whole of the evidence, and he thought it would have been of great advantage if the hon. Member had quoted the Report so far as it affected West Ham. The Committee was not a partisan Committee in its consideration of this question. The members of it conducted an inquiry extending over several days; they had witnesses before them on behalf of the different interests affected, which were represented by the ablest Parliamentary counsel, and what was the result? Not that a partisan vote carried this question as to giving the London County Council representation on the Thames Conservancy, but that the whole Committee, irrespective of political opinion, arrived at the decision after several days' consideration, that London had made out its case and was entitled to representation on the Thames Conservancy. The only point of difference was as to the amount of that representation. The County Council, it was true, asked for seven members on the Conservancy Board, the same number as was now allotted to the Corporation of the City of London. When the Committee came to consider the question of the number, some members were in favour of five, but by the casting vote of the Chairman four was fixed. A case was made out so clear on behalf of the County Council that the unanimous vote of the Committee, with the hon. Member for Sheffield in the chair, conceded their claims.

said, that in a document which at that time was issued by the London County Council it was asked—

"What reason can there be for the representation of the London County Council on the Conservancy Board, which does not equally extend to the Councils of other counties on the Thames?"

was much obliged for the interposition, by which the hon. Member had completely given himself away. The Members of the Committee were so impressed with the case made out by the County Councils for Middlesex and Essex and for the representation of West Ham that the whole Committee requested the Chairman to draw up a special Report, in which they not only guarded themselves against condemning the contention of these Bodies that they should have representation, but clearly expressed the opinion that they had a right to representation, but stating that, owing to the position they were in as a Committee, they had no power to give them that which they should have asked for instead of wasting the money in fighting the County Council. The Committee had only one point put before them, which was that these various counties objected to the County Council having this representation because they had not got it themselves. The policy adopted by these Bodies was a dog-in the-manger policy, and nothing else. Mr. Wrorsley Taylor, the counsel representing the County Council for Middlesex, asked the following question of Mr. Binnie, the engineer for the London County Council:—

"Is not that question of the relative user of the river and well-water within Middlesex one of the greatest interest in Middlesex?—Undoubtedly"

What had the County Council of London Middlesex done in order to secure direct representation upon the Thames Conservancy? They had done nothing, because they were satisfied with the state of things which existed now. He (Mr. Rowlands) was so impressed with this that he put the question (reading from evidence)—

"MR. Rowlands: Your argument is that you are entitled to representation; could you tell me whether the Middlesex County Council have taken any action in approaching this County Council in any way since the last inquiry to obtain representation on this Board?

"MR. Worsley Taylor: You mean with regard to the water?

"MR. Rowlands: Representation on the Conservancy Board in the General Powers Bill; have you approached the County Council of London for joint action, or taken any action on your own part?

"MR. Worsley Taylor: No; I understand our case is as it was on the last—leave things as they are; do not disturb them.

"MR. Rowlands: But have that Body taken any action to get an inquiry as you suggest to take place for entire legislation on the subject and the re-construction of the Lea Conservancy Board?

"MR. Worsley Taylor: No; we are not the people who want to move; we say if the London County Council is desirous to move, let them move in the right way.

"The Chairman: You are satisfied for things to remain as they are?

"Mr. Worsley Taylor: Yes.

"Mr. H. C. Richards: The position of the County of Essex is very similar in opposition to the Bill."

If the House threw out the recommendation of the Select Committee what would be the result? There was no promise from the Government that they were prepared to institute an inquiry for the re-constitution of the Board. He admitted that there was a re-constitution required of both the Thames and the Lea Conservancy Boards, especially in the case of the Lea Conservancy Board. While the Corporation of the City of London had one member and the London County Council had also one to represent the ratepayers and the consumers, two Water Companies had four representatives on that Board to see how much water they could get out of the Lea. In conclusion, lie would appeal to the House to uphold the unanimous decision of the Committee.

I wish, Sir, to say a few words, and at the outset I would point out that the opinions which I represent are those held by the County of Middlesex. The great objection to the proposition before the House is that an attempt is being made to make an improper use of a Private Bill in order to alter the composition of a Public Body. Not long since, when advocating the Second Reading of a Bill of great interest to the County of Middlesex, it was my fate to have the doctrine laid down by the President of the Local Government Board (MR. H. H. Fowler) that, he could not assent to the public law of the land being altered by Private Bill. That is the situation here to-day. I fully recognise the responsible work which the London County Council has to perform, and I should be the last to stand in the way of a due performance of its duties; but not one piece of evidence has been produced to show that this change would in any degree assist the County Council. No complaint has been made of the work done by the Conservancy Board, though the County Council wish to have a certain representation upon it. I agree that, in the abstract, the County Council, as well as other Local Bodies, ought to have representation on the Board; but the Select Committee had no power to make a representation in favour of Middlesex, Surrey, and other Local Bodies. Therefore, it is clear to me that the London County Council have made a somewhat unfair use of their right to promote Private Bills by embodying this proposal for representation. It is of the greatest importance that the London County Council should be on good terms with the neighbouring Local Bodies; but there is a bitter feeling being caused in Essex, Surrey, Middlesex, and West Ham as to the particular manner in which this proposal has been submitted. While the Loudon County Council say that if the proposal had been made by them in the form of a Public Bill it would be dilatory and costly, they at the same time suggest that the other Local Bodies should have recourse to that expensive process. I venture to say that, in these circumstances, the House of Lords has arrived at the right conclusion. These other Bodies being entitled to representation, I would ask the members of the London County Council what is the use of passing this Bill if in a short time we are to have a proposal of a wide and of a permanent character before us—a proposal which will, I hope, be satisfactory to all parties? I think the House will see that it is a matter that should be left to the Government to take in hand, and that the best course for the House is not to disagree with the Amendments. So far as I am concerned, I can assure the Loudon County Council that if they bring their proposal in a Public Bill, dealing with all interests, they will not find any opposition from me.

I do not want to delay the House from the Division, but there are one or two words to say on behalf of the Government with regard to the course to be taken to-day. The question before the House is not one affecting the past history of the London Comity Council or as to the manner in which it has discharged its duties. Neither has the House to consider the aims and ambitions of the County Council nor the disputes between that Body and the adjacent Corporation of West Ham and other Bodies. A Committee of the House has unanimously passed a clause in a Bill which has been passed by the House, and by virtue of which power is proposed to be given to the largest representative authority on the banks of the Thames, the authority which has by far the largest interest in the Conservancy of the Thames, to have a small representation on the Thames Conservancy, the ruling authority on the river. The House of Lords has seen fit, however, to reject that clause, and the House has now to decide whether it will agree or disagree with the attitude taken up by the Lords. This perpetual warfare which is being waged against the London County Council—too frequently, I regret to say, by members of that Body—is never seen in any other Municipality of the country. We do not hear of the members of the Corporations of Liverpool, Leeds, or Birmingham coming to this House to speak in such terms of the Bodies with which they are connected. But, of course, that is not the question before us. The noble Lord (Lord G. Hamilton) said that he did not object to representation in the abstract; but the House is not dealing with the representation of the County Council in the abstract, but as a practical proposal. What is the history of this matter? In 1890 the question was raised by a Private Bill, which was fully discussed on the Second Reading, and was then referred to a Select Committee. I quite agree with what has been said about Hybrid Committees, and I think that what has occurred to-day will put a stop to such Committees. Bills of this kind should be referred to an ordinary Select Committee, on which no Member should sit who either had himself or whose constituents had any interest in the Bills. In 1890 the Committee was a Private Bill Committee, presided over by a typical Chairman of Committees—one whose loss to the House and politics I most deeply deplore—I mean SIR Joseph Bailey. Every consideration was then; given to this subject, and the recommendation of the Committee was challenged in much the same way, and by very much the same gentlemen who have challenged it this afternoon; and the Chairman of Committees expressed the opinion that, as most of the drinking water of London was derived from the Thames and Lea, the Body which had the right to look after the health of the Metropolis, ought to be represented on the Thames Conservancy Board. The late President of the Board of Trade said most distinctly that he was in favour of the London Comity Council being represented on the Board, but he raised the same point that has been raised this afternoon, and submitted that the other representative Bodies should be fully considered—that there ought to be an inquiry before the proposal contained in the Bill was adopted, and that a Committee should be appointed the following year to consider the whole question of the Conservancy of the Thames. But no Committee was appointed; and now, three years later, when the Loudon County Council asks for some representation, they are met with precisely the same arguments, which would have the effect of postponing the matter until the Greek Kalends. I think the County Councils of Middlesex, Surrey, Kent, Essex, and Berks should be represented, and possibly other Bodies in the upper reaches of the Thames might have some claim. How is the representation to be carried out? If the Lords' Amendments are accepted, the whole question will be postponed for another year. There is no reasonable prospect in the present state of the Public Business of the House that any Public Bill brought in by the London County Council could be carried through the House next year or during the next two or three Sessions. I submit to the House that we should accept my hon. Friend's Amendment and disagree with the Lords' Amendments. The Bill will then go back to the Lords, and there will be an opportunity of reconsidering the matter possibly in con- fereuce with the Representatives of this House; and I think that, with the assistance of impartial and cool-headed men, we will be able this year to come to a satisfactory settlement of the proper representation on the Board of all the Bodies interested. I should be sorry to see a Bill of this class lost because of the particular provision to which objection is taken; and I think the House is not disposed to take that course.

How do you propose the others should get representation?

I am not an authority on the Standing Orders of the House of Lords; but if there is a desire to do it, there should be no practical difficulty in carrying out that desire.

said, there would be very great practical difficulties in the way of the course proposed by the President of the Local Government Board. The question was not whether the London County Council was entitled to representation, but whether it was entitled to an excessive and unduly preponderating representation. The House of Lords had done no more than this House had done in 1890, and they were justified in their action by the extremely unfortunate attitude taken up towards the other Riparian Authorities by the Loudon County Council, which had been treated by this House on this occasion with great indulgence. The present constitution of the Thames Conservancy was not of an ideal character, and seemed to have been conceived in the interest rather of the navigation than of water drinkers, but he denied that the representation of London upon it was so inadequate that it should be extended to the exclusion of the other Bodies. It had virtually 11 members out of 27. In 1867, when the Conservancy was last re-considered, representation was given to the upper Riparian Authorities, who were interested in the navigation of the river rather than in the purity of the water, for the sole purpose of counteracting the undue representation of London. This was a case in which the principle of population failed as a test. If, by excluding the interests of navigation, representation were given to the London householders, the question of the quality and quantity of the drinking water would appear to them to be the much more important question. He was not going to take any course which would wreck this useful Bill, but he would ask the House to resist a course that would have no practical effect except to very seriously prejudice the settlement of the just claims of the other Riparian Authorities.

said, it was a satisfactory feature of the Debate that there had been no criticism of the way in which the Thames Conservancy had discharged their duties. Occasions of that kind were often taken advantage of for remarks upon the manner in which the duties of the Public Bodies concerned were fulfilled; but there seemed to be no complaint in the case of this Board. But the question before the House was not so much one of practice as of principle—of the application or otherwise of the representative principle in local government, and, for his part, he did not see how the House could refuse to apply that principle in dealing with the Thames Conservancy. The second question involved was the principle of responsibility; and whatever criticism was directed to the London County Council—and certainly it had not been beyond or above criticism—it could not be denied that the responsibility for that Body's action rested to a great extent with the London electors. It was for those who for the most part criticised it to improve it. They must remember that they owed the County Council to the late Government, and they must also bear in mind that though they might mend the Count, Council, and though they might mar a great deal that it did, or attempted to do, they could not unmake that Body. Therefore, when he heard these criticisms, he was led to hope that what was at times open to objection would be counteracted by greater public interest being taken in these matters and closer identification with its operations by joining its ranks on the part of those who were able to contribute to its usefulness. Conservancy Bodies were essentially representative, for they had to deal with matters of the very greatest public interest. There was no duty which Municipalities had to perform greater or more important than that of securing a supply in all their purity and plenty of the prime necessities of life, and in that sense the regulation of a great river, apart altogether from the question of navigation, was a duty attaching to the Conservancy of primary importance. Then there was the question of public health, which, as had been remarked, was dependent to a large extent upon that river, and he reached the remarks of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir J. Lubbock) when he said that in relation to that matter the London County Council had done excellently good work in the Lower Thames. He said this impartially, because he had at one time opposed that policy on the part of the County Council, and had headed a deputation sent to protest. On the Conservancy Board there was the representation of trade by the trading members, and the representation of navigation by the Trinity House and otherwise, and they were now asked to give a representation to the great Municipality which presided over London. When he sought for an example of what ought to be the constitution of that Body, he looked to his own Conservancy in Hull, on which he had long been the representative of the Board of Trade. The Humber Conservancy included representatives of the Hull Municipality, and the absence of those representatives would be distinctly disadvantageous. An old member of the Party to which he belonged, Lord Maghera-morne, as Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, more than once asked for the representation on the Thames Conservancy that the County Council, as the successor of the Board, now sought for. The claims of the Metropolitan Board were well urged by its Chairman, and he (Sir A. Rollit) thought that those claims existed equally, if not to a greater extent, by the Body that succeeded the Board. Then a Committee of the House of Commons had carefully examined the matter and approved the claim, and as a rule it was a mistake to depart from the decisions of such Committees, which hoard the evidence and went into the details. The objection to proceeding in this matter by means of a Private Bill had been answered in the course of the Debate. They owed the right of the Loudon County Council to proceed by Private Bill legislation to the Act of 1888, and the right was one which, so far as he could judge, had been properly exercised, and which he did not think could be reasonably taken exception to. It was suggested that in the present instance it would be well to proceed by Public Bill, and that, as a preliminary, there should be another Com- mittee of Inquiry. Well, Committees or Inquiries were chiefly valuable on account of the facts they elicited; but it seemed to him from the flood of literature that had been showered on the House that the facts were already thoroughly well known, and that little more could be elicited. A Committee of Inquiry was suggested from the Conservative Benches in 1890; but no action was taken by the Conservative Government then in power, nor did he find in the mass of literature which had reached him that the Surrey County Council or the Board of Conservators were anxious for the appointment of a Committee. For these reasons he could not see his way to agree with the Lords' Amendment, and therefore he should support the Motion.

desired, as a London Member, to state why he could not vote against the Motion to disagree with the Lords' Amendment. This item of London reform was one which was admitted to be correct in principle. They could well understand that the London County Council did not consider itself justly treated when the Corporation of the City of London had seven representatives on the Conservancy Board, whilst the County Council had none. If they were represented on the Lea Conservancy Board they justly contended that they ought to have some representation on the Thames Conservancy Board. Those two considerations ought to induce hon. Members to vote for giving the London County Council a representation on the Conservancy Board. It was said that the London County Council was entitled to representation, but that other County Councils were entitled to it as well, and that one should not have it without the others. Well, if the representation were now given to the London County Council, the case for the other Public Bodies who claimed similar representation would be greatly strengthened. For these reasons he thought his hon. Friends who supported the Lords' Amendment would be placing themselves in a false position with regard to Loudon reform, as their votes would be misconstrued.

said, that a great deal had been said as to the River Thames, but he wished to say something in regard to the River Lea. Those who had spoken on behalf of the London County Council and the President of the Local Government Board himself had entirely omitted any argument in regard to the Conservancy of the Lea. The composition of that Conservancy at present was this— Five members were elected by the riparian owners, one by the owners of barges, one by the heads of certain Local Authorities, two by the New River Company, two by the East London Water Works Company, one by the Corporation of the City of Loudon, and one by the Metropolitan Board of Works— now the London County Council. Therefore, all the arguments used with respect to the case of the Thames Conservancy would not apply to the Lea Conservancy. On the latter Body the London County Council already had a representative. What would be the state of things if the Loudon County Council were to buy up the Water Companies some day? There were the riparian owners, and there were already on the Lea Conservancy Board four members representing London Water Companies which took water from the river; and, naturally, they would do all they could to insure the purity of the water supply of the Metropolis. There was also one representative of the London County Council on the Board, Therefore, at the present time, there were I six members out of 13 who represented London on the Lea Conservancy, and yet the County Council wanted to add two members to their representation. He could not help feeling that those who were interested, like himself and his constituents, in the banks of the Lea should have a fair and proper representation on the Conservancy Board; and though London might be a large body as regarded its population, perhaps its interest in the Lea might not be so great as that of some of the authorities on the banks of the river. The Lea was a river which overflowed in heavy rains and caused enormous loss to people having land on its banks, and for years they had been trying to better the principle on which the water was carried along the river. Only in the last Parliament a Bill was brought forward for that purpose. He trusted, therefore, that whether or not the House assented to add to the representation of the Loudon County Council on the Lea Conservancy Board, it would recognise that the case of the Lea differed materially from that of the Thames. When the hon. Member for Shoreditch opened the Debate he suggested that they should divide on the Preamble and take the Division as a whole; but he (Captain Bowles) would submit that the legitimate place to put the case as a whole before the House would be on Clause 5.

said, it was to be distinctly understood that the Government pledged themselves that if the House did not divide on the question they (the Government) would do their best to introduce in some way in the House of Lords a clause by which the other districts should have representation on the Thames Conservancy Board if the London County Council obtained their four seats on it. On that understanding a Division would not be insisted on.

said, the Government could give no pledge in the matter, seeing that the Bill was not their own. He had thrown out a suggestion as amicus curiœ between all the parties. He would do his best to bring about the result referred to; but he could neither pledge the Government nor the London County Council. It seemed to him that there were modes of securing legislation which would suggest themselves to gentlemen hereafter. The result desired could be secured, if not in one way, at any rate in another.

Do we understand that this object will be carried into effect this year?

That will depend on the way in which the House of Lords deal with the matter—how they take the suggestion.

Clearly.

asked if the London County Council would put a Proviso into the Bill to the effect that this particular part of the measure should not come into force until the other County Councils had representation?

said, the London County Council wished the other counties to be represented, and they would do all they could to secure that object.

said that, as an Essex Member, I he could not understand how the Essex County Council was to be safeguarded. The right hon. Gentleman opposite meant to do his best to secure the representation of the other authorities; but he could give no pledge. It seemed, therefore, to him (Colonel Lockwood) that he would hardly be doing his duty to his constituents if he did not challenge a Division. A representation signed by the Chairman of the Essex County Council and the Chairman of the Borough of West Ham had been presented, declaring that they would not object to the representation of the London County Council, but insisted that if the rights of that Council were recognised theirs also should be recognised. It was impossible for the Essex County Council to bring forward Bills in the same manner as the London County Council; and as the matter now stood, without a definite promise, he did not see how they could avoid going to a Division.

said that, as an Essex Member, he wished to state how the matter presented itself to his mind. In the first place, the London County Council was the only County Council that could proceed by means of legislation; secondly, they all agreed that the London County Council should be represented; and, next, they were all agreed that the other County Councils and the other persons having an interest should be represented as well on the Conservancy Boards of the Thames and Lea; and, lastly, there was no complaint at present of what the Thames and Lea Conservators had done, and, therefore, there could be no harm in a certain amount of delay. If there could be an assurance given that in some way elauses would be introduced to secure that all the Bodies interested should be represented it would not be necessary to go to a Division; but it did seem to him that without that they were in a difficulty. The London County Council should be represented; but he held that the various other Bodies — the Essex County Council, for instance—had, to a certain extent, rival interests which should be represented. He did not mean in the sense that they did not all want pure water and proper navigation, but that the Upper and Lower Thames and the Upper and Lower Lea should both be properly represented. If they were going to destroy the present constitution of the two Boards, which had worked well in the past, and were going to give a preponderating influence to one County Body only, it would not be fair to the other counties. That was the effect of the Essex Petition. For his own part, he should not feel justified in withholding his vote from support of the Lords' Amendment if the House divided.

, as representing a constituency interested in three-and-a-half miles of the South shore of the River Thames, in which resided thousands of Thames watermen and lightermen, who worked morning, noon, and night upon the River Thames, thought it was necessary that their interest should be represented on the Conservancy.

trusted that in the interest of the reputation of the London County Council, of which he had the honour to be a member, the House would not divide. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board could not give an assurance that the interests of the other Local Authorities would be safeguarded; but the right hon. Gentleman had said that he was firmly convinced that the arrangement he sketched out which would satisfy hon. Members was possible of attainment, provided there were a mutual desire and effort to accomplish it. If the House did not go to a Division they would be giving the London County Council an opportunity of first filling its engagement, and of showing that it would do its best to carry out the arrangement which it declared itself desirous of carrying out. Speaking as a member of that Body, he should be sorry to see the House take a step which would deprive them of that opportunity.

hoped the House would consent to the course suggested.

I must ask the right lion. Gentleman to insert "the Local Government Board," and not "the Treasury."

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press the alteration. They were in agreement on all other matters, and the London County Council were in the habit of communicating with the Treasury. The Treasury themselves had no objection to the Amendment.

said, the Treasury might not object, but the matter was not one in which the Treasury had the requisite machinery for making the necessary investigations. The Local Government Board controlled all these matters, and he was not prepared to take the London County Council out of the jurisdiction of the Local Government Board. He would move to amend the proposed Amendment by striking out the word "Treasury," in order to insert "Local Government Board."

said, he differed with the right hon. Gentleman as to facts. The London County Council were under the Treasury in all other matters, and the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would involve a new departure. It would, however, he impossible for him to oppose the Government successfully.

said, he did not wish to appear pertinacious, but his point was that the Local Government Board, and not the Treasury, had the necessary machinery —the Inspectors, and so forth. The Local Government Board must have the exercise of discretionary powers in regard to this expenditure.

thought the Local Government Board would be the proper authority to have control in this matter.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now state the terms of the Convention entered into between Sir Henry Loch, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, and President Krüger, relative to the future of Swaziland; and whether he will present Papers on the subject?

At the same time, may I ask whether the Convention concerning Swaziland, arranged with the Government of the South African Republic, has yet been signed; whether it requires, or has received, the ratification of the Volksraad of the South African Republic; whether it requires, or will receive, any ratification by the Imperial Parliament; and whether the Convention will be arranged and finally signed before Parliament has been given any opportunity of examining its terms, or expressing any opinion thereon?

I am sorry to say that I must ask hon. Gen- tlemen to postpone their questions, as I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that, in the interview given on his behalf by Lord Sandhurst to a deputation of officers commanding regiments of Volunteers on the 23rd ultimo, the Under Secretary of State for War undertook that the Government would not oppose the Volunteer Forces (Jury Exemption) Bill; and if he will accordingly communicate with the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Secretary to the Treasury, and the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, so that the blocks placed by those Ministers on behalf of the Government on the 10th and 17th of July to the Committee stage of the Bill may not be renewed?

In the interview referred to, Lord Sandhurst spoke by my authority, and after consultation with me, and the intention of what he said was to convey to the officers present the fact that, so far as the War Office was concerned, no objection would be taken to a Bill for exempting officers in the Volunteer Force from service on juries, as it was urged that this privilege would tend to increase the willingness to accept commissions. My noble Friend could, however, only speak for his own Department, and both he and I regret if what was said has been understood in any larger sense; and I must point out that the Bill now before the House is a Bill of much wider scope, extending the exemption to all Volunteers.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the exact words used were "The Government will not oppose the Bill"?

If so, they were used in the belief that the Bill referred to was the one granting the exemption to officers only.

I beg to ask the Parliamentary Charity Commissioner if arrangements can be made to furnish Members of this House, who may desire it, with copies of new Schemes when they are advertised in the newspapers of the localities affected?

The Commissioners will be glad, on application, to supply Members of this House with copies of any Scheme, in which they are interested, free of charge.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the nature of the reply received by the Irish Office to the inquiry addressed to the Irish officials in Dublin by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury relative to the amending of the law affecting Irish Light Railways?

It will be some days yet before I shall be in a position to give the decision arrived at.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether there is an officer in charge of the Sanitary Branch of the Medical Department at the War Office, and what is his rank; whether this officer (if any) is charged with the perusal of the Quarterly Sanitary Reports of the Army, and does he bring to the notice of the Director General all unsanitary conditions in the Army mentioned in those Reports; whether the Director General brings those unsanitary conditions to the notice of the Commander-in-Chief; whether the principal medical officer of the Army District inspects the barracks, and is he accompanied by the Commanding Officer at those inspections; whether in India the sanitary inspections are made half-yearly as in this country; and whether the Army Medical Officers receive the protection of the authorities so as to enable them to properly carry out their sanitary duties for the protection of the health of the rank and file of the Army at Home and in India?

An officer of the Army Medical Staff is in charge of the Sanitary and Statistical Branch of the Army Medical Department at the War Office, and his duty is to bring to the notice of the Director General any important sanitary question involved in the periodical Sanitary Reports from out-stations. If the case is of sufficient importance the Director General would draw the attention of the Commander-in-Chief to it. The actual course of these Reports is, however, rather the reverse of that indicated in the lion. Member's question. The principal Medical Officer's Report is addressed to the General Commanding the District, who takes such action on it as he thinks necessary, or, if the matter be important, refers the point to the Commander-in-Chief, who would naturally call upon the Director General for his Report and advice. The principal Medical Officer inspects barracks at home half-yearly; abroad (including India), annually. He is accompanied in his inspection by the Commanding Officer, or by some officer, not below the rank of captain, representing him. I have every reason to believe that the Medical Officers are fully supported in all matters affecting the soldier's health.

What is the rank of the officer alluded to in the first paragraph of the question?

I think he is a surgeon-major on the eve of being promoted to the rank of surgeon-lieutenant-colonel.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether there is any field hospital equipment available for the training of medical officers in the following garrisons — Portsmouth, Plymouth, Dover, Woolwich, York, Colchester, Edinburgh, Dublin, the Curragh; whether, apart from the medical corps depot at Alder-shot, I here are any facilities given to the Medical Officers in garrison there for practice in field duties; and whether the Army Medical Officers have sufficient powers to efficiently carry out their duties to the sick and wounded in the field?

At the stations named the necessary articles of field equipment are in store for purposes of mobilisation; but, as at present arranged, they are not available for purposes of instruction, except at the Curragh, where half the establishment of a field hospital can be so used. As yet, the depôt at Aldershot is the only school for the instruction of Medical Officers in field duties; but, as I informed the hon. Member on the 4th instant, it is intended to give additional opportunities for this training. I believe the Medical Officers have ample powers for carrying out all their duties.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the band of the Derbyshire Yeomanry Cavalry performed in uniform at an "At Home," at the Beaconsfield Club, Derby, on the 7th instant; and whether it is in accordance with the Rules of the Service for a military baud to perform at a political entertainment in uniform?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, may I ask if his attention has been called to the fact that the speech delivered by the chairman of the club contained these words-—

"I need not remind you that to-day we have nothing whatever to do with politics."

Is the right hon. Gentleman of opinion that Radicals would have been admitted on this occasion?

I can only hope they would under the circumstances explained by the noble Lord. I am officially informed by the officer commanding the Derbyshire Yeomanry, by telegraph, as follows:—

"At a garden party given at the Beaconsfield Club, Derby, on the 7th July, in honour of the marriage of Princess May and the Duke of York, permission was given for the band to play a programme of music. There was nothing political whatever."

I may add that the Queen's Regulations forbid the attendance of soldiers in uniform at any political meeting.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that British subjects are in possession of valuable rights and concessions extending over au area of 40 square miles in the Provinces of Chantabeen and Korat, and also in Battambong, in Siam, for the working of sapphires and rubies; whether those Provinces are in the Siamese territory now being claimed by France; and whether, in the event of their annexation by France, care will be taken to guard the interests of British subjects in their mining rights?

Her Majesty's Government believe that such concessions have been granted to British subjects and other foreigners in the districts named. It will be seen from the terms of the French ultimatum that the Provinces of Chautabeen, Korat, and Battambong, all of which lie to the west of the Mekong, are not claimed by France.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether a warder in Peterhead Prison was recently dismissed from the service on account of a charge of having been the worse for drink when on duty three years ago; if so, is it usual to punish a public servant for an offence committed three years before the charge is heard of?

The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. But, on a Report received from the Prison Commissioners, from which it appears that a full inquiry was held into all the circumstances of the case, which were of the most aggravated character, I see no reason to interfere with the discretion properly exercised by the Commissioners under Rule 238.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at a similar inquiry at Glasgow the investigation was limited to the 12 months immediately preceding?

I cannot say. But I do not think this man could have been kept on as a warder.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that Herold's School, Drummond Road, Ber-mondsey, with a capacity for 420 children, has been closed since 1st May in consequence of its insanitary condition, and the children deprived of all means of a free education; whether he is aware that all the other Board schools in the neighbourhood are more than full, and yet the School Board refuses to open temporary premises, although good accommodation can be had in Crispin's Hall and Jamaica Road Hall, each in the immediate vicinity of Herold's School; also that all the teachers have been granted a prolonged holiday and their full pay; and whether, as it is in dispute between the School Board and Herold's Trustees as to which authority is liable for the cost of complying with the sanitary improvements demanded by the local Vestry, he will state how it is proposed to settle such dispute, and how soon the school may be expected to be reopened?

The boys' and girls' departments of this school were closed on the 5th May for repairs, in consequence of a sanitary notice served by the Vrestry of Bermoudsey. Some delay occurred owing to a question arising as to who were legally responsible for carrying out the requirements of the Vestry; and the School Board for London inform me that their Works Committee had under consideration the question of hiring temporary premises either in one of the two buildings named, or in Banyard Road. But as an agreement has now been come to between the Board and the Trustees of the School as to how the cost of the improvements shall be defrayed, and as the school holidays are now beginning, they have decided not to proceed any further in the matter. As the works are being carried out by the Trustees, the School Board cannot inform me without further inquiry as to the precise date when the school will be reopened. In the meantime, it appears from the figures supplied to me that there is, as was to be expected, a considerable excess of children in most of the neighbouring Board schools. If any parents in the district are unable to obtain free school places for their children after the Herold's School has been reopened, they ought to make a representation to the Department accordingly, in order that the free places may be provided.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the sworn statement at the recent Newcastle Assizes of the Medical Officer of Health of Middlesbrough, that the village of South Hetton was the worst he had ever seen in his life as regards sanitary arrangements; and whether he will send an Inspector down to inquire into it?

I am informed that the Medical Officer of Health of Middlesbrough made a statement to the effect of that mentioned in giving evidence in an action brought by the South Hetton Coal Company against the proprietors of The North Eastern Daily Gazette for an alleged libel in connection with the condition of the village of South Hetton. But for the plaintiffs, four medical men, including the Medical Officer of Health for Sunderland and the Easington District, gave evidence that the village was in a fair sanitary condition. The Local Government Board is in communication with the Rural Sanitary Authority on the subject, and will await their reply before determining whether an inspection by an Inspector of the Local Government Board will be required.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in this particular village great efforts have been made by the owners to meet the difficulty, and that they have acted not only on their own initiative, but also at the instance of the Durham County Council? Does he not, under these circumstances, think it desirable and only just to the Durham County Council to leave them to deal with this and similar cases in the county, in which, I admit, there is much room for improvement?

Much has been done already in this village, and I hope more will be done. Of course, we should prefer to see it carried out by the Sanitary Authority' without the intervention of an Inspector of the Board.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received the Report of the Inspector sent down to inquire into the state of the Houghton-le-Spring old burial ground; and what steps he intends to take in the matter?

I have received the Inspector's Report, which states that he, in company with several members of the Local Board, the Medical Officer of Health, and a number of parishioners, inspected the burial ground. The rector was represented by two of his curates and the sexton. He reports that the cemetery stands in an open situation outside the town and is two acres in area, and the soil is dry and not unsuitable, and that there is still space for fresh interments in virgin soil, and from the evidence which he obtained he is satisfied that the water supply to the town is not affected, and he can see no sanitary reason for closing it; but he further reports that the Regulations under which it was placed by Lord Palmerston have not been carefully obeyed with respect principally to the laying out of the ground and the size of the grave spaces; consequently, I have given instructions that the Church authorities should be directed to observe the amended Regulations, a copy of which has been forwarded to them.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that whereas the piers of Clynder and Barremman (which lie contiguous to each other upon the Gareloch) have been from the dates of their construction respectively in regular use by the residents of those places, Clynder Pier, which is said to have passed lately into the hands of the owner of Barremman Pier, has been closed by him to the detriment and inconvenience of certain of the residents of Clynder; whether the Board has power to compel the owner or lessee of Clynder Pier to keep open and maintain the said pier in the interests of the public; and, if not, whether in future the Board will cause provisions to be inserted in Pier Orders and in deeds conveying Crown property to persons for such purposes in order to safeguard public interests in this respect; and in view of the fact that, owing to the severance and removal of that part of the pier formerly leading to the public thoroughfare, there is now no access to the pier from the shore; whether, and, if so, under what conditions, the Board has power to compel the removal of the remainder of the pier?

My attention has been called to the facts stated, and one of the disputants has informed the Board of Trade that he is about to take legal proceedings against the other. In these circumstances it would not be proper for me to say anything at present as to these particular piers. The Board of Trade have no power to compel the undertaker of a pier to maintain it in the interests of the public, if it is not remunerative; and I shall consider whether in future Pier Orders, or in deeds conveying Crown property for pier purposes, such a provision as the hon. Member suggests should be inserted. Under the Pier and Harbour Acts the Board have power, if a pier falls into disuse or decay, either to repair or to remove it at the expense of the owner. In the case of Clynder Pier the new owner has intimated his intention of entirely removing it.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in the event of suspicious cases occurring among future cargoes of Canadian cattle, portions of the affected lungs will be supplied if desired to independent scientific authorities for examination; and whether, in the event of the detection by his professional advisers of pathological appearances, similar to those already diagnosed by them as pleuro-pneumonia, inoculative experiments will be carried out to test the existence of a-true contagious element?

If any further cases of pleuro-pneumonia are discovered among cattle imported from Canada, I should be quite willing to take the same course as that pursued in connection with the recent cases—namely, to give facilities for the examination of the lungs by any veterinary surgeon appointed by the Canadian Government, and to supply them, so far as is practicable, with sections of the diseased portions. The suggestion made by my hon. Friend as to carrying out inoculative experiments has been frequently considered by me in conjunction with my veterinary advisers, and I need scarcely say we should certainly have had recourse to so simple a method of determining the matter if any reliable results could be obtained. I am advised, however, that the effects of inoculation with the liquid exuded in pleuro-pneumonia vary considerably. Indeed, it not infrequently happens that no local or constitutional disturbances are produced; and, moreover, the same local results have been produced by other material capable of setting up infective inflammation. In these circumstances the experiments proposed would obviously not afford any reliable test of the character of the disease.

Will the veterinary surgeon have to be an English surgeon and resident in this country?

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture when the Papers he has promised relating to the examination of the lungs of Canadian cattle by the veterinary experts of the Board will be laid upon the Table; and whether they will include the Reports of the Canadian Inspectors, and the Correspondence that has passed between the Board, the Government of Canada, and the Colonial Office respecting the order for slaughtering all Canadian cattle at the port of disembarkation?

I hope to lay the Papers in question upon the Table in the course of next week; but correspondence is now proceeding between the Colonial Office and the Board of Agriculture which it is desirable should be included. If the Canadian Government and the Colonial Office see no objection, I should propose to print the whole of the Correspondence to which my hon. Friend refers, and with a view to the inclusion of the Reports of the Canadian Imspectors I have suggested that they should be officially communicated to me.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will allow several cargoes of Canadian cattle to be landed in this country and kept in quarantine under the strict observation of the Board of Agriculture for such a time as the Board should consider necessary, in order to prove beyond dispute whether or not reasonable security exists for their free importation?

I am afraid that the arrangement proposed would not be of much assistance in connection with the matter to which the hon. Member refers. The detention of cargoes for the lengthened period necessary would involve great practical difficulty; and even if no cases of disease presented themselves amongst the animals detained, it would only prove that diseased animals are not comprised in every cargo—a fact which is already beyond dispute.

Are the veterinary officers of the Board of Agriculture of opinion that pleuro-pneumonia is so slightly infectious that it can have existed in Canada for a year and still have defied discovery by the authorities there?

That is a matter of opinion. The disease has been found in cargoes arriving in Scotland, and by the Act which I have to administer the country which has to determine what precautions are necessary is the importing country.

I shall raise the question on the Estimates.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any negotiations or correspondence were entered into or carried on with the Government of the United States with a view to that "direct agreement between India and the United States," in reference to the silver question which is spoken of in the Despatch of the Government of India to the Secretary of State for India of the 21st June, 1892 (No. 160); and, if so, whether he can lay upon the Table any Papers indicating the nature of the negotiations or the correspondence?

No such negotiations were carried on. The Delegates of the United States at the International Monetary Conference pressed for an International agreement; but none had been, or seemed likely to be, arrived at when the Conference adjourned; and the position of the Government of India rendered further delay highly inadvisable.

I beg-to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether there would be any objection to a Return giving the Correspondence between Her Majesty's Stationery Office and Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode, on the subject of the present contract for the sole agency for the sale of Government publications commencing 1887?

I do not think it would be right, or desirable in the public interest, to publish such Correspondence between the Stationery Office and a contractor upon the working of his contract.

I shall raise the question on the Estimates.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he has any expectation of moving the Education Estimates during the six days between 28th July and 4th August; and, if not, whether he can indicate any date at which they will probably be taken?

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any further information relative to the expulsion of an Impi of Matabele men from Mashonaland?

We have not received any further news from Sir H. Loch; but we have telegraphed to him in reference to the news that has appeared in the papers?

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to make good to the "lower deck" survivors of H.M.S. Victoria, such losses of kit and clothing as they may have suffered?

In accordance with the Regulations for the Navy, every survivor of the Victoria, whether man or boy, is entitled to have all loss of kit (which includes clothing) made good to him, either by fresh articles being issued to him free of charge or by money compensation.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, inasmuch as the Agricultural Department of the University College of Wales, Aberystwith, gives instruction to seven counties which comprise the most agricultural parts of Wales as well as the largest area of the Principality, and having regard to the necessity of further strengthening the agricultural staff within the College, the Board of Agriculture will increase the grant for agricultural instruction to Aberystwith College, so as to bring it to the same amount as is granted to the Colleges at Durham and Leeds and the University College of North Wales at Bangor?

I regret that it is not possible for me to anticipate my decision as to the amount to be awarded lo the College at Aberystwith in respect of agricultural instruction during the current year. It will, however, be my endeavour to allocate the limited funds placed at my disposal with fairness and a due regard to the position and work of the various Institutions concerned, and I am glad to say that the most recent Reports I have received show that the work at Aberystwith is growing, and that it is of a satisfactory character.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has received the written testimony of six separate and reliable witnesses, and the names of six others prepared to give testimony, all of whom contradict the statement made by the officer who wounded with his sword Arthur Walker on the day of the Royal Wedding; and whether he will now order an independent investigation into all the circumstances of the case? I beg also to ask whether on I he day of the Royal Marriage the officers in charge of the soldiers in the streets had stringent orders to cut down, if necessary, anyone who attempted to break through the lines: whether ball cartridges were served to the soldiers on duty on the same occasion, to be used in a, case of emergency; and whether it is customary on the occasion of a State pageant to arm the soldiers with ball cartridge, and give officers stringent instructions to cut down sightseers who attempt to break through the lines?

I am obliged to the hon. Member for sending me letters from six persons who witnessed the occurrence in the Strand. Their evidence varies somewhat, but I do not think that any inquiry would | were grave enough to justify the hon. bring out more than has been already disclosed. As I have already staled, the officer disclaims any intention to injure the man, the seal wound being practically the result of a regrettable accident. In answer to the further question, I have to say that no orders such as described were given to the officers in charge of troops, that no ball ammunition was issued, and that it is not customary on similar occasions to take such extreme steps.

Does the officer adhere to his statement that Walker endeavoured to grasp the reins of the horse and thereby caused the accident?

I would not go so far as to say that this caused the accident to occur; but it was the reason why the officer struck him with his sword. The accident consisted not in the seizing of the rein, but in the sharp edge of the sword meeting the man's bead instead of the flat. With regard to the catching hold of the reins, which, as the hon. Member says, was an important factor in tin; occurrence, even some of the letters—one, at any rate, which is most elaborate in its details—admit that it was quite possible the rein was taken hold of, and suggest it was done, not with a view of stopping the horse but because the man was ed by the crowd between the horse an omnibus—an empty omnibus— and which was standing in the street. One way or other, it is most natural to suppose tint, in the circumstances, the rein was taken hold of; and, if so, the conduct of the officer, so far as that goes, was not unnatural.

But does not the writer of that particular letter say he was not in a position to see whether Walker did seize the horse's rein or not, and do not the five writers, all of whom were looking from windows, distinctly state that the rein was not grasped at all, and that Walker was not in a position to seize it hail he endeavoured to do so? Under these circumstances, and despite the levity with which the matter has been treated, I ask, do not these assertions justify, in the interests of the Service and of the public, an independent investigation?

I quite agree that the circumstances Member in sending me these letters. I am not at all surprised that persons who saw more or less of what occurred should be willing to come forward with their testimony; but I disagree with the hon. Member in his supposition that inquiry would bring out any more than we have ascertained, in the confusion and hurry that prevail on such an occasion it seldom happens that one man sees the whole occurrence; and the conclusion I have formed from the letters I have received is that inquiry would bring out no more certain knowledge of the facts.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether His Serene Highness the Duke of Teck is a Major General Supernumerary of the British Army; what are the duties attaching to the position; what salary or emoluments are allowed him as Major General Supernumerary; and what was the date of his appointment?

His Serene Highness the Duke of Teck, who was a Colonel in the Army supernumerary to the Establishment, has been promoted to be Major General under the same conditions. Such an appointment involves no duty and carries no pay.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when he will be in a position to lay upon the Table of the House the full details of the new battleships and large cruisers to be laid down in 1893–4?

The statement in regard to the new battleships will be laid upon the Table of the House very shortly. A similar statement as to the first-class cruisers may be delayed, as the details of the design have not yet been completed; but as full a description as practicable will be furnished before the Shipbuilding Vote is taken.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to an error in the Report presented to this House from the Joint Committee on Electric Powers (Protective Clauses); whether he is aware that the error did not occur in the Report from that Committee presented to the House of Lords; and whether it is the custom to set up in type Reports from Joint Committees separately for the two Houses? I may explain that the error was the omission of the word "substantially."

I have referred to the two issues of the Report and Proceedings in question for the House of Lords and House of Commons respectively. It appears clear that they have been separately set up, and I am informed that it is the practice to set up the Reports and Proceedings of such Joint Committees separately for both Houses. I will make inquiries, with a view to discovering how the difference between the two issues of the Report arose, and obviating any such mistakes in future, and also, in the interests of economy, with a view to preventing documents being needlessly set up twice.

Will my right hon. Friend endeavour to secure that there shall only be one printing in the future? Can it not be done by a friendly arrangement?

The moment I heard of it I made up my mind to try and arrange that in the interests of economy.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any information has been received at the Foreign Office relating to tortures inflicted on Armenian prisoners at Cæsarea; and whether he is able to make any statement on the subject?

The alleged acts of torture are said to have taken place in January last. Her Majesty's Charge d' Affaires at Constantinople has been instructed to mention to the Porte the unofficial statements which have reached the Embassy; but without further confirmation of their accuracy I should not feel justified in giving any particulars of them.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, in view of the fact that the increase of work at the Central Telegraph Office necessitates the employment of a large body of temporary hands for periods so extended as to render them practically permanent, he will consider the necessity of increasing the permanent staff so far as to enable it to cope with the permanent demands of the work; whether lie is aware that the Ridley Commission condemned the employment of "permanent temporary" hands in other Civil Service establishments, and recommended its discontinuance; and whether he can bring his Department within the terms of this recommendation?

Comparing the total business done by the Department in telegraph messages in 1892–3 with that done in the previous year, it would appear that the business is almost stationary. There have been symptoms, however, in places of a small increase, but it is by no means certain it will be maintained. Any permanent addition to the force under such circumstances is a matter which requires serious consideration, and the question is now engaging my attention. It is probable that some addition will be before long required in the Central Telegraph Office; but, as I have already explained to the House, tin absolute discontinuance of temporary hands is incompatible with the conditions of the work.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Crown make any charge on the admission or appointment of County Magistrates; and whether Clerks of the Peace, or Deputy Clerks of the Peace, have the right to make a charge for Crown Office and other charges amounting to 33 3s. and upwards?

I must ask my hon. Friend to postpone this for a couple of days. I am making inquiries.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is able to say whether the officer of the watch on duty in the Victoria at the time of the collision is one of the survivors?

Lieutenant Charles J. Collins was officer of the watch. He was among those saved, and has given evidence at the Court Martial.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the saving of 37,406 per annum, effected by the reduction under Treasury Warrant, dated 30th June, 1893, of the Terminable Annuities created to replace the £40,000,000 Consolidated Stock held on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature, by reducing the said Annuities from £2,605,706 to £2,598,300, will be applied annually till 1904 to the reduction of further Debt, or will be appropriated by the Treasury for current expenditure?

This Annuity being within the fixed Debt charge of £25,000,000, any saving in respect of it goes to the new Sinking Fund, which consists of all the un appropriated portions of the fixed charge.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the County Medical Officer of Health for Ross and Cromarty has resigned his office for the Western District of the county; if so, whether steps will be taken to require the Board of Supervision to appoint a County Medical Officer of Health who will be able to devote the whole of his time to the duties of the office?

I have received information that this officer has resigned his appointment. It will be for the County Authority to appoint his successor, and they will, no doubt, select the best man possible.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether automatic brakes were fitted to the carriages of the train on the Highland Railway in which the Duke and Duchess of Sutherland and a large number of passengers were travelling when the accident occurred at Dingwall a few days since?

The Company have telegraphed that automatic brakes were fitted to the carriages. The line was under repair and nobody was hurt.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, as reported in The People's Journal of Saturday, 22nd July, of a meeting of the Ross and Cromarty County Council, held at Dingwall on Wednesday the 19th instant, at which it was stated that Lady Matheson, of Stornoway Castle, proprietor of the Island of Lewis, with its population of 28,500, refused to give the necessary guarantee in regard to the sum required, in addition to the Government grant, for the construction of piers and boatslips in the island, and that, in consequence of the chronic poverty of the inhabitants, it was useless to expect a guarantee from them, the meeting resolved to draw the attention of the Government to the case as being worthy of special consideration; and whether the Government will pro- vide the necessary funds to enable the work to be carried out before winter?

I have seen no account of the meeting referred to.

Then I will send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the report.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, considering that, the lives of thousands of Her Majesty's Mahomedan subjects are every year placed in danger in consequence of the insanitary condition of Mecca during the Hajj, and in view of the fact that some mouths ago a, public meeting of Mahomedans was held at Madura, when a resolution was passed to memorialise the Sultan of Turkey to adopt suitable measures for improving the sanitation of Mecca and other places of pilgrimage, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will urge the Forte to secure the immediate publication of the Report of the Ottoman Board of Health on this subject?

The subject already occupies the attention of Her Majesty's Embassy, and no effort will be spared to secure the adoption of suitable sanitary measures by the Ottoman Authorities.

Can the hon. Baronet say when this Ottoman Board was constituted?

I cannot.

I bog to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the French Republic has in any way modified the attitude of commercial hostility to British trade taken up in Indo-China and Tonkin in recent years on instructions from Paris, or shows any disposition to lower the prohibitive duties levied upon British goods; and, in the contrary case, if the restrictions imposed by France throughout her Colonics upon the development of English commerce will be borne in mind in any negotiations for the extension of her Eastern Possessions, and especially in directions offering at present great facilities to British traders?

No alteration of the colonial policy of France in giving French trade preferential treatment in relation to foreign trade has taken place. The restrictions imposed are, of course, well-known to Her Majesty's Government.

In the absence of the right hon. Member for the Ormskirk Division of Lancashire, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state when the Navy Estimates, will be brought forward?

No early day can be devoted to Navy Estimates. Due notice will be given of the date when they will be taken.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the opinion recently expressed by him as to the usefulness of a. Ladies' Committee, the Buckingham Board of Guardians, at their last meeting on the proposition of the Rev. J. Corr, Vicar of Foscott, abolished the Ladies' Committee; and whether, looking to this and other instances of the way in which Boards of Guardians perform their duties, he will use his best endeavours to push on his Parish and District Councils Bill?

I have not been informed of the passing of a resolution such as that referred to in the question. If one were passed I should deeply regret it. No man in this House is more anxious than I am to see the Local Government Bill passed into law.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the imminent danger of a strike in the Midlands in which 200,000 miners are involved; and whether the Board of Trade have taken, or can take, any steps with a view to effecting a peaceful settlement between the contending parties?

Yes, Sir; my attention has been drawn to the serious state of affairs, which may result in a stoppage of work in many important mining districts. Steps have been taken by the Labour Department to obtain full and accurate information on the subject (part of which has already been published in The Labour Gazette), but the Board of Trade have at present no statutory powers to undertake arbitration or conciliation or to intervene in-a trade dispute.

Is there anything to prevent the Board of Trade interfering and exercising its influence in the direction of peace?

I think the Board would probably be subjected to a, rebuff if it attempted to intervene. It has no statutory powers to act. Already some applications have been made to me by employers in favour of arbitration; but having regard to the declaration on the part of the miners, that they will submit to no reduction and will refuse arbitration, I do not think I could with advantage intervene at present.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a letter from Mrs. Elizabeth Gladstone, of County Limerick, in which she affirms that the statements in the question addressed to him on the 17th instant, regarding her property and the treatment she has received, are strictly accurate; and whether he has made further inquiries into the case, and with what result?

Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the fact that the caretaker employed by this lady failed to answer a summons before a Resilient Magistrate for illegally firing a, revolver, and that consequently a Bench warrant was issued for his arrest?

I believe that that is so. In reply to the question on the Paper, I have to say that I have received a letter from the lady referred to, in which she makes a general assertion of the nature indicated in the question. I have made further inquiries of the fullest kind, and see no reason to depart from the answer I have already given. It was alleged in the previous questions of the hon. Member that this lady has been boycotted, refused the payment of her rents, and robbed of her property; that hay to the value of £250 was forcibly carried away by Noonan, an evicted tenant, by the aid of a crowd of neighbours from the mountains; that compensation was refused on the ground that the removal was a larceny; that Noonan's farm has since been boycotted; that she has now, according to the hon. Member's question of July 10, about 150 Ions of grass for hay standing on this farm worth nearly £1,000, according to the hon. Member's question of July 17 over 100 tons, and that no one dares purchase or remove the hay. The Constabulary report that, except in the case of Noonan, the relations of this lady with her tenants are good, nor are they aware of any boycotting; that the hay removed in 1892 was not valued at £250. It was sold by Noonan for about £64, and the Grand Jury appear to have measured its value at about £100. The hay was sold as it stood on the farm by Noonan by auction, and the purchasers openly carried away the hay. Noonan was at this time in occupation of the place as caretaker. [Sir E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Hear, bear!] Yes, and that has never been disputed. A notice under Section 7 of the Land Act of 1887 was served on him on November 16, 1891. In February last he appears to have been turned out, but thereupon reinstated as caretaker, but not his son, who had been hitherto living with him. The Grand Jury award was traversed before the Judge on the ground that the necessary legal notice had not been served on the secretary of the Grand Jury. It was also contended that the removal was not a malicious injury. The presentment was, according to the records of the Grand Jury, nullified by the Judge on the ground that the legal notice was not served. The police value the present crop as considerably below that suggested. They have no reason to believe that there would be any attempt to interfere with the persons she may employ. But any necessary protection would, of course, lie at once afforded by them.

Of course, it is impossible for me by way of question and answer to argue upon this statement. ["Order, order!"] I shall not say a single sentence on that now, but I shall take an opportunity on the Estimates to point out that the right hon. Gentleman has by his present statement considerably altered his previous statement—[MR. J. MORLEY: Not at all] —aud confirmed most important parts of my statement. I will not now argue with the right hon. Gentleman.

And on the Estimates I shall call attention to the conduct and threats of this lady's caretaker, to his action in brandishing a revolver, and to the fact that adequate protection is afforded by the police.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland have the Laud Commission been advised that no appeal lies to the House of Lords from the mandamus granted by a majority of the Court of Appeal against them (reversing the Queen's Bench) in "Rossmore v. Donnelly;" if not, do they intend to allow the dictum of the Lord Chief Baron affecting the status of every agricultural tenancy in Ireland to be incorporated in their procedure in hearing fair-rent applications; did the landlord's notice of appeal from the Sub-Commissioners cover the point as to the tenant's status subsequently raised in the Court of Appeal; and do the Land Commissioners hold that their decision to appear or not appear as litigants on a mandamus application before the Supreme Court of Judicature is an exercise of judicial discretion?

I am informed that the Commissioners are engaged today in the business of the Court, and have not had time to reply to my telegram. I must ask the hon. Member to postpone the question till Thursday.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has observed the number of convictions in connection with bogus clubs iu Dublin; and whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill deal- ing with this evil, or whether the Government will support the Bill on this subject already passed its First Reading?

I am pleased to hear that there have been several successful prosecutions in Dublin arising out of the evil referred to within the last three months, and that the police have a number of other similar cases now pending. The Government cannot promise legislation on the subject, and until the Bill to which the lion. Member refers has been printed I am afraid I cannot undertake to say whether the Government would support it.

Will the Government assist the Irish Members to extend to Ireland the provision of the Clubs Registration (England) Bill?

I am not acquainted with that Bill, but I will consider the point.

I beg to ask the Attorney General whether he is aware that a large number of cases have been stated and set down for hearing by the High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division) on questions relating to the assessment of Limited Companies for Income Tax; that some of these cases involve very considerable sums and affect the profits of these Companies for several years past; that certain of these cases were set down more than 18 months ago, and have never been allowed to reach a hearing; and that the Companies have nevertheless been compelled to pay the amounts in dispute as charged by the authorities; whether he can state the cause of such delay and the remedy for it; and whether he can state the total number of such cases?

The hon. Member has been misinformed as to the facts. The number of cases which have been stated and set down for hearing by the High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division) on questions relating to the assessment of Limited Companies for Income Tax, and which have not been decided, is two, and two only. Those two cases were set down for hearing in January last, and were heard last week, when judgment was reserved in each case.

I wish to ask a question, of which I have given private notice to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, which he may be able to answer before he makes the promised statement as to Siam. It is as follows:—Whether the French Government have notified the blockade of the coast of Siam; whether this is to be interpreted as an act of belligerency between France and Siam; whether the blockade has been, or will be, recognised by Her Majesty's Government; and what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take with regard to a measure that will inflict the most serious damage upon British trade and shipping in the East?

Her Majesty's Government have received verbal notice from the French Government of their intention to establish a blockade of Siam. Such a measure would be undoubtedly an act of belligerency between France and Siam. We propose to continue our present protection in Bangkok of British life and property; but the Government do not think it advisable in the public interest that any further statement on the subject should be made to-day.

In regard to the statement that the blockade would constitute an act of belligerency, is it supposed that there would be any declaration of war or would it be a mere implied belligerency? Or, in other words, is it to be a pacific blockade?

I hope to enter into further details on Thursday. I apprehend the exact value to be attached to a blockade must vary according to the circumstances in each particular case.

Am I to understand from the answer of the hon. Baronet that no British vessel, not even a ship carrying the mails, can from Thursday next ascend the River Menam to Bangkok without the risk of being fired upon by the French? Will any steps be taken by Her Majesty's Government to mitigate so serious a state of affairs; also may I ask when we may look forward to receiving some notification of the proceedings pending with our Ambassador at Paris?

Any further statement must depend upon the communica- tions now passing between this Government and the French Government, and as regards any details of the blockade we have only just received notice of the blockade, and I should be glad if the hon. Member would give notice as regards the passage of the mails.

May I ask whether Her Majesty's Government are taking steps to secure some equality of the naval forces between France and England?

We have already assured the House—and that assurance still holds good—that we have sufficient naval forces to protect the lives and property of British subjects at Bangkok.

It may be for the convenience of the House that I should state that we propose to proceed with the Education Votes for England and Scotland on Friday. After the Education Votes we propose to proceed with other Supply, intending to take the Votes in their order, unless special circumstances should intervene, of which, of course, we should give due notice. This will hold good until Wednesday, and then we propose to proceed with the Vote on Account, which it will be necessary to report to the House not later than Friday.

When will the Vote on Account be printed, and for how long will it be?

Six weeks.

Which Vote will be taken after the Education Vote?

The Votes will be taken in their order unless special circumstances necessitate an alteration.

Will the Scottish or English Education Vote be taken first?

Notice will be given of that.

It would be of great convenience to many hon. Members to know whether the English or Scottish Education Vote will be take first.

I will state what will be done to-morrow.