said, he proposed to move as an Amendment that the Bill he read a second time that day six months. He would do it as briefly as he could. This Bill was identically the same as was rejected by the House on the Second Reading 12 months ago, and the reasons for its rejection on that occasion by a substantial majority were twofold: First, that it was unnecessary and not urgent; and, secondly, that it tended to prejudge the question of the future water supply of London. On the present occasion these arguments applied with intensified force, because the Royal Commission which had sat on the London Water Supply question had reported—and in their Report would be found abundant proof—that this Water Company had not only an adequate supply of water for the present and for many years to come, but was actually able to supply its present needs subject to the conditions which were proposed to be imposed upon it by the Royal Commission. It would be for him to make these statements good, and he was able to do so by referring to the evidence as well as to the Report. If the House passed this Bill the effect would be to saddle the future Water Authority of London and the neighbourhood, and that meant practically the ratepayers, with a very large amount of capital which really was not required, as he would be able to show to the House, in the event of the water supply of London in the future being taken not from the Lea and from the Thames, but from outside sources. This was a very serious question. Already a very considerable amount of capital had been expended on the development of the water supply from the Lea and the Thames. The London County Council, in opposing this Bill, was not seeking to decide against the supply being taken from those sources, for he would remind the House that the Royal Commission had stated that, under certain circumstances with respect to storage and purification, the Thames and the Lea together were sufficient to provide a sufficient water supply for any probable extension of population. That might be so or not, but it was simply a, contribution to the main question which would have to be settled before they could come to a, decision as to in what form the London water supply was in the future to be secured. The Royal Commission was called upon to decide first whether the areas of the Thames and Lea. Valleys were sufficient, and it was only in event of their coming to the conclusion that they were insufficient that they were to go into the question of other sources of supply. But, as a matter of fact, they came to the conclusion that the areas would be sufficient for all practical purposes. Although the London County Council did not, by opposing this Bill at the present moment, seek to prejudge the question, he felt that that body would fall exceedingly far short in its duty if it allowed any steps to be taken which would ignore the natural desire of the people of London to have outside sources of supply. The interests of the London County Council, and of Loudon generally, were as a matter of fact identical with the interests of the inhabitants of Essex, Middlesex, and neighbouring counties. When this Bill was before the House on a previous occasion a member of the Essex County Council, the member who in this House represented North Somerset, spoke very strongly in regard to the matter. What was the position as it then stood? There was no doubt a clause in the Bill as originally brought in respecting the fittings of the Water Company, but the clause had been withdrawn by the Com- pany. They indicated their intention to withdraw it before the Bill came on for discussion on the Second Reading. The London County Council were not taking this step in their own interest as against the interests of Essex or against any other county. All they desired was to oppose the granting of unnecessary capital to the Companies which the Water Authorities for various districts would have eventually, with the consent of the House, to acquire. They objected to giving them capital for undertakings which were not at this moment urgent, and which would prejudge the great question likely to arise in the immediate future. There was a point in connection with the Bill which had nothing to do with the important question of supply. He referred to the question of mains, and he would state at once to hon. Gentlemen who supported the Bill that if they desired to have new mains laid down in order to supply their districts, and if they could show before a Committee of this House that it was desirable to have those mains, then if the Bill were, as he hoped it would be, thrown out, and if those who represented the East London Company chose to introduce a Bill dealing with the question of mains they would find no opposition raised, and on the contrary every assistance afforded them in the direction of the suspension of Standing Orders, so that they might carry that particular portion of their scheme to a Committee. But the amount of additional capital proposed to be raised under this Bill was £500,000, of which only about £20,000 annually for seven years was asked for for mains and similar purposes. He proposed now to deal with the argument contained in the statement sent out by the promoters of the Bill. The first thing to which he had to draw attention was the statement in Clause 5, that unless they obtained the powers they were now seeking the new districts which were being developed would, for an indefinite period, run a serious risk in sanitary matters by reason of the insufficiency of the water supply. That he ventured to flatly deny, and he hoped he would be able to prove to the House that this was a misapprehension of the existing state of things. He asserted that not only had the East London Company water enough to supply all their mains, but that it had been proved by their own witnesses before the Royal Commission that the supply was ample. The promoters asserted that if these new populations which were growing up were to be supplied with wholesome water, new mains and pipes would have to be at once laid down in the new districts, large reservoirs would have to be established, and the necessary machinery fixed. He repeated, as to new mains and pipes, that was a very small matter indeed, and again he offered if hon. Gentlemen opposite would withdraw the rest of the Bill, he, on the part of the London County Council, would offer no objection to that portion of the scheme receiving legislative sanction, providing, of course, that the investigation of a Committee of the House proved the existence of the necessity for these extensions. But the Bill generally involved a very important question—namely, the water supply of London for the next 40 years, and this was a matter which he ventured to suggest was tit to be decided not by a Committee of the House, but by the House itself. What he hoped he would be able to show hon. Members was that the question of the sufficiency of the sources of supply from the Lea and the Thames was not one of which it was necessary to come to any decision at the present time. According to the evidence given by the promoters of the Bill before the Royal Commission, the East London Company were at present supplying an average of 40,000,000 gallons daily, and the engineer to the Company stated that whereas that was, at the time he was giving his evidence, the present requirement of the Company, five years hence it would be necessary to supply 42,000,000 gallons daily, and 10 years hence—namely, in 1901, the quantity required would be 44,000,000 gallons. Thus in 10 years there would be an increase of 10 per cent. in the requirements of the Company. These statements by the engineer were subjected to a close examination, as would be found on reference to the evidence. Now, he ventured to suggest, there was nothing alarming in the growth which the officials of the Company estimated would have to be provided for. The Company at present supplied 40,000,000 gallons daily; 10 years hence they would be required to supply 44,000,000. But what was the amount of water the Company was able, if necessary, to supply? In the first place, they admitted that they had supplied, and could supply, 37,000,000 gallons per day from the River Lea. They also admitted that they had consecutively for weeks supplied from the River Thames 10,000,000 gallons per day, and they further admitted in their evidence that for weeks successively on different occasions they had supplied from their own wells 7,000,000 gallons per day. These statements were contained in evidence given in 1892, and they showed that the Company had the absolute power of supplying from these different sources 54,000,000 gallons daily without finding it necessary to make any additional provision. That being so, and their sources of supply being so much in excess of what they estimated would be their daily requirements 10 years hence, he did venture to submit to the House that it was undesirable by passing this Bill to prejudge the whole question of the future supply of London, and he thought he had made it quite clear that the Bill did prejudge that question, because all the Company had to do to get what they required was to use the powers which they at present possessed of pumping from their wells and of taking water from the Thames. The Royal Commission had reported that the Company ought not to take more than 30,000,000 gallons of water daily from the Lea, and they had suggested that increased storage accommodation was desirable. The promoters stated that the storage works which the Hill proposed to authorise were being provided on the recommendation of the Royal Commission and were immediately necessary; but that was not a fair statement of the case; and if the Company would take its full supply from the Thames and the wells, which amounted to 17,000,000 gallons, they need not abstract more than 27,000,000 gallons from the Lea, and even then they would have an absolutely sufficient supply for the next 10 years. Besides the water capacity they had, they had the power of inter-sale between the various Companies that existed, and they could increase the quantity of water they could get from the Thames to an almost indefinite extent by the exercise of that power. There was accessible to the East Loudon Water Company an amount of 10,000,000 gallons more than their immediate requirements without any extra capital being laid out, and it might proceed to supply all its needs for the next 10 years, and yet diminish very considerably its supply from the Lea. Again, it was quite obvious that greater storage capacity was not required by the Company. Its storage was the largest, with one exception, of any Company in London. It had storage capacity for 910,000,000 gallons, equal to 14 or 15 days' supply, whereas the average storage was something like six days' supply. There was only one other point he wished to put to the House respecting Clause 3, and it related to machinery. It might be said that the Company required further machinery, but the evidence given before the Royal Commission showed very clearly that they had abundant engine supplies. In the Report of the Royal Commission, in Questions 660 and 661, there was a statement of the enormous amount of machinery possessed by the Company for pumping purposes, and it appeared that they had more than 50per cent. of stand-by or surplus power in all of their different districts. The Chairman of the Commission asked—

"We may take it that your present machinery is modern high-class machinery doing good duty?"

To which the reply was—

"Splendid duty. All our new engines are triple expansion engines."

So much for the points in respect of the third clause of the statement of the promoters. He would turn to one other point. It was stated in the evidence before the Commission itself that the reservoirs proposed in this Bill were not to provide water for what was needed now, but for very distant and future requirements. The engineer and secretary to the Company had laid before the Royal Commission a statement as to what the Company could supply, and how it could meet all present and prospective needs. They were summoned back to deal with the point of additional provisional supply, because the Commission felt it would still investigate how the additional supply could be provided and that, additional supply was what was referred to in this Bill. Here was what passed on this subject before the Royal Commission—

"The Chairman: You have already taken, I think, about 37,000,000 gallons daily from the Lea?—Yes.

"Then do you think if you raise the racecourse reservoir and make the two projected reservoirs"

—that was what was proposed to be done by this Bill—

"you can get 40,000,000 gallons a day without making the new compensation reservoirs?—Speaking from my experience at the present time we can do so."

It would be seen, therefore, that the provision of these reservoirs which were proposed in this Bill was to make arrangements for the supply of 40,000,000 gallons in place of 30,000,000, but he had shown that by even a much less amount than 30,000,000 gallons daily taken from the River Lea—although they were taking much more than that—the East London Company could supply all that was required. It was necessary for those who opposed the Bill to show how very dangerous and doubtful were the sources of supply from which the East London Water Company proposed to take this extra quantity, because if it was no matter where the supply came from, they might as well let them take it from there as elsewhere. The Royal Commission reported as follows about the supplies from the Thames and the Lea, which were proposed to be taken for the next 40 years by the Company:—

"Having regard to the experience of London during the last 30 years and to the evidence given on the subject, we do not believe that any danger exists of the spread of disease by the use of this water provided there is no adequate storage, and that the water is sufficiently filtered before being delivered to consumers."

It was exactly that adequate storage and the additional filterage which required the expenditure of very large sums of money. But what did the Royal Commissioners themselves say on the subject? Mr. Mansergh himself, one of the Royal Commissioners, was examined before a Royal Commission of this House on behalf of the Birmingham Corporation, and on that occasion he said that any river flowing through an enormous tract of agricultural country must produce water which nowadays they would not think of supplying. He knew (said Mr. Mansergh) that many districts would not have water from such a source; and he knew of places which had had to abandon costly works simply because of the water procurable from such a source being gradually polluted, and they did not want to repeat that in Birmingham. It was because they did not want to repeat that in London, and at any rate because they did not want to be forced into repeating it unnecessarily, that he raised opposition to the Bill at the present moment, and the House would see that there were many considerations about the supply from the Lea and the Thames. The Commission did not investigate any other supplies; they did not bring out what would be the relative expenses of supplying London from these and from external sources. They who opposed this Bill believed the Company would supply inferior water from the Thames and the Lea at a much greater cost than would be entailed by bringing water from external districts. They had also the important question of the impurity of the water from an agricultural district to take into account, and, on these grounds, they opposed the Bill being read a second time, because, as he had shown, it unnecessarily endeavoured to prejudge the question. The Loudon County Council was perfectly willing to make overtures for itself becoming the Water Authority. It had got these powers under the Act of 1892; it was willing to take this responsibility itself, and it had offered by resolution passed some time ago to treat with the Water Companies for taking over their undertakings on fair and reasonable terms. It had applied to this very Company, and to the other Company which had a Bill down, and they had refused to negotiate with the Council. ["No, no!"] Well, they did not accept the basis of negotiations which the County Council proposed, but they made no counter proposal. The County Council had passed a further resolution to the effect that, if the Company would not come to terms, the Council ought to move this House to determine the question. He might appeal confidently to Members on both sides of the House who represented great Municipalities to say that it was a fair and right thing for the County Council to endeavour to acquire these various Companies; but they did not want to acquire them with a dead limb of capital attached to them at this moment, when it was unnecessary, and which prejudged the question of whether they were going to get their supply through them or through other sources. Even if the County Council did not become the Water Authority, the body which did become such authority ought to be able to decide where the future supplies ought to come from; and even if it came from the valley of the Thames and Lea, it did not at all stand to reason that the first step in the undertaking should be more capital expended on a reservoir for the Lea when they considered the circumstances of the Thames. He contended that this Bill was absolutely unnecessary from the point of the supply of the quantity or quality of water, because it had been shown before the Royal Commission that there was ability in this Company to get vastly more than it required for the next 10 years from sources which the Royal Commission approved of, and which needed no further expenditure for works. The expenditure proposed by this Bill on reservoirs, filters, and pumping, was an expenditure for a far distant period, which should be incurred only if they required to get a supply for 40 years, or for a very long period of time, from the Lea. The other districts of London, Essex, and the borders of the London County Council district, were equally interested with the London County Council in securing that there should not be this dead limit of capital attached. This was a matter of vital importance to the health of the people of London and the surrounding neighbourhoods, and he asked this House to defend them against such a prejudging of this question as would take place if the present Bill be sent up to a Committee at the present time. If the Bill were thrown out—as he hoped it might be—he and his friends had no objection to its being brought up again so far as it related to the provision of mains, but they could not allow the Bill to prejudge the all-important question of where the London water supplies were to come from. He begged to move "That the Bill be read a second time upon this day six mouths."

did not propose to follow the hon. Member for Hoxton in the details which he had presented to the House upon this Bill, and indeed he looked upon the hon. Gentleman positively as an advocate for reading the Bill a second time and sending it to a Committee, because it was clearly evident to the House that it was quite impossible they could master the details which the hon. Member had put before them, and which were essentially matters for the ordinary Committee of this House to deal with. There were one or two principles involved in this question which he must shortly place before the House. Of course, it was quite impossible upon this occasion to dissociate the two Companies whose Hills were before the House to-day, because the statement issued by the London County Council not only classed these two Bills together, but went so far as to include a third, which was not even down for Second Heading. The position of those Water Companies applying now to Parliament for further capital and an extension of powers was shortly this: They had come to the end of their tether as far as money was concerned, and if they were to fulfil their statutory obligations to supply water they must have more money, because to supply the water they must have more reservoirs and more filtering power. Last year this Company applied to Parliament for further powers, the Bill being thrown out on the Second Beading, and the main reason then given by the hon. Member for Hoxton, who led the attack, was that there was a Royal Commission sitting, and it was quite premature for the Water Company to ask for further powers until such Commission had reported. That argument could no longer be urged. The Royal Commission had reported favourably as far as the Loudon water was concerned, and it was, indeed, entirely in consequence of the Report of the Royal Commission that those Water Companies sought further powers. The House would permit him to read one paragraph from the Report of the Royal Commission, which was perhaps the most important in the whole Report. The Commissioners stated they were strongly of opinion that the water as supplied to the consumer in London was of a very high standard of excellence and purity, and that it was suitable in quality for all household purposes. The Commissioners further stated that they were aware that a certain prejudice existed against drinking water supplied from the Thames and the Lea, but they did not believe that there was any danger of the spread of disease from the use of such water, provided there was adequate storage for it, and that the water was efficiently filtered before it was delivered to the consumers. It was because of the desire to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission, to provide adequate reservoirs and means to filter the water properly, that the Companies now came for further powers. The Water Companies in the last four or five years had been applied to from time to time by the Local Government Board with reference particularly to storage. He held in his hand a letter from the Local Government Board to one of the Water Companies, written at the close of the year 1891, which said—

"I am directed by the Local Government Board to draw the attention of the Company to Dr. Frankland's Report for October, from which it appears evident that the Company are unable to deal satisfactorily with the water when the Thames is in flood, and I am to state that the Metropolitan Water Examiner reports to them that it is now necessary that the Company should consider the question of making such sufficient addition to their works as will enable them to supply water of better quality than is now done when the circumstances are as above stated."

To that the Company promptly replied, pointing out, in reference to the state of the water when the Thames was in flood, that it was due at that time to the exceptionally heavy rains which had been of long duration, and they went on to say—

"The Directors are fully alive to the importance of ample storage, and the desirability of increasing the present reservoir capacity would have been considered before this had it not been for the manner in which the Companies had been hampered by recent proceedings in Parliament. They are, however, quite prepared to entertain the question and to seek powers from the Legislature to raise fresh capital for the purpose, and I am instructed to ask if, on such an application being made, the Directors may hope that it will receive the support of the Local Government Board."

So much for the Local Government Board and its application to the Water Companies to increase their storage and filter power. What happened at the London County Council in consequence of the Report of the Royal Commission? The subject had been very fully considered by the Water Committee of the London County Council. It was all very well for the Member for Hoxton to say that they wanted more time, but they had already considered and reported on the question very fully. He had with him extracts from the most important Reports which had been made to the London County Council. The first was the statement made by the Chairman of the Water Committee, Mr. Bassett Hopkins, an able gentleman who had taken a great interest in the question, and this was what he said—

"The paramount necessity of acceding to any well-grounded demand for augmented supply may make such a demand irresistible, and in this case the policy of the Council is, while not opposing the demand (within the strict limits of what is required), to prevent its being accompanied by the inconvenience just referred to."

Then there was a short paragraph from the Report of Mr. Binnie, the chief engineer to the Loudon County Council, who was himself a very eminent water engineer, and who clearly was not in favour of the supply of London being drawn from the Thames. Mr. Binnie said—

"Mere opposition"—

and that was what they had to-day—

"Mere opposition to the applications of the Companies by the Council must be followed by certain and ignominious defeat, for the whole drift of the evidence placed before the Royal Commissioners by the witnesses for the Council went to show that London requires more water and extended works; and if the Companies are to continue to perform the duties imposed upon them further powers of some kind must be conferred."

These were strong words, and if the Water Company were to base their ease on no other they would be justified in coming to Parliament. Mr. Cripps, the able Parliamentary agent of the London County Council, said—

"… It would have been difficult to resist the contention of the Water Companies, those being the statutory bodies authorised to supply water in London; they ought to be furnished with ample capital powers to meet not only the present, but the prospective, demands upon them. The inquiry before the Royal Com- mission has now elicited and afforded to the Council probably all the best information available upon this subject. When, therefore, the Council opposes, as I think they should oppose, the large increase of capital, and possibly the new works proposed under the present Bills, it is. I think, obvious that the absence of any definite conclusion as to general policy may render it less easy to justify withholding' from the Companies the powers which they are now seeking."

He had quoted these Reports of the officials of the London County Council in order to show that the Council had come to Parliament to oppose these Bills with their eyes wide open and practically against the advice of those responsible to them for giving advice. The London County Council claimed to act for the County of London, and he did not deny them the right to do so, but he did not think they had any mandate to take any part, for those outside the County of London—either in the Counties of Essex or Middlesex, both of which counties were touched by these Bills. The West Middlesex Water Company had 27 square miles of mains, 9½ of which only were in the County of London and 17½ outside, and yet the Loudon County Council came down and said not only that the people of London, but the unfortunate people outside the area of London, were to go without water, because that was what it would come to if this Bill were rejected. The London County Council themselves admitted that it would take from 15 to 20 years before they could mature a scheme for what they considered an adequate and proper supply of water for London, and he did not know what might happen in the meantime if the Loudon County Council, year after year, came down to oppose those who, by Act of Parliament, were now the Water Authorities of London—especially if they had such a summer as they had last year—because these works, though authorised by Parliament, could not be undertaken immediately, and could not be carried to fruition without a considerable lapse of time. The hon. Member for Hoxton referred to the fact that the London County Council were in treaty with the Water Companies. It was true that the London County Council made application to the Water Companies to know whether they would come to terms, but they attached such impossible conditions and terms to their application that it was quite im- possible that the Water Companies could accede to them. In the statement of the London County Council which had been circulated the bold assertion was made that the London County Council applied to the Water Companies to sell their undertaking to the County Council on fair and reasonable terms, but that the Companies had combined together and declined to negotiate. So far as these two Companies before the House were concerned, that statement was absolutely untrue. The Companies had not declined to negotiate, but they had said very properly, as any Water Company directors would do who acted in the interests of their shareholders, that they had a fine property which they did not wish to sell, but that if any proposition were put before them it should receive their best consideration. No proposition of any sort or kind had ever been put before the Water Companies by the London County Council. Until the County Council put their proposal in a definite shape and gave some figures which the Water Companies could deal with it, was not likely they would come to terms with the Water Companies, and it was extremely unfair to say they had offered to negotiate, and that the Companies had declined negotiation. He would point out that in these applications which were made for further capital and extended powers the shareholders would derive no benefit whatever. There was only one more point which, though a small one, should not be entirely lost sight of, and that was, that the London County Council were adopting what, he might term a selfish and dog-in-the-manger policy in this matter. They themselves would do nothing, and they asked Parliament to prevent the Water Companies doing anything, which was very much on all-fours with their improvement schemes. The County Council then came to Parliament and said they would do nothing in the way of improvements unless they gave them "betterment," and now they said to the Water Companies they would prevent such Companies getting any further powers unless they were willing to sell their undertakings to the Council practically at the price of old iron. That was a selfish policy which, he was sure, would not commend itself to this House. It must be re- collected that this money which it was proposed to expend would give employment to thousands of working-men of the labouring class during the winter months when employment was difficult to get. He maintained that these Bills ought to go to a Select Committee in the ordinary way, so that the details could be threshed out. The London County Council would have a full opportunity of putting their case be-fore the Committee, and they could ask the Committee to deal with all the questions which had been raised by the hon. Member for Hoxton as to whether the expenditure should be confined to mains, reservoirs, or filter beds, or whether less money should be given to these Companies. It was quite impossible for this House—especially with so much business before it—to enter into details of this kind. Even if the Select Committee upstairs passed this Bill as it was, or with amendment, the London County Council were even then not estopped from coming and asking the House to reject the Bill on the Third Reading. He threw aside altogether the suggestion dropped at the last moment by the hon. Member for Hoxton, that if the Water Companies would bow down to the London County Council and take out the essential part of the Bill and confine their application to mains for new districts, then the Council would not oppose them. He would remind the hon. Member and the House that mains alone were not of any use to a Water Company. They could not turn the water straight from the Thames or the Lea into these mains, and then distribute it to consumers. They must manufacture the water, store it for a reasonable period before use, and then filter it before it passed to the mains for distribution. He asked the House to adopt the usual course of sending these Bills to a Committee upstairs, which was the only tribunal recognised by this House as capable of dealing with such questions.

It will, perhaps, be to the convenience of the House if I rise somewhat early in this discussion for the purpose of stating what my opinion is as to the course the House should take in regard to the Bill before us. The Bill is one of three Water Bills which have been promoted by the Water Companies of London for the purpose of providing themselves with capital for the erection of very extensive works to increase the supply of water. The London County Council oppose this Bill on the ground, in the first place, that they have not yet had time fully to consider the Report of the Royal Commission of last year; that they ought to have time fully to consider that Report, with a view to determining what shall be the policy in regard to the future; and, secondly, that they will be prejudiced by the passing of this Bill in their negotiations with the Water Companies. I have carefully considered the subject at the Local Government Board, and I have come to the conclusion that there is a good deal of force in the objection of the -London County Council. This Bill is identical with the Bill which was presented last year—["No, no!"]—or almost identical. The Bill was rejected last year on the ground that the Royal Commission was then sitting, and it was not expedient to increase the powers of the Water Companies pending the Report of the Commission. The Commission, no doubt, has reported in the interval, but it only reported at the end of September last, and there was not time after that Report of the Commission was in hand for the London County-Council to come to a decision as to what should be done upon it, to frame proposals upon it and give notice to this House in the ordinary course. In these circumstances, it appears to me that the same policy ought to prevail this year as last year, and that this Bill ought not to be proceeded with at the present moment, but that further time ought to be given to the London County Council to deal with the whole subject. The fact is, that the Report of the Royal Commission has made a new position in the matter. The Royal Commission recommended, no doubt, that the Thames and Lea Valley water, with a sufficient storage and adequate provision for filtration, would be suited for many years to come for the supply of London, but they also made some further important recommendations. They recommended that a very large reservoir should be erected in the Thames Valley near to Staines. They recommended that further great reservoirs should be made in the Lea Valley; that further inspection powers should be given to the authorities for the purpose of securing that the water supplied by the Companies was properly filtered. A further recommendation of the Royal Commission was that there should be an inspection of all the tributaries of the Thames to secure the water from being polluted. On the other hand, the Royal Commission did not report as to the cost of these works. They did not give any indication as to what it would cost to provide reservoirs, and they did not consider any of the schemes which have been suggested as alternative to those now recommended. The schemes which are before us in the shape of the proposals of the Water Companies are not in accordance with the scheme of the Royal Commission. ["Oh!"] I believe I am fully justified in saying that. The East London Company, no doubt, proposes to make a reservoir in the Lea Valley, but the two other Companies, although they propose to add to the storage works, do not propose to add to them in the manner indicated by the Royal Commission. One would have expected that the Water Companies, after the Report of the Royal Commission, would have combined together for the purpose of propounding a scheme in exact accordance with the Report of the Royal Commission. They have not done so, but they have each come to Parliament with their separate schemes for their own works on their own lines without any joint action with regard to the long future; without making provision for these extensive reservoirs which were contemplated by the Royal Commission, without any method for increasing the extension of their water and for ensuring the purity of the water in the tributaries of the Thames. They have simply proposed to act upon the old lines of each Water Company ex-tending its own works without any joint or combined action and without any reference to the great scheme of the Royal Commission. I think, under those circumstances, it is well worthy the consideration of the House whether these Bills should be proceeded with this year. In my opinion, further time ought to be given for the consideration of the whole subject. There can be no doubt, in my opinion, that if these Bills are passed the position of the Water Companies will be greatly strengthened. They will be in-dependent of the County Council, and will be in a position to refuse to negotiate with them. ["How?"] Under these circumstances, I think the London County Council are justified in asking for further delay, and the only question is whether that delay will be prejudicial to the interests of the London people. That is no doubt a, very serious question, but I cannot bring myself to believe that a delay of one year will make any great difference in this respect. ["Two years!"] I have had some hesitation in coming to a conclusion on this point. But, after all, the London County Council should be the best judge in these matters. They must knew the wants of their own people, and it appears to me when a great Municipality like London comes before this House and asks for delay in coming to a conclusion upon a matter so vitally affecting their interests—when they come to this House and ask that they may have another year before a measure of this kind is passed and before further concessions are made to the London Water Companies, they are entitled to the patient and careful hearing of this House, and on the whole I am inclined to advise the House to listen to the demand in that respect of the London County Council and not allow this Bill to be further proceeded with this year. After all, it will amount only to a delay of a single year. In the interval the London County Council will be in a position to make the further inquiries which they contemplate, and for my part, while I advise this course to the House, I think it must be with this reservation: I think we ought to expect that next year the London County Council will come before Parliament with a definite scheme for dealing with this question—with a definite policy and definite scheme which will be elaborated in the interval. On the other hand, I think that the Water Companies ought on their part to take advantage of the interval for the purpose of combining together to produce a joint scheme to carry out the recommendation of the Royal Commission of last year, for the purpose of providing these increased reservoirs for the supply of water for London, and also for the purpose of carrying out all these further recommendations of the Royal Commission for the better securing the purity and im- proving generally the condition of the water supply of London. It is in this view, and considering that a delay of one year cannot make a serious difference in the supply of water to London, that I am of opinion that the House should follow the same course which it adopted last year, and postpone the consideration of this important and vital question for another year, and not proceed with these three Water Bills in the current year.

I should have been astonished at the course which the Government have taken upon this occasion if anything which the Government does were likely now to cause astonishment. The right hon. Gentleman says that on the whole he is prepared to recommend the House to vote against these two Bills, but there was a certain amount of timidity in the way in which he uttered the sentence, and I am not surprised at it. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to represent a London constituency of consumers of water, and I maintain that they are as much entitled to be heard as either the Water Companies or the London County Council. The right hon. Gentleman speaks as if the matter is one which affects the London County Council alone. But the Chairman of the Essex County Council is imploring the authorities to proceed with this Bill; and is Essex to be starved of water and a dangerous delay to be incurred in order that the London County Council may be given more time to elaborate a scheme for the purchase of the Water Companies? I am not thinking of the Water Companies, but rather of the consumers of water. What is the situation? What evidence does the House possess that this delay is justified? Unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared with a stronger conviction than he appears to entertain as to the propriety of rejecting this Bill he ought not to run the serious risk of delaying these operations. A year is of enormous importance when works of this kind are to be undertaken, and I protest, on behalf of the Metropolitan consumers of water, against the delay of another year in a matter of this importance. Let it be remembered that the question is not whether the Bills are to be carried or not, but whether they are to be examined or not. If the right hon. Gentle- man has got a case let it go to the Select Committee. Let them go to a Hybrid Committee, and let the whole matter be examined. The hon. Member for Hoxton, who represents the London County Council, gave us a good deal of detailed information. I wonder whether any one single Member of the House was able to follow the mass of details. It is eminently a question which must be examined by a Select Committee. The Select Committee would examine the question of capital; it would examine the question of whether there is to be a dead limb attached to the purchase by the County Council, as was suggested in picturesque terms by the hon. Member who opposes this Bill. But do hon. Members opposite and does the Government not trust a Committee? This might be not a Committee of Metropolitan Members, not a Committee composed of those acquainted with these matters, but representing probably what might be described as a microcosm, a miniature of the House? Is it not preposterous that a Government which makes speech after speech in favour of devolution should encourage a Debate of this kind, which consumes valuable time, because it fears to have the question relegated for inquiry to a Select Committee? The Government would have saved time if they had accepted this proposition and allowed a Select Committee to deal with the matter. Can we suspect that one of their motives is that a vote of this House will be different to what it will be on the Select Committee, and, at this moment, when we are asked that Scotchmen should be allowed to manage their own affairs, are Scotch and Irish votes to deprive the Metropolis of the power of having their water for another year? I would remind the House that the Chairman of the Select Committee last year appealed to the House that the matter should be referred to a Select Committee, and I think that, even then, neither the Government nor the majority listened to the Chairman of the Select Committee. No, it was to be referred to a Committee upstairs. If we are to be dealt with in this manner, if at the bidding of the County Council—because do not let us disguise the fact that otherwise the Government would have allowed these two Bills to go to a Committee—if this be so, may I ask those hon. Members for Scotland who think that Scotchmen ought to manage their own affairs to abstain from taking part in the coming Division, which is on a purely Metropolitan question? By their action we shall see the sincerity of their desire that each locality should manage its own affairs in which they have interest. I make the same appeal to the Welsh Members and to the Irish Members. Let the Metropolis decide this matter for itself, and if it is so allowed I am pretty certain how the Metropolis will decide. The Metropolis will ask for the water supply, and if it cannot get the water, at all events we wish that a Committee of this House should thoroughly inquire into the whole of this matter, and then they would be prepared to accept the verdict of such Committee. The ratepayers are interested on the one hand and the consumers of water on the other. They would have perfect confidence in the ordinary Forms of this House, and these Bills above all others are not Bills which ought to be rejected upon the Second Beading, but which should be read a second time and then referred to Committee.

said, that his constituency considered there was no urgent need in this matter whatever, and their chief reason for so thinking was that the storage supply of this particular Company was almost double that of the average storage of other London Water Companies. Whilst the storage was almost double, the daily supply was over 20 per cent. per head higher than the average of the other Water Companies. His constituents, therefore, said there was no urgency whatever in the matter; and seeing that the Report of the Royal Commission had only been printed so recently the matter should not be pressed further, because no public interest would be endangered or imperilled by the delay. They considered that the time was most inopportune for bringing forward such a Bill, and seeing that the London County Council would probably come to Parliament and ask for powers to enable it to be the Water Authority for London, no possible increase to the charge of the ratepayers should be incurred at present. The case was not of such urgency that the Company should be empowered to raise this additional capital, seeing that in a comparatively short time the County Council might be seeking to purchase the property. He therefore hoped that the House would oppose the Second Beading of the Bill. He would like, in conclusion, to say a few words in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, who had gone out of his way to introduce much irrelevant matter. The right hon. Gentleman had said that if several parties in the House were sincere in their convictions, they would refrain from voting on this question: and he further declared that if the matter were left to London, there was no doubt what the voice of London would be. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman, Was not the London County Council the voice of London? and the London County Council had in the most unmistakable manner entered their protest against the passing of the Bill.

said, the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had stated that he opposed the Second Beading of the Bill on behalf of his constituency. But the Bill would not affect that district. Limehouse was already freely supplied with water by the particular Company in question: and the district that would be affected was a division in Essex which was not under the London County Council at all. The Chairman of the Essex County Council wrote to The Times the other day condemning the London County Council opposition to the Bill, and expressing the hope that the Bill would pass. He did not deny the adequacy of the water supply of the East London Water Company; but the Bill was not to increase the source of the supply of water, but to provide additional facilities for distributing the water; it was to increase the storage, the reservoirs, the mains, and the agencies for filtration and pumping. Out of the £500,000, £40,000 were to be expended on the extension of the high service reservoirs; £140,000 on the extension of the mains; £80,000 on the pumping arrangements; £45,000 on the filtration beds; £145,000 on additional reservoirs; and the balance of £50,000 was applicable to the various needs of the Company. The hon. Member for Limehouse had also stated that if the £500,000 were raised by the Company it would be added to the purchase money in the event of the Loudon County Council buying out the Water Companies. But the hon. Member did not know his case well. He forgot that new works could not be reproductive at once, and that there was a clause in another Act, applicable to this Bill, which compelled the Company to give the profits earned in the debenture issue to the Corporation of London, the Corporation to hold them for the benefit of the consumers, or towards providing funds for purchasing the Company if necessary. The profits did not go to the Company at all, and therefore that argument fell to the ground. The hon. Member for Hoxton also said that the London County Council, when they purchased the Company, would not require those new works, and, as the hon. Member put it, would be purchasing "a dead limb." But if the County Council did purchase the Company, they would have to distribute the water, and they could not distribute the water, from whatever source it was supplied, without mains, or without engines for pumping; they could not depend on a single main, which might burst; and they must have reservoirs to store the water, to take advantage of the rainy seasons, and to guard against drought. He presumed that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hoxton would not contend that the Comity Council would give more for two Water Companies than was proposed under the late Mr. Smith's scheme? Very well. The late Mr. Smith, in his proposal for purchase, in 1880, suggested that the debenture-holders of the different Water Companies should receive their income in Stocks of the Purchasing Authority. The Purchasing Authority in this case would be the London County Council. The County Council could raise money at a rate per annum of £2 14s. The East London Water Company could raise money on the Debenture Stock at a rate per annum of 3 per cent. The difference between that amount was 6s. per annum, and that on £500,000 was £1,500 per year, equal to 2d. per annum per house over the whole of the Company's district, or, on 30 years' purchase, capitalised £45,000. That was to say, that in the event of the Loudon County Council purchasing the East London Water Com- pany's business, they would be buying the actual works which would be created under the powers of this Bill at the actual cost of the works plus 9 per cent., or £45,000 for compulsory purchase. The hon. Member for Hoxton had said the district affected was not increasing. As a matter of fact, its present increase was at the rate of 4,150 houses per annum.

I said the district was not increasing, and I gave the exact figures of the engineers of the Company.

said, that the exact figures which the hon. Gentleman gave applied to the whole of the district over which the money was not going to be spent. The money was to be spent on the division in Essex, where the number of houses was increasing at the rate of 4,000 per annum. He hoped the House would pass the Bill—first, because water was one of the first necessaries of life, and the Company was bound by its Act of Parliament to supply every house in the district with water; and, secondly, because, if the Company was not permitted to enlarge its works in order to carry out its obligations to Parliament, its stock would be depreciated, and the London County Council would be able to buy out the Company cheaply, which was the real motive at the bottom of this opposition.

said, the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had given away the case with regard to the cry of a water famine, when he said that the proposal of the Bill was not to increase the water supply. If the Bill was not to increase the supply of water——

I said it was not to increase the source of the supply.

said, he must have misheard the hon. Gentleman. But with regard to the question of a water famine, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, complained that the hon. Member for Hoxton had not gone into details with regard to that very important point. The Company in their Report to the Royal Commission made a statement which effectually disposed of the cry of a water famine. They stated that they had made every allowance for a possible increase of supply in their district; and could fur- nish water adequate in supply and excellent in quality for a period of 40 years, with a large surplus margin. Nevertheless, it might look like an unreasonable thing for the London County Council to ask the House to throw out the Bill. He would, therefore, ask the House to listen to the story of the London County Council's action in the matter. After the Report of the Loyal Commission, the County Council decided to approach the Water Companies in a businesslike way in order to solve the great question of the London water supply. They adopted the following Resolution, which contained the terms on which they were prepared to buy out the Water Companies—

"That negotiations be entered into for the purchase of the undertakings of the Water Companies, or one or more of them, at a fair and reasonable price, on the basis of a desire to purchase and willingness to sell; having regard to any circumstances and statutory provisions affecting the present and prospective position, income, expenditure, incomes, obligations, and value of the Companies respectively, and their undertakings, including any present and probable future demands for improvements and extensions of works, and new or additional sources of supply, and on the understanding that if satisfactory terms cannot be mutually agreed upon, an application will be made to Parliament to determine in what manner and on what condition a transfer to the Council shall be arranged, provided that no monopoly light on the part of the Water Companies be recognised."

He submitted that that was a very fair basis of negotiations between the London County Council and the Water Companies. He challenged the hon. Member for Peckham to produce the reply of the East London Water Company to that application.

I am ready to reply. The answer is as follows:—

"St. Helen's Place, March 10th, 1894.

"Sir,—I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 5th instant, setting out the resolution recently passed by the London County Council which has been fully deliberated upon by the Directors of this Company, and in reply to the question you ask, I am to state that the Directors do not see their way to enter into negotiations for the sale of their undertaking to the London County Council on the basis indicated in the resolution. The Directors, however, desire me to add that if any definite and practicable proposals are made for the purchase of their undertaking, they will be prepared to give them very careful consideration."

said, it must be obvious to the House that the London County Council suggested a counter-proposal from the Water Company. The County Council definitely and clearly stated their views, and if those views were not thought sufficiently reasonable by the Water Company the Company ought to have consented to the arbitration that was suggested. The London County Council tried to do what other County Councils had successfully done—namely, in making agreements with the Water Companies, which agreements had been subsequently ratified by the House. The London County Council tried to bring the Water Companies to terms, but the Water Companies seemed determined to have nothing to do with the London County Council. Therefore, the London County Council came to the House and asked the House to take the extreme measure of rejecting the Bill of the East Loudon Water Company. The policy of the Loudon County Council was summed up in the words used by Mr. Speaker 15 years ago, when the great question of the London water supply was introduced by the late Mr. Henry Fawcett—

"The supply of such a necessity of life as water should be maintained by a Public Body, and that that Public Body should not be subject to the caprice of commercial considerations, or the requirements of shareholders, &c, and to the fluctuations of policy to which such requirements would lead."

The object of the Bill was to promote a commercial undertaking, to serve the interests of the shareholders, and not to improve the water supply of London. It aimed at enhancing the value of the Company with a view to the ultimate purchase by the London County Council. That was quite a common thing in the experience of the London County Council. If a new street was to be opened, it was wonderful with what facility buildings were added to buildings in order that the compensation might be as large as possible. He wished also to emphasise the point that if the Company were allowed to make this expenditure, and if the County Council afterwards purchased the Water Companies, an amalgamation would, of course, ensue, with the result that many of those works would be useless. In conclusion, he would quote the words uttered in 1879 by the late Mr. Henry Fawcett, who was a citizen of London—

"If you place insuperable difficulties in the way of a great reform being carried out, we will carry out that reform in spite of you; at any rate, we are determined that the people of London shall not for ever be afflicted with the evils connected with the present system of water supply."

said that, as the Representative of an East London constituency, he felt bound to support the Second Reading of the Bill. It was with regret he ventured to oppose such a body as the Loudon County Council, for whom he had the most profound respect, inasmuch as he considered they had done for the poor of London, for the dignity of the Metropolis, and even for the beautifying of our great capita], more than any other Public Body, not only in this Kingdom, but throughout the whole of Europe. Therefore, it was with regret that he opposed the London County Council, but he did it now with thoroughness as equal as his reluctance. It was a curious thing that the result of Water Company Bills seemed to turn the stream of popular opinion entirely. The Progressive Party became reactionary, and the Reactionary Party became progressive. The effect of the water was to wash black white—he did not object to that—but it also washed white black very often. He thought the tactics of the London County Council were governed by a had and harmful principle. They did not come forward and say resolutely that they would not have this Bill. They first said that when the Royal Commission had terminated they would deal with the question of purchase. But the Royal Commission had now reported that wo had got no "forrider" with the London County Council. They still delayed. He appealed to the common sense of the House, were his constituents to go thirsty because the London County Council could not make up its mind? Were his constituents also to go dirty? This was the second year of a great drought, and if there was a continuation of droughts, which was not at all unlikely, there would be a great danger to the health of his constituency, which numbered nearly 224,000 people, if the supply of water was not adequate and ample. They had heard a great deal of theory from the London County Council. Let him give one ounce of practice. As the Representative of the constituency, West Ham, North, he frequently heard not only from the traders and manufacturers that the supply of water was not sufficient to carry on trade and business but he heard from the poor, whom he was proud to represent, that they were also in danger of being starved. He thought that statement of fact ought to go a long way against the arguments of the Loudon County Council. He was glad to see that the introduction of the Bill had had a good effect. It had made the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, a thorough Home Ruler. He would point out also that West Ham was outside the area of the London County Council. They should not presume to dictate to the London County Council, controlled as it was by eminent men—[A laugh]—he spoke seriously—if the London County Council confined themselves to the area of their own jurisdiction. What right had the London County Council to go to a place like Essex, and to West Ham, North and South, and say, "We shall manage your water affairs as well as the water affairs of the Metropolis?" Let the Loudon County Council manage their own affairs in the Metropolis as brilliantly and ably as in the past, but let them not interfere in the concerns of areas over which they had no jurisdiction. He would put it to hon. Members from the Sister Island, who may possibly cast their vote against the East London Water Company, how would they like it if the London County Council went to Dublin and said, "We shall manage your water affairs in such and such a way"? That was the case of the people of West Ham, and they insisted that they should have the right to manage their own affairs unintruded upon by the London County Council. It was because he looked upon the action of the London County Council as an unjust usurpation that he supported the Bill. He spoke entirely in the interest of his constituents, numbering 224,000, and not in the interest of the East London Water Company. In fact, if the Bill were read a second time, he intended, if in Order, to move as an Instruction to the Committee that in the event of the purchase of the Water Company by the London County Council—which he hoped would come to pass—the shares now issued should be purchased at par and not at an increased value. That would remove many of the objections which the London County Council had brought forward. He felt it to be a matter of importance that a Company which might possibly be purchased on behalf of the people should not be overloaded with capital; but because he also felt that the London County Council was encroaching on the rights of bodies over which they had no control, he would cast his vote in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill.

said, he sympathised with the notion of the Water Companies being purchased by a Water Trust representative of the County Councils concerned, and he had no doubt that some day that object would be effected. The point however was, what was to be done in the meantime? The hon. Member for Hoxton had said they must march with the times; but in that march not oven Water Companies must stand still. For fear of damaging the public interest concerned, and the supply of water, he thought the whole matter should be referred to a Select Committee, whore the London County Council could oppose as much as they liked, and probably with success; and there would be an opportunity for considering whether too much power was being given to the Company, or too large an addition made to the capital of the Company. On the other hand, to deprive a Private Company of the right of placing their case before a Select Committee would be to defeat the Constitutional principle that everybody should be able to put their case before a proper tribunal it was all very well for the London County Council to say that they were only going to oppose the Bill for a year: but this matter would probably go on for 10 years. It involved so many County Councils and such large water schemes that it could not be settled in 12 months. Therefore, to prevent injustice to the Company and any danger to the public water supply, the matter should go before a Select Committee.

said, the authority which was responsible for the supply of water to the Metropolis was the various Water Companies. These Companies might be all that had been said of them, but the fact was that London was going to get its water from them in the immediate future, and there was no other source of supply. If the County Council had brought forward a scheme, or if there was a scheme which the House could look upon as sound and practical, he would vote for its consideration. He had voted against this Bill last year, but he should now vote for it being sent upstairs, as the Report of the Commission was known. The Water Companies who were responsible for the supply of water must from time to time send to Parliament for sanction of schemes, otherwise water could not be supplied. Therefore, he thought that, whatever might be the faults of the Bill—and there were a great many, no doubt, in it—the Water Companies were entitled to the opportunity of showing before a Committee whether the scheme they brought forward was right and necessary. The London County Council could be heard before the Committee. They could bring forward all the evidence they had brought forward to-day—careful and deliberate evidence, not mere statements. It would be hard on the Water Companies if the powers they desired, rightly or wrongly, to acquire should be refused at the dictum of the London County Council. He trusted that before long either the Loudon County Council or the Government would mature a scheme; but, unfortunately, the Government does not seem to have made up its mind, and the County Council has also failed to make up its mind. Therefore, he thought it hard that the only powers which now existed for supplying London with water should be put a stop to by the London County Council. When the Committee had considered the Bill, and had put into it powers for obtaining capital, an opportunity would be afforded to the County Council for bringing the subject again before the House when the Bill came up for Third Reading.

said, that the hon. Member who had just sat down, although perhaps not directly interested in this particular Bill, spoke as a Director of the New River Company.

said, it was true he was a Director of the New River Company, but he only sat upon the Board as representing an Insurance Company. He had no personal interest whatever in the Now River Company, and he might say that whatever fees he had received he had parted with to his Insurance Company.

said, that in regard to these matters they wanted Water Companies and Insurance Companies, and all interests represented in Debate in the House. He had only intended the House to understand that his hon. Friend was connected with one of the interests represented in the Debate. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, especially the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, did not quite appreciate the position taken up by hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House. They argued the case for the Bill as a question of detail, as a matter for examination by a Committee. That was entirely contrary to the position which he, in common with the other opponents of the Bill, took up. They contended that this was not a question of the merits of the particular scheme, but a question of principle, as to whether, before there had been an opportunity of the County Council considering the water supply as a whole, these somewhat smaller matters should be dealt with and decided by a Committee of the House. What was the actual position of the Bill before the House? The Water Companies were coming for powers for a further capital expenditure of £1,750,000, and the House was entitled to say that before such an enormous additional expenditure was sanctioned there should be a proper opportunity of considering the whole question of the London water supply. The Royal Commission had been appointed to report whether any fresh water supply was required for London, and as to the best way of providing it. The case stood in much the same position as last year, for the Commission had only recently reported, and the County Council had not yet had an opportunity of considering the question as a whole. Until the Council had had that opportunity, it was only right that no large expenditure should be carried out to the prejudice of the ultimate settlement. All that was asked was that until that opportunity was afforded—an opportunity which the appointment of the Royal Commission was intended to give—no large expenditure of the kind contemplated in the Bill should take place to prejudice the ultimate settlement of the question of the London water supply.

said, the storage works proposed in the Bill were recommended by the Royal Commissioners as immediately necessary.

said, that what the Royal Commissioners recommended was that extended storage works, mains, and so on, were required in London, a thing which no one for a moment denied. He did not think, however, that the Royal Commission specifically stated that the particular storage works to which the hon. Member referred were required. It seemed to him that the object of the consideration of the subject by a Royal Commission was to give an opportunity for the consideration of the subject as a whole. He understood that the Council were ready to consent to any reasonable proposal with regard to mains and reservoirs shown to be urgent, but that they were not ready to assent to such an enormous expenditure as that proposed in the Bill, believing that it would have the result of prejudicing the general question. He did not think that the delay of a year would matter, and if the Bill came up next year and the County Council were not then in a position to say what they would do, not having decided upon a line of policy, he, for one, would support the Bill. If the Companies had been able to carry on for 25 years without coming to Parliament, they could surely wait another 12 months. He appealed to the House if any great Corporation in the Kingdom, representing a large body of ratepayers, asked for a year's delay in such an important matter, would the House for a moment deny the claim?

said, he would not trouble the House long. He would not have troubled it at all had it not been for an extraordinary observation made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He could not help saying that the reference made by the hon. Member for Tower Hamlets—he might call it the sneering reference—to the hon. Member for Bradford was most uncalled for. Coming from the Government Bench and spoken on behalf of the Government, and when the hon. Member for Bradford had told them but a few minutes before that he had voted against the Second Reading of the Bill last year, such a reference was unworthy, suggesting as it had done that the hon. Member's vote was influenced by his connection with the New River Company. He would point out, after the details of the Bill had been considered in the Committee upstairs, the Preamble would have to be proved. What said the right hon. Gentleman? He suggested that this Bill was really promoted in order to inflate the value of the shares of the Company in view of possible purchase. What was the expenditure proposed under the Bill?

No, no.

said, that he thought the right hon. Gentleman had adopted the suggestion. If he had not, he (Sir R. Webster) withdrew the statement. The hon. Member for St. George's (Mr. Bonn) had made a distinct statement that the proposed expenditure was not required in order to enable the Water Company to fulfil its statutory obligations, but to inflate the value of the shares. No doubt the hon. Member would be candid enough to stand to his guns when that fact was stated. What was the expenditure which would take place under the Bill? It involved three things—reservoirs, filtration, and mains. How possibly could reservoirs, filtration, and mains inflate the capital of the Company? He spoke with some knowledge on this subject, although he regretted to say he had not 6d. in any Water Company in London. Anyone who said that, in a drought such as that of last summer, if a Water Company found itself unable to supply sufficient water to its consumers it could go and obtain it from its source of supply, knew very little about this business, however learned he might be in other matters. No one must imagine that a Water Company could dispense with ample storage reservoirs. He ventured to say that if any Water Company did not maintain an ample and increasing surplus of storage reservoirs, it did not do its duty to its constituents, judging from the experience of the past. Then, as to mains, expenditure in this direction did not mean putting money into the earth which would not earn a return. The Directors were not such fools as to do a thing of that sort. It meant that in those districts growing by their thousands it was absolutely essential that mains and supply pipes should be laid down, so that the consumers could get a proper supply. But the burning question had been whether or not there had been sufficient and proper filtration; and in order to keep the supply of water in proper condition it was only the duty of the Water Companies to maintain filtration in the highest state of efficiency. These were the questions on which the Water Company had to justify their proposals before the Committee. If the County Council had any real case against the Company, the proper place to examine into it was before a Select Committee, whore the witnesses who supported it could be cross-examined. A point which had been overlooked was this: He should like to know on what ground, either of principle or otherwise, the Loudon County Council had a right to say to the inhabitants of Essex they should not have the improved water supply they desired, and which this Bill proposed to give them? What had been the principle which had been recognised over and over again? Why, that each locality should supply itself with water and have control over its water supply. The)"had had that at Stockton, Middlesbrough, and at Birmingham, and in regard to this Bill the London County Council were arrogating to themselves a position they had no right to assume, and for which there was no precedent. He trusted that, whatever might be done in Committee and when the Bill came back to the House, in the name of fair-play and justice it would now be read a second time. Otherwise an impression would go forth that Her Majesty's Government opposed the Second Reading because they could count on a majority in the House which they could not count upon after the Bill had been examined. Under the circumstances, he hoped the House would see that the whole question was examined and sifted, and this could only take place before a competent Committee, constituted as they liked, where witnesses were examined.

said that, with the indulgence of the House, he would observe that he had not taken the remark of his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. S. Buxton) in the sense in which it had been understood by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir R. Webster).

said, he desired to say a word or two in reply to the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member for West Ham. The hon. Member had made an appeal well calculated to impress the House on behalf of his constituents, whom, he said, suffered from a scanty supply of water. The hon. Member had asked if his constituents were to be thirsty and dirty because the London County Council could not make up its mind. It was quite true that the people of West Ham had suffered wrong, and had complained of their water supply. The London County Council knew the reason. Complaints having been made to the Council as to the mysterious scantiness of water, they made investigation into the matter, and found that it had been the practice of the East London Water Company to insert a plug in the pipe supplying the cisterns so that the water merely dribbled into them. In individual cases where complaint was made the Company removed the plugs, but had the unparalleled impudence to charge the customer with the cost of the removal.

said, he should like to say a word or two from the point of view of his constituents the inhabitants of Essex. He failed to understand the interest taken in the water supply of his constituents by the hon. Member for Hoxton, seeing that for every 100 persons within the jurisdiction of the London County Council supplied by this Water Company there were 1,000 people supplied outside that jurisdiction.

said, the hon. Member was mistaken. For every one person supplied in the Essex district two were supplied in the district of the London County Council.

said, that his information was exactly the reverse. They all knew that the object—the plan of campaign—of the County Council in taking so much interest in the water supply of the people of Essex was to cripple the Water Company, so as to be able to buy it up at half-price. The Company had been prohibited from taking any more water from the Lea, and they could not construct reservoirs with- out further capital. He had been Chairman of a Water Company for 10 years, and had some intimate knowledge of the subject. The matter was very simple. The Royal Commission had interdicted the East Loudon Water Company from taking more water from the River Lea, and therefore the Company had to construct fresh storage reservoirs. This they could not do without raising fresh capital. Even the London County Council would be unable to do so. What with betterment, worsement, taxation of laud values, and looking after the morality of music halls the people of Essex thought the London County Council had their hands too full already, and that they would do well to mind their own business and leave the County of Essex alone. He should vote for the Bill.

said, he should support the Bill. He felt some difficulty in taking that course, as he should naturally be inclined to support the County Council. He also found it a difficulty in supporting a cause championed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's (Mr. Goschen), who had said that he thought Scotch Members—and, he supposed, Irish Members—should not interfere in this matter.

was understood to say that he had no objection to their voting on this Bill, but that he thought there should be reciprocity.

said, that when English Members left Irish business alone, Irish Members would leave English business alone. He could only regret that the right hon. Gentleman made it so difficult for an Irishman to support a cause which he advocated. He (Mr. O'Connor) would wish to help the London County Council within the sphere of their jurisdiction, but he could not follow them into Essex, when he found that the Council for that county were supporting the other side. As an Irish Member he might remind the House that there was a larger Irish population in London than in Dublin, and that a large portion of that population was in the district affected by this Bill. It was for the sake of the poor who lived in the small houses of the district to whom a good and a prompt supply of water was of the first importance that he supported the Bill.

said, it was hardly worth while going in to the merits of the arguments which had been advanced, or even into the details of the Bill. But he would like to reply to the observations of the hon. Member for North West Ham, who had suggested that the London County Council were in favour of dilatory tactics in this matter, and that they had not submitted any scheme to the Water Companies. Now he ventured to deny that, and to assert that the hon. Member in this matter did not represent his constituency: he simply spoke the views of a few officials who happened to agree with the views of the Water Companies. What were the facts? At the end of a long and exhaustive inquiry the Royal Commission reported in September last. That Report did not reach the London County Council until November, and practically was not submitted to the Council until the beginning of the present year. Thereupon a Committee, assisted by the able engineer of the Council and other officials, drew up a counter Report, which had just been circulated, and which would be found to deal with the matter on fair and reasonable lines. In the circumstances, it did not seem to him that it was unreasonable to ask that the Bill should be road a second time that day six months. The Essex people had compelled the Loudon County Council to take over a large part of their main drainage system, and now apparently wished to dictate the conditions under which the water works should be purchased. The attitude of the Government was, in his opinion, right. The House ought not to allow the Members for Essex to dictate to 5,000,000 people the conditions for the purchase of these water works. The hon. Member for North West Ham had no right to ask the Loudon County Council to be the servant of Essex in respect of the unpleasant parts of its municipal work, and to deny it equal rights in determining under what conditions the water works should be purchased. If the London County Council were to pay the piper they ought at any rate to be allowed to call the tune. He thought the Government had adopted a sensible and correct view. They said that the London County Council, representing as it did an overwhelming majority of the people of London, was not unreasonable in asking that the Bill should be rejected, seeing that as yet it had had no time to consider the Report of the Royal Commission, and that until a definite decision had been arrived at the Directors of the Water Companies and a few Members for Essex ought not to be allowed to dictate to 5,000,000 of people as to the conditions under which they would purchase the water works.

I will not detain the House many minutes, but I wish to say a word or two on the general principle involved. Perhaps I should preface my observations by saying that I am not a shareholder in any Water Company, and that I speak merely as a ratepayer of London who has learned very much from provincial experience. What is the position of affairs? Sooner or later the London County Council are bound to decide whether or not they will purchase the property of the Water Companies, and I hope that they will purchase. Up to the present, however, they have not come to any decision, neither is there any power which can force them to come to a decision within a reasonable period, and the question for consideration is whether, until they shall have arrived at a final determination, no Water Company in London is to be permitted to increase its capital? The Loudon County Council does put forward a most exaggerated claim in regard to the water question. The Under Secretary for the Colonies says a similar demand by a Provincial Corporation has never been refused. I say unhesitatingly that never has a similar demand for delay been granted on the application of any Municipality. Birmingham has some knowledge of the ways of the London County Council. When Birmingham asked for power to obtain a supply of water from the Welsh hills, saying that within a short time the town would probably suffer from drought, the London County Council opposed the scheme, and averred that the statement was untrue. They said there would be no drought, but there was, which showed how little reliance could be placed on their scientific knowledge. The County Council opposed the scheme, asking for time to enable them to decide whether they might not themselves require the particular water supply which Birmingham had selected. The County Council should make up their minds to deal with the matter now under consideration fairly and speedily. Their demand for delay is monstrous. The hon. Member referred to the experience of Birmingham. Has he taken the trouble to find out what that experience was? I negotiated the purchase of the water works there. What did we do? We (the Corporation) asked them to come to terms. We were unable to do so. We then stated what price we were prepared to give, and asked the House for compulsory powers of purchase on those terms. That application was refused. We were told to go before an arbitrator, and by agreeing to terms we saved the expenses of an arbitrator.

That is precisely the course the London County Council propose. I think the right hon. Gentleman will find our terms are identical with those adopted at Birmingham.

I think I have been unnecessarily interrupted. I undertake to say that if the representatives of the London County Council are prepared to make the East London Water Company the same offer that was made to the Birmingham Water Company by the Municipality it will be accepted. The right course is for the London County Council to make up their minds as to what is the fair value of the property of the East London Water Company, and to make an offer accordingly. If the terms are refused by the Water Company let the County Council then come to Parliament and ask for official powers. If they do that I will support the Second Beading of the Bill. I think it is monstrous that before taking this course they should seek to interfere with every scheme for the extension of the water supply. I think they have had time to make up their minds. I have never known a Bill to be dealt with in this way before. I must say that it is a most dangerous precedent that a Private Bill should be dealt with in this House upon political considerations.

rose to move the Second Reading of this Rill. He said: I have now to ask the House to pass the Second Reading of what is shortly called the Behring Sea Award Bill, although that perhaps scarcely describes it, because the use of the Rill extends far beyond that. It might more properly be described as a Rill for carrying into effect the award of the Tribunal of Arbitration constituted under the Treaty between Her Majesty and the United States. Mr. Speaker, from indications made to me by hon. Members sitting in different parts of the House, I gather it is expected that I should—although I do not think it necessary to do so at any great length—recall to the attention of the House the circumstances which led to the Treaty upon which this Rill is founded, to the character of that Treaty, to the Award based upon it, and finally to the provisions in the Rill now submitted to give effect to that Award. In August, 1886, several seizures of vessels engaged in fur sealing were effected in the Behring Sea by cruisers of the United States, the vessels so seized belonging principally to British subjects, being Canadians. On the facts coming to the knowledge of Her Majesty's Government of the day, the late Lord Iddesleigh, who was then at the Foreign Office, addressed, on the 30th of October, 1886, an important Despatch to the then Representative of the Queen at Washington, in which he called attention to the fact that three schooners had been seized in that part of the North Pacific Ocean called the Behring Sea, and that the crews of two of these vessels had been detained. At that time, as it appeared when the full facts became known to the Foreign Office, one of the vessels had already been brought before a Court of the United States, and the Judge of that Court had condemned that vessel on the ground that she was pursuing the industry of pelagic sealing within the territorial limits of the United States, those territorial limits being claimed under the terms of the concession from Russia to the United States in 1867, which included Alaska and the islands in Behring Sea. The learned Judge who tried the ease decided that the ship was properly seized and properly condemned on the ground that she was violating the municipal legislation of the United States, and was so violating that municipal legislation within the United States territory. Lord Iddesleigh then proceeded to complain that in these circumstances the authorities of the United States had interfered with the lawful occupation of Canadian citizens on the high seas, and had taken possession of their ships, subjected their property to forfeiture, and visited upon their persons the indignity of imprisonment. That was the position assumed as early as October, 1886, by Lord Iddesleigh, and which has never since been departed from by those who represent the Government of the Queen. Following upon this expostulation of Lord Iddesleigh the vessels that had been seized were released and the proceedings stayed by the order of the then Secretary of State at Washington, Mr. Baird; accordingly, the vessels were released. At a later period further seizures followed. By March, 1889, there had been a change of Government in the United States, and the late Mr. Blaine had succeeded Mr. Baird in the position of Secretary of State, and there had followed a long diplomatic discussion between the Representatives of the Queen and the Secretary of State, the correspondence from Great Britain being conducted by Lord Salisbury, who had by that time succeeded to the Office of Foreign Secretary. On the part of the United States, in that correspondence it was sought to justify the action of their authorities in these seizures on the ground that the United States possessed territorial dominion in the Behring Sea under the cession of 1867 from Russia, and on the ground that their legislation applied to foreigners in the area where the seizures were effected, and finally, at a later development of the controversy, on the ground that the United States had property in the fur seal and in the industry founded on its pursuit, and in effect that their law was in the nature of properly protected Regulations for the safeguard of their property and interests. This position was combated—and I need not say ably combated—by Lord Salisbury in his correspondence. He maintained the position originally taken up by Lord Iddesleigh, and he complained that the rights of sovereignty of Great Britain had been violated by these seizures—that there had been a violation of International Treaty and the law thereby affected, but professed his willingness to submit the question to a properly-constituted Court of Arbitration. The questions of alleged property and of alleged jurisdic- tion set up by the United States Lord Salisbury also professed his readiness to submit to arbitration, and also the further question if and what Regulations were necessary for the preservation of the seal fishery in the Behring Sea. The answer to the latter question was one which was not exclusively of interest to the United States—although as the owner of the islands, that country had a special interest with regard to it—but was of common interest. I do not think that anyone can doubt the wisdom of the policy pursued by Lord Salisbury in advising that reference to arbitration. I think we must all agree that it would have been a deplorable thing if two great nations, sprung from the common stock, speaking the same language, living under systems of law largely alike, and having enormous interests in common bound up in the interests of peace, should have resorted to the rude arbitrament of force to settle the differences between them. Accordingly, on February 29, 1892, the Treaty from which this Bill took its origin was agreed to between the United States Government and the Government of the Queen, and that Treaty was ratified at a later date. It is necessary that I should call the attention of the House to some of the leading provisions of that Treaty. It recites that differences had arisen, and that both Governments were desirous of providing for an amicable settlement of those differences, concerning the jurisdiction and rights claimed by the United States in the waters of the Behring Sea, and also concerning the preservation of the fur seal fisheries in those waters and the rights of the subjects of either country as regards the taking of fur seals in and habitually resorting to those waters. The Court of Arbitration was thus constituted. Two arbitrators were to be named and were named by the President of the United States—namely, Mr. Justice Harlan, a distinguished Judge of the Supreme Court, and Mr. Senator Morgan, also a gentleman of high reputation; one was to be named and was named by the President of the French Republic, who nominated the Baron de Courcel, Senator and Am bassador of France; one was to be named and was named by the King of Italy, who named the Marquis Visconti Venosta, a distinguished Minister; and one was to be named and was named by the King of Sweden and Norway, who nominated Mr. Gram, a statesman and a distingnished lawyer. The Representatives of Great Britain were, as the House knows, that distinguished man who has lately passed away from amongst, us, Lord Hannen, and Sir John Thompson, the Prime Minister of Canada, I hope the House will allow me to say one word in reference to Lord Hannen. Great Britain owes a great debt to that very distinguished man. I do not propose to add one word to the eulogium upon him as a Judge which has been lately pronounced by more than one of his brethren on the Bench. But in relation to this arbitration I may perhaps be permitted to say that, in conjunction with his distinguished colleague he ably and with impressive dignity represented the interests of Great Britain. He discharged the weighty obligations cast upon him with unfailing zeal and with unflagging patience, and while he guarded the interests of Great Britain he never for one moment forgot the fact that he was present in a judicial character, and that he was, as it were, still clothed with the ermine of a, Judge. The tribunal met in Paris, and I think it right that I should publicly acknowledge the remarkable courtesy and hospitality that were displayed by the great Republic of France on that occasion. We have to thank the President of the French Republic in two respects—first, for naming as one of the arbitrators on behalf of Franco a most accomplished and courteous gentleman, the Baron de Courcel, to whose judgment, tact, and courtesy the result arrived at was largely due. As the House is aware, after a protracted hearing, the Award of the majority of the arbitrators was finally delivered on August 15, 1893. What was the effect of that Award? I will state its effect in general language and in few words. Two groups of questions were submitted to the arbitrators which wore essentially different in their character and having different considerations applicable to each of them. One set of questions related to territorial jurisdiction and the rights of property, and of protection in regard to that property, and the second set of questions related entirely to what were the proper Regulations which should be recognised to give effect to that which was one of the objects of the Treaty— namely, the preservation of the fur seal. As regards the first group of questions—those which touched territorial sovereignty, jurisdiction and rights of property—the position taken up by Lord Iddesleigh and Lord Salisbury was thoroughly and completely vindicated, and each one of these questions was decided in favour of the views advanced by those who represented the interests of Great Britain before that Tribunal. One result of the decision on this group of questions was that it stamped the seizures that had been effected as not justified by International Law, and therefore illegal and unjustifiable, thereby establishing the claim of British subjects injured to legitimate redress. I am glad to say, as one would expect from the Government of a great Power like the United States, that the President has not been slow to recognise these claims for redress, and when the legislation necessary to carry out this Award shall have been completed, it is arranged that a Convention shall be signed for the examination and adjustment of those claims with a, view to the just redress of those concerned. I must now call the attention of the House a little more in detail to one part of the Award—namely, that relating to Regulations. I have already stated with sufficient fulness the effect of the Award as regards questions of territorial jurisdiction and of property. But, after determining these questions, the Award proceeds to say that the determination of these questions has left the subject in such a position that the concurrence of Great Britain is necessary to the establishment of Regulations for the proper protection and preservation of fur seals in or resorting to the Behring Sea, and Articles 1 to 9 inclusive all lay down these Regulations. The first is that the Governments of the two Powers shall forbid their citizens and subjects to kill, capture, or pursue fur seals within a zone of 60 miles around the Pribyloff Islands, including the territorial waters. That is a permanent zone, and is unquestionably for the purpose of this Award an extension of the protected zone, as to which, apart from this Award, the Power in whose favour it is given would have no International rights. In the next Article the Award creates a close season from May 1 to July 31, that close season extending over the space included within the 35th degree of north latitude and eastward of the 180th degree of longitude from Greenwich till it strikes the water boundary described in Article 1 of the Treaty of 1867 between the United States and Russia, and following that line up to the Behring Straits. There are then some minor provisions as to the character of the vessels and their equipments, and it requires special licences and distinctive flags to be prescribed by each Government. These are broadly the provisions of the Award. I have to say further in this regard, that there is an addendum to the Award, which is to this effect—

"The Arbitrators declare, moreover, that, in their opinion, the carrying out of the Regulations determined upon by the Tribunal of Arbitration should be assured by a system of stipulations and measures to be enacted by the two Powers, and that the Tribunal must, in consequence, leave it to the two Powers to decide upon the means for giving effect to the Regulations determined upon by it."

Mr. Speaker, we are here to present this Bill as an attempt to discharge the obligation, which every one in this House I am sure will recognise, to loyally and thoroughly give effect to the provisions of that Award. Had the Award been less favourable to us we should equally, having agreed to abide by the decision of the Tribunal, have been bound and equally have been ready to give loyal and complete effect to it. I have road the Award at sufficient length to render it unnecessary to state the provisions of the Bill in detail. Not only have the Government had the advantage of the assistance of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight before the Arbitration, but he has also been good enough to give his assistance in framing the outline of the provisions of the Bill to give effect to the Award. The provisions of the Bill are shortly these: The measure is practically upon the lines of the modus vivendi Act of 1893, but the area over which it extends is, as I have said, wider. It sets out the mandatory provisions of the Award, and it constitutes the violation of these provisions a legal offence punishable by seizure or fine, or in some cases by imprisonment. It is in its operation, I wish the House to understand, a Bill which applies only to British subjects. It does not affect to bind, nor could it properly bind, American subjects any more than a Bill of the United States could properly affect to bind British subjects. But power is taken under it to authorise the officers of the American Navy to seize British ships under conditions conformable to the provisions of the Award, providing reciprocal power is given by the United States to British naval officers in regard to American ships. I may inform the House that the Senate of the United States have already passed their Bill for giving effect to the Award, and in that Bill similar powers are taken in order to give reciprocal advantages. I have had an opportunity of seeing a somewhat detailed statement of the United States Bill, and I am able to say that, although in form it is somewhat different, it in no substantial respect that I am aware of differs from the Bill now submitted to the House. Further, the House will desire to know what are the Courts by which the seizure of American vessels or British vessels is to be dealt with. In each case it is by the Courts of the country to which the ship belongs. If a British cruiser seizes an American vessel it will be our duty to hand over that vessel to the American authorities to be dealt with in the American Courts. If, on the other hand, a United States cruiser seizes British vessels they will be under a corresponding obligation to hand them over to the British Authorities to be dealt with in British Courts. I hope the provisions are ample to give loyal and thorough effect to the Award. It would be a thing greatly to be regretted if one single utterance by any Member of the House should for a moment lead to the possibility of the suggestion that we were not all most anxious with despatch and with thoroughness to discharge the obligations which undoubtedly internationally rest upon us to abide by the Award which has been made, and to give loyal effect to it.

I rise not for the purpose of contributing to the Debate more than to say that the course which the Government have pursued seems to me to be a wise one. They have lost not one single moment in bringing in a Bill to carry out the obligations of this country; and in doing that piece of International justice they shall have the hearty support of all of us on this Bench and of all our friends.

said, that those of them who were present had listened with pleasure and satisfaction to the extremely lucid and able speech made by the Attorney General; but he did think that many hon. Members would regret with him that that speech was not one of greater length. The Debate on the (Second Reading of this Bill was an historic occasion in this House. It was the first time in history that certain rights and claims to the harvest of the sea were put to International agreement by means of arbitration. Although the remarks of the Attorney General had a great deal to do with, and did describe, the Behring Sea Arbitration, he (Sir G. Baden-Powell) ventured very humbly to submit that the speech the hon. and learned Gentleman delivered did not refer to the real principle and matter of the present Bill, which was altogether outside the main Award. It was a Bill connected with certain technicalities, but all reference to technicalities were conspicuous by their absence from the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech. He (Sir G. Baden-Powell) did not for one moment speak in any sense against, or stand in the way of, this Parliament, or this country loyally adhering to the carrying out of the decision come to by arbitration; but they had now before the House a Bill which did not—although its title said it did—in any way legalise or authorise the main awards of that arbitration. He wished, in reference to the Bill and dealing with its principles, to criticise them in the light of certain knowledge he happened to possess and which he did not think any other Member of the House possessed or could possess. He was about to make certain statements, and he was confident that both the Attorney General and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight would agree with the truth of the statement he advanced and with the deductions to be made from that statement. But he regretted to say that in making that statement—which he would presently do—the House would see that this particular Bill was certainly not all that it should be he did not wish that anyone should imagine that he was going against the decision of the arbitrators. Before he sat down he thought he should have shown that this. Bill as it stood did not carry out the results of the arbitration. It was difficult for him in his position to avoid mentioning the theories and even the facts that had come to his knowledge officially, but at the same time he thought it was his duty, in the interest of a maritime industry connected with the Canadian Dominion, which he believed in the future as in the present would be of inestimable value to them in the Pacific, and to the seafaring populations on the western shores of Canada, to draw attention to certain faults in the Bill. First, in addition to the acknowledgment made by the Attorney General to the French nation, be would on behalf of himself and those with him cordially thank the United States for the great and liberal hospitality extended to them while they were there so many months. This hospitality took place not only at Washington, but up in the wilds of the Behring Sea, and was heartily appreciated by those who received it. This Bill, in dealing with principles, he must first of all point out—in addition to what the Attorney General had said—bore an incorrect title. The title "The Behring Sea Award Bill," as the Attorney General stated, was wrong in the matter of geographical area, because the particular portion of the award it dealt with was not confined to the Behring Sea. The matters referred to arbitration were five in number, and the award of the arbitrator was given on those five points. A Bill called "The Behring Sea Award Bill" necessarily should be a Hill dealing somehow or other with those awards, but this measure did not touch any one of them. And perhaps he might here say that no one appreciated more than he did the splendid work done by the Attorney General and his colleague, the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight, in Paris, where they had to fight America on those five points. The victory won there was no doubt due partly to the brilliant work these gentlemen did, but greatly to the correct and careful and elaborate manner in which the case was prepared. But, as he said, the Bill did not in any way refer to any one of the five points of the Award. The Award was given with regard to exclusive jurisdiction, and right of property in fur seals. The Bill did not touch one of these points of the Award. It merely sought to carry out a contingent decision of the arbitrators, who were requested in the terms of the Treaty under certain conditions to propose "Regulations for the proper protection and preservation of the fur seal." But a very cursory glance at the first Schedule of the Bill, in which was contained the principle of the measure—for the clauses were to enact that first Schedule—or a glance at any one of the clauses of the Bill, would show that the Bill was the very reverse of one for the proper protection and preservation of fur seals. The facts he should adduce in evidence would not be many. They were well-known both to the Attorney General and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight. In the first place, on the Preamble, he would call attention to the fact that it had been stated distinctly that the Regulations which followed were the Regulations approved by only four out of the seven arbitrators, and the three arbitrators who disagreed were gentlemen who had personal and national knowledge of the subject—that was to say, the gentlemen representing the United States and Canada. It would not be right, on his part, to go into detail in regard to the Articles of the Award; but he would briefly, on each of them, point out how it was that they would not result in a proper protection of the fur seal. The first Article spoke of a 60-milc zone around the Pribyloff Islands inclusive of the territorial waters; but every naval man knew that a zone at sea could only be effectually defined by lines of latitude and longitude. In Article 2—and here came the gravamen of his charge—they were told that the close season in which seals were not to be taken was to be from the 1st of May to the 31st of July. All the evidence that had been accumulated—and here he would remind hon. Gentlemen who took any interest in the financial affairs of the country that large sums of money were spent in collecting evidence on behalf of this country—proved conclusively that the only damage done and the only gratuitous destruction done at sea to fur seals was done at that period of the year when, owing to the necessities of the case—owing to the natural history of the case, so to speak—the greater portion of the seals taken at sea were females heavy with young. That—from all considerations of humanity as well as economy—if they wished to protect the animals at all, was a period at which they certainly ought to protect the fur seal. What did they find in the Regulations? They found, according to the statistics in the Blue Book, that the period at which this slaughter of females heavy with pups took place was early in the year, ceasing in the beginning of May, but they found under the Regulations that sealers were not only allowed but stimulated, encouraged, to take seals at that particular period—the only period when it was known that they did damage to the seal herd. He knew that this point—that of taking female seals in that condition—was a point which the sealers themselves—those excellent seamen who pursued the seal at sea—were anxious to avoid. It was recorded in the Blue Book that the sealers themselves, in considering a close time, urged that it should be earlier, covering this most destructive period. Yet they were insisting, right in the face of this evidence, that the close time should be such as to compel the men to go to sea and kill seals when they ought not to be killed. This was a matter which would attract the sympathy and attention of all those who, like himself, were supporters of the wholesale movement which had been so great during the present century against cruelty to animals. Article 3 was a useful Regulation in providing that only sailing vessels should be employed, but it did not cover other vessels—whalers, traders, and cod-fishers. The same remark applied to Article 4. As to Article 5, it had been proved over and over again that it was difficult to discriminate between the sexes of seals, and yet the Regulation required that the sex should be entered in the log book. Article 6 was a remarkable Regulation. It said shot guns might be used outside, but not inside, the Behring Sea, which was a ridiculous stipulation. If the use of shot guns was had outside the Behring Sea, it was had inside; and to say, therefore, that they might be used outside but not inside was to bring ridicule on the Regulation. As to Article 7, it was provided that the two Governments were to take measures to control the fitness of the men engaged in the fishery. He did not know what "to control the fitness" meant. The Regulation went on to say—

"These men shall have been proved fit to handle with sufficient skill the weapons by means of which this fishing may be carried on."

In other words, these men were not to be allowed to go into the water until they had learned to swim. They must be proved to be efficient in the management of boats and in the handling of weapons, results which could only come by actual experience. Article 8 was one which he hoped would receive the careful attention of all those who were interested in the rights of aboriginal races. Certain Indian races were to be left, within defined limits, to hunt the fur seals, but numerous other natives who had from time immemorial earned their livelihood by catching fur seals on the shores of Alaska wore to be prevented from hunting in future. Article 9 was one for which he was not aware of any precedent. It said that these concurrent Regulations should remain in force until they had been modified by common agreement between the two Governments, so that neither Government could change or denounce the Regulations without the consent of the other. He know of no precedent in any Treaty for such an arrangement. The concluding clause said that these Regulations should be submitted every five years for examination by the two Governments, but there was no provision to refer any dispute to arbitration. So that this first Schedule, as drawn, was distinctly and clearly unworkable, and would, he believed, prove destructive to the industry it sought to preserve. As he had said before, he did not wish to interfere with the decision of the Arbitrators, but he thought he had said enough to show there were great objections to these Regulations formulated in the Bill. So much for the acts of commission of the Government in the Bill. He would now, very briefly, deal with their acts of omission which still further militated against the particular value of these proposals. The first point he would urge was this: The Arbitrators had gone outside their instructions under the Treaty by interfering with the jurisdictional rights of the United States in territorial waters, and yet they omitted to recognise that no Regulations for the preservation of the fur seal could be effectual unless they covered all modes of slaughter, especially those on shore. There was no case in the world where the fur seal had been destroyed to an extent approaching to extermination except by slaughter on shore, and yet these Regulations did not refer to the necessity for any limits on shore. That he considered to be a grave act of omission if they had genuinely at heart the preservation of the fur seal. Then, there were two other grave omissions. There was no provision in the Act to control sealers of other nations or sealers of these nations flying other flags, and rendering entirely nugatory even the miserable provisions of the Bill. That, he was sure, was a matter which the Arbitrators would have taken up had it been pointed out to them. Then, there was no clause providing that the contracting parties should agree to cooperate in securing the adhesion of other Powers to the Regulations. The Solicitor General said that they could not do that in an Act of Parliament; but, at the same time, there were clauses in innumerable Acts of Parliament to the effect that the Act is subject to the adhesion of other Powers." Another point of omission was this: He had asked that day whether the United States Bill was identical with the one now before the House, but the only answer he received was that the Attorney General had seen the United States proposals in a somewhat detailed form, and there were no substantial differences. He considered it was a grave omission that the present Bill did not contain a provision that it should take effect only on the passing by the United States of a measure identical in its terms with the present Bill. These were his objections to the Bill; but, as he had said, he did not wish to stand in the way of or do anything which would militate against the success of the Award. It might be said that the defects which he had pointed out were the fault of the wording of the Treaty, which made it impossible for the Arbitrators to lay down any other Regulations. This evil could have been easily obviated had proper steps been taken to bring the Arbitrators to see that their deliberations could not, under the clause, issue in proper Re- gulations for the protection of the seals. He asserted that occasions did arise before, during, and after the Arbitration, when negotiations might have been opened which would have obviated the difficulty in which they now found themselves. If they examined the Blue Books they would see that the Foreign Minister of the United States, as long ago as June 21, 1891, suggested that if the Arbitrators found the duty cast upon them of issuing Regulations, they should consult experts before issuing them; but that point was neglected, so far as he could make out, in all recent negotiations. If experts who were acquainted with seal life and the conditions of seal hunting had been consulted, a Code would have been devised which would have had the result of really protecting the fur seals. He hoped he had not troubled the House at too great length. He thought it necessary to stand up and explain what a somewhat close personal acquaintance and sympathy with the men who conducted the fisheries had resulted in in his mind. He was speaking not only of the desire of our Canadian fellow-countrymen, but of the men in the United States who controlled the fisheries in the Pribyloff Islands; and they, one and all, wished to see the fur seal race protected and the industry continued. He thought, when they passed a measure of this kind, that they ought to have Regulations which would practically effect that object. Before he sat down he wished to bring one other argument before the House, and it was one of great importance. This Bill differentiated between two portions of the North Pacific Ocean. The fur seal fed and bred in all portions of that ocean. They were legislating for half of that ocean and leaving out the other half—namely, the feeding and breeding places which belonged partly to Russia and partly to Japan. In any measure of this kind, the object of which was to secure an industry and an interesting tribe of natural history from extermination, this consideration ought to have been taken into account. Immediately on the cessation of the arbitration in Paris negotiations ought to to have been not only opened but carried through to bring the other Powers into conference for the settlement of a Code of Regulations, which could have been perfectly easily devised, and which wôuld once for all have secured the preservation of the industry. In some respects the Regulations that had been made were almost inhuman, and they were certainly defective and inadequate. He was told that a Bill similar to this was being adopted in the United States, and that the great Canadian Dominion had no objection in principle to this Behring Sea Bill. If he found that this were the case he would raise no objection to the passing of the Bill, but he intended as soon as it was passed to do his best in the interest of the sealing industry, and he might also say in the interest of the fur seal, so to modify and improve the Regulations that they would secure the real protection and preservation of the fur seal.

said, that in many respects hon. Members were in an inadequate position to discuss this Bill. In the first place, they did not know what corresponding Bill the United States had introduced into their Legislature. The Attorney General (Sir C. Russsell) had stated that the United States Bill broadly corresponded with ours, but of course the matter was one of highly technical and complicated detail. In the next place, hon. Members were entirely unaware of the view that Canada took in the matter. Canada was far more directly and immediately interested in it than any of the inhabitants of these islands. It was the hardships suffered by and the illegalities put upon the inhabitants of Canada that first led to the raising of the question, and he thought it unfortunate that the House should be called upon to read the second time a Bill affecting mainly and principally the inhabitants of Canada without knowing in the least, beyond what appeared from the general statement of the Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. S. Buxton) whether the Canadian people took the same view of the Bill as they took of the modus vivendi of 1891. No Member of the House would be un-desirous of doing what in him lay to arrive at the conclusion of a proper agreement with the United States. Again, Members found themselves under a great disability, because many of them did not feel themselves at liberty to enter very fully into the Regulations laid down by the Arbitration Tribunal. Power was given to the Arbitrators to make Regulations, and, that being so, Members were almost entirely estopped from criticising their real merits. The Bill, however, could not be passed without some remarks being made on the events which had led to its introduction. He warned the House last year that the arbitration was certain to go against England. It was said, forsooth, that it had been entirely in favour of England, so it had as regarded the shadow, but not as regarded the substance. The first important point decided by the Arbitrators was that the United States had no exclusive jurisdiction outside the territorial limits of the United States. It required no tribunal to decide that question. It was of the commonplaces of the Law of Nations. The Solicitor General would have settled the question in five minutes. It was also decided as a natural consequence that they also had no properly in or right of protection for the fur seal outside those limits. That was the end of the question, because if the United States had no jurisdiction and no rights all the claims that had been advanced on behalf of the Canadian sailors were justified. Having, however, settled that there was no jurisdiction and that there were no rights, the Commissioners proceeded to create a new jurisdiction and new rights, and to make the United States and Great Britain joint guardians of them. Having given to England the whole of the abstract right, they took away from her the whole of the concrete seal. Having given us the shadow, they handed over the substance to the United States. He found no fault with the Arbitrators; the fault lay in the terms of the Reference to them. The questions proposed to them were the questions proposed by Mr. Blaine, haggled over by Lord Salisbury, and finally accepted in their entirety on behalf of England. They were questions which could not but lead to the result that had been achieved. There seemed to be a fatality about all these arbitrations. The San Juan boundary question was an instance in point. The Treaty said that the frontier should pass through the middle of the Channel, but the right channel was excluded from the purview of the arbitrator, for he was called on to decide which of two wrong channels was the right one. There were other cases in which the wrong question had been submitted to the arbitrator. He was not going to apportion the blame; the errors were due to the way in which our foreign affairs were considered and administered, and the absence of proper management. There seemed to be an unvarying fatality in all references by Great Britain to International arbitration. He hoped hon. Members opposite would see that that was largely due to the want of a permanent Committee on Foreign Relations, which was the great security for the protection of foreign interests and the continuity of policy in relation to foreign affairs in the United States. There was one point which he was not able to understand in regard to the Bill, and that was the delay which had taken place in its introduction, which necessitated the consequent hurry in which they had to pass it. The Award of the arbitrators was made on the 10th August of last year. They know that last year the House was sitting long after the 10th of August, and he was unable to understand why, in a matter of this kind, and when the Government knew it was necessary to come to a conclusion at an early date, there should have been this delay. This Bill deprived the subjects of Her Majesty of certain rights on the high seas, and disposed of—and some people said it destroyed—the rights and interests of some of Her Majesty's Canadian subjects as well. Were the Canadians going to agree to this destruction of their interests, or were they going to claim compensation from this country? It appeared to him that they would be called upon to vote something on account of this monopoly which was being created, and so be really subsidising the Alaska Company. This Bill did not only absolutely abolish the liberty of the Queen's subjects on the high seas; but it did worse, and enacted that by the euphemism of the "Queen in Council," which simply meant a clerk in the Foreign Office, or an official at the Board of Trade, these Regulations could be repealed, and an end put to the Act; and practically, therefore, when they had passed the Second Reading of this Bill, it would be one that could be put an end to by some person outside that House. For what reason was this to be done? They were told that the so-called Regulations were being made in the interests of humanity, and for the protection of the seals. A great deal of false sentiment had been expended upon the killing of seals in these seas. Where was the sentiment with regard to the monstrous cruelties, the horrible cruelties, perpetrated day by day upon thousands of seals on the Pribyloff Islands, which were left entirely outside the protection supposed to be enforced by this Act, and where the over-driving of seals was customarily practised. It was not in the interests of humanity that this Act was to be passed, nor was it in the interests of the American citizen, but merely in the interests of the Commercial Company, formerly the Alaska Company, which had the exclusive right of sealing on the islands—one of the most monstrous monopolies that every disgraced the face of the earth, and against which American citizens themselves protested. If they were to pay yearly compensation in the form of Votes by the House to Canadian fishermen, it would be in order to repay them for what the Alaska Company had taken from them. They would, therefore, practically be putting this money into the pockets of the Alaska Company, and taxing the English people for the benefit of this Company. After all that was done, what had we achived? We were to be taxed in order that the Government might subsidise the monstrous Alaska Company, and this country and the United States were to prohibit British and American subjects from sealing between latitude 358, which was about the latitude of Mexico, and the North Pole. But what about other nations? As was pointed out by Mr. Blaine himself, the two countries had absolutely no control over them. Hon. Members who did not appreciate the importance of the subject might smile; those who did would not. He would read an extract from the Correspondence.

"The Company respectfully submits that it is not competent for Great Britain and the United States alone to declare what subjects shall be permitted to navigate those waters or fish in the high seas."

Lord Salisbury pointed out, and Mr. Blaine himself admitted, that one of the objections to the arbitration arrangement was that whatever might be agreed to we had no power to bind other nations. True, Mr. Blaine also said he did not expect the other nations would go there to seal, but perhaps they would think it worth their while, when they found that the Canadians and Americans were prohibited from doing so, to take a voyage, kill seals, and come back with them round Cape Horn. British and American subjects having been prohibited, the seal-fishing was left open to the rest of the civilised world. Then the Regulations were so loosely drawn that it was difficult to understand them. The first forbade the killing, capturing, or pursuing of seals within a zone of 60 miles of the Pribyloff Islands; but was the distance to be measured from a central point or from some extremity? Were the Islands themselves within the zone? Was it intended to forbid the clubbing of seals on the Islands? What was a zone? What were the limits? Take the Torrid Zone; there you have two limits.

said, the hon. Member was hardly treating the subject in a proper manner.

was only showing how loosely these Regulations were drawn. He supposed the Americans intended to retain the right of killing seals on the Islands, yet the loose language rather implied the contrary. Those were reasons sufficient for asking the House to reject the Bill; but since the matter had been submitted to arbitration under unfortunate conditions, and the word of England was pledged, the House had no choice but to pass the Bill; and there was no people for whom he would more cheerfully make a sacrifice than for our kith and kin across the Atlantic. Although subjects of difference might arise from time to time between the two countries, the people of our own race would always be found by our side, and should any peril ever menace the old country he believed that the voice of blood would not be heard in vain in the new. For that reason, though a considerable sacrifice had been made by England, he was willing it should be made in favour of our kinsmen beyond the sea.

I had hoped that my task would have been confined to expressing my concurrence with the admirable statement of the Attorney General; but it is absolutely impossible for me to permit the two speeches made on this side of the House to pass without comment. I trust that the House will not regard their criticisms and expressions of opinion as representing those of the Party with which they are associated. Before proceeding further I desire to join in the tribute paid by the Attorney General to the late Lord Hannen. Only those who, like myself, were present from day to day during the arbitration can have any proper appreciation of the ability and dignity displayed by Lord Hannen, one of the most distinguished Judges and jurists, from the beginning to the end, as a Member of that great International Tribunal. As to the criticisms of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale, who possesses very extensive technical knowledge on this subject, I cannot but think that, upon consideration, my hon. Friend will feel that he has not made a very wise use of that knowledge. What is our position? It is that we are bound to carry out the undertaking of our country to a friendly nation. We agree that we ought to abide by the decision of the arbitrators and pass whatever legislation is necessary to give effect to the decision of the arbitrators. It does not, then, seem the time or place to criticise the wisdom of the arbitrators. It is our duty, both in law and honour, to see that legislation is passed which will give effect to that decision.

I hope there is no desire to misrepresent me, but those are the very words I have used.

It is because I think that my hon. Friend does not quite appreciate his criticisms that I say he will acknowledge on reflection that his criticisms are slightly out of place. The questions raised are questions of International Law. There is no provision which the mind of man can suggest which will enable these declarations to be embodied into an Act of Parliament.

That is what I said.

I understood my hon. Friend to say that the Bill is not satisfactory because it does not carry out the Award and because there is no reference to the five questions. How-is it possible to put into a Bill a declaration that the United States have no claim to Behring Sea? It would be not only unnecessary, but extremely unwise, and I must conscientiously say that it is very inconvenient such observations should be made in the House of Commons about this decision before it has been put upon its trial. No one can deny that this is a question which is surrounded by difficulties. It is said that the Canadians have cause to complain of these Regulations. What is the position in which Great Britain is placed? Both nations are anxious for the preservation of the fur seal, and to prevent seal hunting, which would be disastrous. There are no people to whom that is of more importance than to the sealers of Canada. My hon. Friends are very severe because the arbitrators did not provide for interfering with the United States action upon the Pribyloff Islands themselves. But that is absolutely impossible. No nation would submit to the arbitration of foreign nations with regard to the laws they make within their own territory. It has escaped the hon. Members for Kirkdale and King's Lynn that, inasmuch as the decision can only be applicable to the high seas, the arbitrators are expressly of opinion that it should be supplemented by Regulations operating within the sovereignty of the two Powers who are parties to the agreement. Any suggestion, therefore, that the Regulations should be so framed as to enable the Canadians to carry on the sealing would be disastrous indeed, and one which could not for a moment enter into the mind of a person who has the real object of the arbitration in view, so far as the preparation of Regulations is concerned. Both my hon. Friend on this side of the House and hon. and learned Friends of mine in the Press have been exceedingly severe upon me because the Regulations of the arbitrators have not provided for interfering with the United States action in the matter. It is absolutely impossible that any nation can submit to the arbitration of foreign nations as to what laws they should make in their own territories. We can only appeal to the good sense and the good feeling of the United States. Neither with regard to the United States nor British territorial waters can it enter into the contemplation of anybody in the course of these negotiations that the arbitrators should have power to prescribe any laws which should be enforced either by Great Britain or the United States in their own territory. So thoroughly did the arbitrators themselves appreciate this that they pointed out that the Regulations could only be applicable to the high seas. They expressed the opinion that the Regula- tions should be supplemented by others applicable within the limits of the sovereignty of each of the two Powers, and that these should be settled by agreement. My hon. Friend has said that the 60 miles zone is an absurdity, because, in the first place, it includes territorial waters. Does my hon. Friend remember that British subjects have no right to kill seals within territorial waters, and, therefore, by excluding British subjects from killing seals within territorial waters they have only re-declared the law? The real fact is that the Regulations are concerned with sealing on the seas, and accordingly the distance within which pelagic sealing will have to be restricted is 60 miles. It has been proved beyond all doubt or question that from 90 to 95 per cent. of pelagic sealing is done at a distance of 100 to 150 miles from the Islands. That is a zone to which there can be no reasonable objection. It would be a most unfortunate thing if people outside this House, or our Canadian brethren, thought that the Regulations were likely to be worked unjustly to them. I believe that when the Regulations have been fairly tried and tested it will be found that they offer a reasonable solution of what is admittedly a most difficult question. In saying this, I do not in any way wish it to be understood that I regard them as perfect, or that they will not require amendment or modification. I have said publicly—and I am prepared to stand by what I have said—that this settlement boars the mark of the great thought and consideration that have been given to every section of it. I feel most confident that it will to a very large extent meet the evil of the wanton destruction of seals which now exist, and which both nations are most desirous to put an end to. The United States at first insisted on far more stringent Regulations than the settlement as it is now drawn up contained. But they admitted that the tribunals were satisfied that less stringent Regulations than those they had laid down at first would attain the object desired by both nations. It has been stated that the shadow has been given to Great Britain and the substance to the United States. That is unquestionably an utter misrepresentation of the result of the Award, having regard to primary claims which the United States made and what had really been decided. In the first place, there was a most substantial claim put forward by the United States to seize British vessels, and to confiscate their cargo and imprison their crews. My hon. Friend has said that everybody who knew the least little bit about International Law knew perfectly well what was the proper position of each nation. The Rules that govern the case are clearly set out by Grotius and every writer on International Law since his day, and, of course, everybody knows the works of that distinguished writer and historian perfectly. No one would doubt the great ability of Mr. Justice Hartmann, of the Supreme Court of the United States. Both he and the other American representative, a lawyer of great eminence, entirely concurred in the finding of the two arbitrators in favour of Great Britain and Canada. The statements which hon. Members have made in the House of Commons, that there is nothing in the finding in favour of Great Britain, would not be, I do not hesitate to say, endorsed hereafter when this decision comes to be referred to. The hon. Member for King's Lynn said that in the matter of Regulations the substance was also given to the United States, and that the whole of this legislation was for the purpose of bolstering up the monopoly of the Alaska Company. When I heard the paragraph read from the Blue Book by the hon. Member I interrupted and asked for the date, and the reply was March, 1887. This was seven years ago, and five years before the Treaty, when, as is known, there were parties in the United States who were hostile to the interests of the Alaska Company. The importance, however, of the position is this—that the United States has concurred with Great Britain in agreeing that the Regulations decided by the tribunal should be binding on the citizens of the United States just in the same way as Great Britain had agreed that these Regulations should be binding on the subjects of the Queen. The consequence is that it is not in accordance with a fair judgment of this matter to contend that these Regulations, which were less than the United States asked for, and not as liberal as I and my hon. Friend contended for on behalf of Great Britain, and which went in the direction to a large extent of securing seal life, would not achieve the object which Great Britain and the United States contemplated when the Treaty was first entered into. My hon. Friends are anxious that the United States should be induced to curtail the killing of seals on the Pribyloff Islands. It is obvious that the framers of the Regulations saw that the two nations ought to be left in a position wherein they would have something to deal with and to make a bargain with, so that in the event of further concessions made by Great Britain in the interests of the protection of the seals the United States may also have inducements by such concessions to impose Regulations which would get rid of those practices followed on the Pribyloff Islands tending largely to the reduction of the number of seals. The hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool asked, "What do we know what has been done in the United States?" It appears to me to be somewhat strange that this observation should be made without a question having been addressed to Ministers. It is no part of my duty to defend Her Majesty's Government, but I am permitted, however, by the courtesy of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, to say that the Bill of the United States has passed through the House of Representatives and the Senate, and is now law. The House has the assurance of the Attorney General that, having regard to the differences which must exist, substantially the legislation of the United States is based on the same lines as our own. It does not appear to me, therefore, to be right that the House should hesitate to pass this Bill, seeing that it is no more than this country is bound to do in order to implement the Award. I invite the hon. Member for King's Lynn, who appears to regard the carrying out of this statute as a perfunctory act of some official in a Department—such as a Board of Trade clerk—and not a matter of high policy, to look at the clauses of the Bill, and he will see that power is reserved to the Executive Government for the purpose of placing Great Britain in a better position if it should be necessary. The maximum penalty or restrictions that can be imposed on British subjects are a part of the Bill, but the Executive Government will advise Her Majesty to suspend or modify the Regulations to which objection has been taken in favour of British subjects. I think I have now noticed most of the points mentioned by my hon. Friends, and, in thanking the House for the attention they have paid to me, I would say that I believe, apart from any indirect or direct benefit, the gain, so far as the seals themselves are concerned, are great; and that the Treaty and the Act of Parliament making the provisions of the Treaty law are a distinct advance in the settlement of International disputes. The conclusion of the speech of the Attorney General in addressing the Paris tribunal was specially worthy of perusal. My hon. and learned Friend pointed out that the questions involved were not merely questions as to the conduct of sealing, but as to whether the nations should more and more feel pledged to settle their disputes by agreement if possible, and, if not, by arbitration, instead of resorting to those dreadful methods which after all never settle anything, and only leave heartburning on one side or the other. I am sorry that the speeches of some hon. Members should have made it necessary for someone to point out to the House and to the country the true position of affairs. I hope that to a large extent I have satisfied their misgivings. But I am certain that this Award will be regarded as a monument of what can be done by fair argument towards settling International disputes, and there is nothing in the whole course of my career on which I shall look back with greater pride than the fact that I have been associated with the Attorney General in this great event.

said that, as the person who brought the matter prominently before the public in 1888, he wished to congratulate this country and the United States on having been able to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. The whole matter had been thoroughly discussed on behalf of all concerned. While he congratulated those who were engaged in the case upon the spirit in which it had been conducted there was one matter to which he must call attention. It was with the greatest regret that he found that the zone round the Pribyloff Islands had been extended to 60 miles. A zone of 12 miles would have been quite suffi- cient to protect the nursing seal. Owing to the difficulty of obtaining observations in the Behring Sea sometimes for a week together, it was often impossible for a vessel to know whether she was 20 or 60 miles from any particular point; and this would be the cause of interminable disputes. There were some other Regulations which pressed hardly on the sealers, who were a most deserving body of men; but, with these exceptions, he endorsed what had been said by his hon. and learned Friend.

said, he had feared that the resumption of the Debate would be postponed so late that he should have to thank Her Majesty's Government for suspending the Twelve o'Clock Rule in order that his speech might not be interrupted a second time. He had pointed out that among the Scotch Members there were those who did not by education or training represent Scotland, but only the particular constituencies to which they had been elected; and therefore a Committee of Scotch Members would include some whose authority on Scotch affairs was inferior to that of others who were ex-eluded. For instance, there were the two distinguished English lawyers on the other side, the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Birrell), both born and educated in England, and both representing Scotch constituencies, If they anted to find real representatives of Scotland—representatives of the great Scotch names of Stuart and Macdonald—one must go to the Tower Hamlets and Shoreditch, and when they had discovered these gentlemen they would probably find them, as upon that night, very active in endeavouring to prevent the people of London from having a proper supply of water. To establish a system of Grand Committees on the principle that those who knew most of the subject to be dealt with should be included, the suggested arrangements would have to be altered. Then, what effect would the establishment of this Scotch Committee have on the composition of the other Grand Committees? No Scotch Member would be able to serve on the Grand Committee on Trade or the Grand Committee on Law, because the duties would clash. Moreover, he ought not to serve on those Committees, even if he were able. The principle laid down by the right hon. Member for East Denbighshire was a true principle, though it carried the right hon. Member further than he realised. The right hon. Member said that if Scotch Members sat on this Scotch Committee they ought not in reason to claim to be represented on other Committees; and the consequence would be that every Scotch Member's name must be struck off those Committees. Then there were Bills concerning the affairs of England only which were referred to Select Committees. It would be the absolute duty of English Members to take care, if this Scotch Committee were established, to resist every proposal to allow any Scotch Member to sit on any Committee to which an English Bill was referred. He did not look forward with satisfaction to any such innovation upon the Constitution of the Committees of that House, but he maintained that that would be the natural and necessary consequence of the separate proposals which the Government had put before them. If they were to have the Scotch Committee constituted in this way, and if they were to have these corresponding changes in the other Committees, he wished to ask the Government what was their reason for proposing these changes. Let it be supposed that this now Scotch Committee was constituted, and that there had been referred to it some measure exclusively relating to Scotland. If that measure were absolutely non-contentious and did not raise any of the political controversies which were to be found in Scotland as well as in this country, he admitted that such a Bill might pass through the Committee without difficulty. But such a Bill would pass through any of the ordinary Grand Committees of the House with equal facility. But if the Bill partook of another character and involved matter of political antagonism, what would be gained by referring such a measure to this Scotch Committee? If such a Bill were referred to an ordinary Grand Committee representing in a smaller area, but in due proportion, the different sections of the House, the House would, of course, accept the decision of the Committee. But supposing that the Bill were referred to the proposed Scotch Committee, which had not the advantage of representing all sections of the House, and supposing the views of the minority were overborne by the vote of the majority, was it to be supposed that the minority would not appeal to the House against the decision of the majority? Therefore, at the Report stage of the measure every controversial question would be raised again and discussed in the House, with the result that the whole time that had been occupied in considering the Bill in Committee would be entirely wasted. If that were the case he should like to ask Her Majesty's Government bow far their present proposal was a practical one, and how far it was likely to conduce to the forwarding of the business of the House? He, however, did not think that he could attribute to the Government any desire to increase the speed of general legislative work in that House, or to relieve the House from any of the difficulties which the present Rules of Procedure imposed upon it. It was only the other evening that the Government had used their influence and had employed their Whips to defeat a proposal to inquire what means could be devised for expediting the business of the House. It must therefore be assumed that the Government had no real desire to secure that object in making this proposal. What, then, could be the object of the Government in sacrificing one of the golden weeks of their Session in discussing this proposal? They would have to obtain from the House a specific sanction for the reference of that Bill to the Scottish Committee, so that they would not be at the end of their labours when they had succeeded in passing the Resolution through the House. But let him suggest this to them also, that on the question of the time it would take to get Scottish legislation through they had to take into account, first, the time it took to pass this Resolution: secondly, the time, in regard to the reference of any Bill to any Standing Committee, in discussing the question of the exclusion of the Scotch Members from the Committee, the time that would be taken up for referring Bills to the Scotch Committee, and, lastly, the time that would be occupied in the appeal that would be made from the Scotch Committee to the House. When these matters were considered the Government would find that from the point of view of business their proposal was extremely unwise. They would find that it would cost a great deal more time than it was likely to save them in dealing with Scottish business. But there was just one other matter he should like to refer to. This subject had been put before the House by the Secretary for Scotland in a modest speech in which he spoke of it as merely a means of dealing with the business of the House. But there had not only been that remarkable incident, but there had been a Debate on Scotch Home Rule, and the Secretary for Scot-laud, who on Monday proposed the present Motion as a "practical and workmanlike measure," on the following evening gave himself the pleasure of supporting an unpractical and unworkman like measure—in which he had not the support of his Chief in the House and, so far as they knew, had not the support of his Chief in the Government—for giving Home Rule to Scotland. The sequence of the incidents was very interesting and curious. In his speech on Home Rule the Secretary for Scotland changed the position of this question from one merely of an arrangement of business into one of the existence of the Government. For he said—

"The Government were determined to carry the Grand Committee through as far as they could by every means they could employ, and by staking everything upon it."

It was a very curious situation that Parliament had been in during the present week. They all greatly regretted and sympathised with the cause which prevented the Leader of the House from being in his place to-night; but he hoped, in the right hon. Gentleman's absence, some one Member on the Treasury Bench would be good enough to supplement the speech which the Secretary for Scotland made on Monday evening, and tell them something in the way of explanation of the speech he made on Tuesday. It really looked as if there were two Parties on that Bench. They did not sit there at the same time, but some were in at one time and some at another. There was the Leader of the House, who did not vote in favour of Scottish Home Rule, and who, so far as they knew, was, like the head of the Government, not very enthusiastic about Home Rule at all. But there were two other Members who, having in their official capacity given their support to the "workmanlike, practical proposal" on the Monday, in a sort of unofficial capacity enjoying themselves in the absence of their Chief, on the Tuesday evening, took their share of the operation which he would not support, and voted in favour of Home Rule for Scotland. Surely they were entitled to know what it was that was the policy of the Government. Were they going in for Home Rule all round? (Cries of "Yes!"] There were some sponsors, it appeared, ready to answer for the Government, but the Government were not inclined to answer so promptly for themselves. Home Rule for Ireland they accepted long ago for various reasons. The question of Home Rule for Scotland was at present only a subject out of which to extract amusement on a Tuesday evening. Was it to be an integral part of the policy of the Party they represented?